The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

[Chuckanut]

Turkey

 

[Chuckanut]

Turkish Korean War Veteran

 

[HFWR]

 

[RonBoyd]

View attachment 29434

Great shot. I wonder if B&W would work, also.

 

[HFWR]

Let’s see...

 

[RonBoyd]

Let’s see...

View attachment 29436

Well, I like it.

 

[SpartacusSchmartacus]

Practicing with the drone over Memorial Day. That's us anchored in the lower-middle.

That is a cool pic ... where is that? Will have my sailboat hopefully in the next 3 months, maybe we'll throw an anchor out near you? NOT too near you.

 

[HFWR]

Tucson

 

[ggbutcher]

Fall colors near Tarryall Creek, Colorado.

 

[steelyman]

I’m not sure if this thread is still active, but just in case:

Just getting started on a digitization project, scanning old photos. It’ll take a while.

I’ve been using TIFF as the output format for my scans. My understanding is that it’s lossless and a reasonably widely-understood format among various tools.

Good/bad choice?

 

[Walt34]

I’ve been using TIFF as the output format for my scans. My understanding is that it’s lossless and a reasonably widely-understood format among various tools.

Good/bad choice?

It's fine as long as storage space is not an issue for you. That's less of a factor now with cheaper HD space than it used to be. I usually save scans in .jpg format anyway and make any changes in Lightroom, which does not alter the original image.

But for your purpose it's a Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge type choice.

 

[steelyman]

It's fine as long as storage space is not an issue for you. That's less of a factor now with cheaper HD space than it used to be. I usually save scans in .jpg format anyway and make any changes in Lightroom, which does not alter the original image.

But for your purpose it's a Ford vs. Chevy vs. Dodge type choice.

Thanks, storage is not a big deal at present. And some of these photos are Fords. Model T, in fact.

I just want to keep the most information preserved from the original image. Right now, it’s all drudge work of scanning but down the road I want to do post-processing and hope to use digiKam and/or GIMP (both open source).

 

[Ronstar]

The Photographers' Corner

I can’t give you any advice, but whenever we got aerial photos digitally at work from an aerial photography company, they were always tiffs

 

[explanade]

How good is your scanner though?

Very high DPI that you will be able to post process?

 

[steelyman]

How good is your scanner though?

Very high DPI that you will be able to post process?

That’s a good question/point. It’s a consumer model, up to something like 2400. But I expect to stick at 300 for “everyday” shots and 600 for images I especially like. I’ve only done less than a handful at 600 so far.

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

I’m not sure if this thread is still active, but just in case:

Just getting started on a digitization project, scanning old photos. It’ll take a while.

I’ve been using TIFF as the output format for my scans. My understanding is that it’s lossless and a reasonably widely-understood format among various tools.

Good/bad choice?

Much of the advice in this scanner review is geared towards this particular scanner, but a lot of it is also more general advice on making digital scans of photographs. I wound up buying that scanner partially based on the quality of that review, as I felt I would be better prepared to use that one rather than another random scanner with similar specs.

 

[target2019]

Thanks, storage is not a big deal at present. And some of these photos are Fords. Model T, in fact.

I just want to keep the most information preserved from the original image. Right now, it’s all drudge work of scanning but down the road I want to do post-processing and hope to use digiKam and/or GIMP (both open source).

Is compressed TIF an option in the software?

 

[steelyman]

Is compressed TIF an option in the software?

I believe so (in digiKam), but haven’t tried it so far.

 

[steelyman]

Much of the advice in ... is geared towards this particular scanner, but a lot of it is also more general advice on making digital scans of photographs. I wound up buying that scanner partially based on the quality of that review, as I felt I would be better prepared to use that one rather than another random scanner with similar specs.

Very detailed information/suggestions. Thanks!

 

[ggbutcher]

https://www.scantips.com/

I've used this site quite a bit, preparing to digitize a bunch of negatives and slides.

 

[Sunset]

I used a small viewer type thing, which could take slides and would take a photo of them, it worked but was poor at resolution and quality.

But it made me think I could build a stand to prop up my slides on, and then use a 20 Mega pixel camera to photograph the slide (with a white bright or illuminated background).

Here is one fellow's method that looks pretty good,
https://www.instructables.com/id/35mm-Slide-Converter-with-Cellphone/

Has anyone tried something similar, but with a camera (my camera is higher quality than my phone).

 

[steelyman]

https://www.scantips.com/

I've used this site quite a bit, preparing to digitize a bunch of negatives and slides.

That looks like another very useful resource. Thanks!

 

[RonBoyd]

I usually save scans in .jpg format anyway and make any changes in Lightroom, which does not alter the original image/QUOTE]

The JPG image is much smaller because the compression scheme deletes much data. The lossless TIF file keeps all of the data from the capture device -- same as with RAW in digital cameras.

FWIW, I use the Vuescan software (from https://www.hamrick.com/) to control my scanner.

 

[ERD50]

I’m not sure if this thread is still active, but just in case:

Just getting started on a digitization project, scanning old photos. It’ll take a while.

I’ve been using TIFF as the output format for my scans. My understanding is that it’s lossless and a reasonably widely-understood format among various tools.

Good/bad choice?

That’s a good question/point. It’s a consumer model, up to something like 2400. But I expect to stick at 300 for “everyday” shots and 600 for images I especially like. I’ve only done less than a handful at 600 so far.

Before you start using 300/600 LOSSLESS, read up a bit. I remember seeing an article that gave excellent examples where a scan at higher resolution, and then compressed, was far better than lower resolution lossless.

Try googling that, and you could experiment. I think you'll find that only a modest amount of compression to a high resolution scan will be needed to produce a file size the same /smaller than the lossless 300/600 scan, and the quality may be far better.

But double check all that. But actually, it seems like common sense. If it were not true, why would we bother with these fancy, complex compression algorithms? We would just cut the resolution down!

-ERD50

 

[steelyman]

Try googling that, and you could experiment. I think you'll find that only a modest amount of compression to a high resolution scan will be needed to produce a file size the same /smaller than the lossless 300/600 scan, and the quality may be far better.

-ERD50

Good suggestion and it makes sense. This is all really a learning process for me, I’m not as knowledgeable as many of the people who’ve posted in this and similar threads (by a long shot).

My efforts with this are very informal, toes-in-the-water type stuff. I’ll be retaining the original source, too.

I think what I’ll do is forge ahead and keep scanning. Image management tools let you tag, label, rank, and so on. My guess is doing that while revisiting the photos will winnow it down to those that could benefit from extra attention. Who wants to mess with a blurry, off-centered photo taken of a bunch of questionable sots at some party, anyway? We were behaving in a “lossy” way in the first place!