Question on scanning photos

[Cobra9777]

When DM passed away, my brother and sister let me take all her old photo albums (3 or 4 boxes) on the condition that I would scan them and upload to a photo sharing website. I had no idea what I had agreed to. That was a LOT of work and took more than two years. This was when I was still working, so only had a few hours per week for this project.

I removed each photo (if possible) to scan. If it was glued, I scanned the whole page at once. I think I scanned at 600 dpi, which was kinda slow on my cheap little HP all-in-one. Sometimes I scanned the back too if Mom wrote notes or dates, which she frequently did. Then I edited in Photoshop if necessary. Almost every photo had something that I wanted to fix. After a while, I became fairly efficient at this.

Anyway, I'm glad that's done. We were all very pleased with the result. It was on Photobucket for a long time but I have since moved it to a private, shared folder on Google Photos, which is really nice because it is searchable and my siblings and I can make comments and interact with each other. Things like, "Where was this taken?" Or... "Who's the guy on the right?" It's been fun sort-of catching up with my siblings about our early years.

[Aslowdodge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldShooter OP gets to decide. I come at it from a slightly different angle. These photos are valuable to the OP and, in the end, he will spend far more time and effort on them than he expects. So why not start with a decent quality input? Digital camera images will inevitably be slightly keystoned, slightly rotated, possibly with some motion blur, and at somewhat random reproduction ratios. (That's before we start talking about color temperature inconsistencies.) All this can be dealt with, possibly even tolerated, but why? Starting with 300dpi jpg images from a real scanner will result in less work and a higher quality final product. I would not go farther, but my argument can also be used to point the OP to TIFFs and higher resolutions. He/she decides.

Maybe, but you don't think that the images can't be askew in the scanner? If you have an 8x10 perfectly flat, sure put in in the scanner butted up to the edges.

Now think scrapbook which is what op has... not perfectly flat. It has photos, articles, postcards glued in. If you cant take the book apart, good luck aligning each page on the bed, esp with the spine of book keeping you from laying flat.

Color inconsistancies? Photos are already faded and colors are off. Take the photos in bright sun and set color balance to daylight or to auto and it's very close. 99.99 percent won't be able to see the minute color inconsistany. Bright sunlight equals faster shutter speeds, no motion blur.
My post was addressing the person who said to do the scans at 600 dpi or more.

If the images were of high quality then record them hi quality. But taking originals that aren't and doing all the work into larger tiff files is overkill.
You can take a 4x6 print and scan it at at 300 dpi and assume at 1200 dpi it will be sharper and better, it won't. You can't increase the quality of the original.
I've made scans and I've made copies with a digital camera. The camera is faster and you can't see any difference that matters when you compare.
BTW I'm just trying to make life easier for what op needs. You do realize scanning at those high dpi and top color depths won't translate into necessarily higher quality prints? The color space on a print is so much smaller than what the human eye and a monitor can percieve.
If you don't believe me, photograph an image with a huge tonal range and color space and then print it. Watch how much you lose subtle colors and tonal gradations. You can improve it with a high end inkjet printer over a c print, but still it won't match the original capture.
All of this is up to the op, but the extra effort isn't worth it IMHO idf he can't see the difference.

[GrayHare]

Some of the results depend on the equipment and software. On mine, if I scan a color print at 600 dpi then reduce the scanned image size by 50% and sharpen I get a visually better image than if I scan at 300 dpi. I just timed it and found the extra dpi, resize, and sharpen adds 7 seconds to the effort. It's something the OP can consider.

[target2019]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrayHare Some of the results depend on the equipment and software. On mine, if I scan a color print at 600 dpi then reduce the scanned image size by 50% and sharpen I get a visually better image than if I scan at 300 dpi. I just timed it and found the extra dpi, resize, and sharpen adds 7 seconds to the effort. It's something the OP can consider.

As you have found, more is better. One can always downsample to suit the output. If you want to crop from the image, more pixels is a good thing. This happens in scrapbooks, when you can't remove individual pieces.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrayHare ... if I scan a color print at 600 dpi then reduce the scanned image size by 50% and sharpen I get a visually better image than if I scan at 300 dpi. .... .

Important point about this, one I read about a while back that seems rather counter-intuitive at first, but makes perfect sense after you think about it. Scan at highest rez you can, then compress to what you want.

So lets say you want to get most of your images down in size to ~ 200K (just an example). You are better off scanning at high rez DPI, and reducing to 200K, than you are scanning at medium rez DPI and reducing to 200K.

Let's say the High rez scan gives you a 16MB raw image, and the lower rez (half the DPI for example), will then give a 4MB raw image. The compression SW has more to work with on the high rez image, so the compressed image from a high rez source will be better than the compressed image from a lower rez source.

It's easier to understand if you use extremes. Say the source rez was so low, that it provided a very pixel-ated 300K raw image. Compress it to 200K, and you have a very pixel-ated image with a little less detail.

-ERD50

[jollystomper]

I have an all-in-one color printer (Brother) that I use using to scan old photos. I use IrfanView as the software to capture the scanned photos and convert to jpg. IrfanView also allows me to apply color adjustments and special effects. It is a cheap, simple setup that works for me.

[mountainsoft]

I highly recommend using a flatbed scanner (I have the Epson V500). Trying to use a camera will introduce all kinds of issues such as even lighting, camera angles, reflections, focusing, motion blur, etc. If you're going that route, at least use a real camera with a decent lens and not a smart phone. Ideally with multiple filtered lights and a fixture of some type to hold the camera at a fixed position above the image.

As for resolution, you want to keep as much detail as possible without going overboard. For example, I could scan at 4800dpi if I wish, but I'll probably never need that much detail and the original photo print isn't that detailed to start with.

Personally, I know I will NEVER print a photo larger than an 8x10. So if I assume 300dpi that gives me an image size around 2400x3000 pixels. That's all I really need, though I will often round up a bit to 3000x4000 pixels (or 4000x3000 for a landscape photo) just to be safe in case I want to crop or something in the future.

Now that I have the resolution I need for my final use, I can figure out what resolution I need to scan to achieve that. For instance, if I have a 4x6 print, I might scan around 600dpi or 800dpi, depending on how valuable the image is to me. If it's a tiny 2x3 wallet photo I might scan around 1000dpi or 1200dpi, again, depending on valuable the image is. Both of these examples give me a final image close to my 3000x4000 goal with JPG file sizes around 3MB to 4MB each.

Of course, you'll probably print very few of your images once you scan them. You won't need anywhere near that resolution if you're just viewing them on your computer monitor, tablet, or a tiny smart phone screen. Still, scanning your prints around 600dpi gives you options for the future.

[Texas Proud]

I do have a flatbed scanner, but for pics the max DPI is 600...


I thought I had higher but I do not...


Will have to take a look at my DWs printer scanner combo and see what she has...

[OldShooter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper I have an all-in-one color printer (Brother) that I use using to scan old photos. I use IrfanView as the software to capture the scanned photos and convert to jpg. IrfanView also allows me to apply color adjustments and special effects. It is a cheap, simple setup that works for me.

+1

When I posted (#6) it totally forgot abut Irfanview even though I use it almost daily. I don't think it will fix keystoned images, but it can probably handle almost every other tweek. The goal of the author (Irfan Skiljan) was speed and it really delivers. I can probably open a photo, make a tweek, and save it in the time that Photoshop Elements takes to load and get itself organized.

[Aslowdodge]

Well most people like the scanner. Not sure why they have problems with using a camera. I found a whole slew of old family photos and found it faster to use a camera.
Personally I see a lot of unnecessary overkill posted here, but hey we're all retired and have lots of time.
Yes you want a decent resolution, but I think there is a lot of overkill.
My background is I was a professional photographer who owned the biggest studio in my area. I've won photographer of the year in professional associations, been profiled in a book about professional photography, won a lot of print awards, and deal with higher end clients. I still serve a few of my clients and the last two spent 13k and 14k on their portrait orders last year.
People don't spend that kind of money unless you deliver quality.
Last year I did an $800 restoration copying a photo with a camera. I could have used a scanner, but the camera was faster . There were no issues with focus, glare, blur, rotation. It was fast and easy.
I'm not saying the rest of the responses here won't do the job, I'm just saying my way might be faster and easier for the op and that I'm decently qualified to make this claim.

[hesperus]

TIFF

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslowdodge ... I'm not saying the rest of the responses here won't do the job, I'm just saying my way might be faster and easier for the op and that I'm decently qualified to make this claim.

Using a consumer grade scanner rather than a smartphone is hardly what I would call 'overkill'. And since we don't really know all the details involved in the OP's situation, better to err on the high side.

OP can always compress a bit more if that suits them, but you can't get quality back that wasn't there in the first place.

And a scanner pretty much eliminates any issues with glare or uneven lighting. I have used a smartphone or tablet for casual stuff, and it can be faster - but not always.

-ERD50

[target2019]

Here is my first attempt at coming up with a light box solution for an old wedding album (1954). The book is difficult to fit in my flat bed scanner.

I had part of an old composition desk, and cut white foamboard to cover the interior. The top is open, and I shot looking down, all hand held. At the open end, I had a desk lamp with 100W incandescent bulb shining in. As I type that I realize why it was so damn hot as my head looked into the shadow box.

The picture you see is part of a 2560 x 1920 res jpeg image at 100%. Captured that with windows snip tool and saved a png. Not the best shot I've ever made, but certainly not the worst. Holding a phone steady is not easy. A newer phone with stabilization would have worked better.

I was able to make 21 captures (42 pages, side-by-side) and put them together in a PDF in about 2 hours. I was not satisfied with the result, so I next used 16MP Nikon point and shoot. That will be in the next post.

[Aslowdodge]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Using a consumer grade scanner rather than a smartphone is hardly what I would call 'overkill'. And since we don't really know all the details involved in the OP's situation, better to err on the high side. OP can always compress a bit more if that suits them, but you can't get quality back that wasn't there in the first place. And a scanner pretty much eliminates any issues with glare or uneven lighting. I have used a smartphone or tablet for casual stuff, and it can be faster - but not always. -ERD50

Please reread my post. I said a digital camera, not a smart phone. As op stated is having problems putting pages in scanner to lay flat

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by target2019 Here is my first attempt at coming up with a light box solution for an old wedding album (1954). The book is difficult to fit in my flat bed scanner. I had part of an old composition desk, and cut white foamboard to cover the interior. The top is open, and I shot looking down, all hand held. At the open end, I had a desk lamp with 100W incandescent bulb shining in. As I type that I realize why it was so damn hot as my head looked into the shadow box. The picture you see is part of a 2560 x 1920 res jpeg image at 100%. Captured that with windows snip tool and saved a png. Not the best shot I've ever made, but certainly not the worst. Holding a phone steady is not easy. A newer phone with stabilization would have worked better. I was able to make 21 captures (42 pages, side-by-side) and put them together in a PDF in about 2 hours. I was not satisfied with the result, so I next used 16MP Nikon point and shoot. That will be in the next post.

And here is what 1 minute of adjustments do to the photo. Changes to old color photos can be dramatic.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cobra9777 When DM passed away, my brother and sister let me take all her old photo albums (3 or 4 boxes) on the condition that I would scan them and upload to a photo sharing website. I had no idea what I had agreed to. That was a LOT of work and took more than two years.

It is a lot of work if you do it that way, I've done it too. But other family members have found they were very happy with taking a box of photos to Walmart, CVS, or online scanning places and they get back the photos and a CD or DVD with all the photos on them.

The prices are very reasonable, but of course the biggest emotional hurdle is trusting your photos to an outside service. One way to mitigate that is to break the photos into "chunks" or "groups" so they aren't all committed at one time so if one is lost (I haven't heard of that happening but I suppose it has somewhere) you haven't lost all of them. Or just scan the most precious to you by hand and send the rest out.

[target2019]

Here's a shot with the same lightbox setup. The LG camera used ISO 100, and 1/40 exposure (and I overexposed by +2). On the Nikon, I changed ISO to 200, slightly over-exposed, and camera shot at 1/100 second. The Nikon also can use less compression on the jpeg, and I went with that. The picture is a bit dark, but there is definitely more detail in the hotel windows.

For copying old portraits, you want as many pixels as possible, and want a fast shutter speed (or built in destabilization). The camera is more natural to hold, and easy to squeeze the shutter button with less movement. Of course with a scanner, your image is held rigid.

[MRG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 It is a lot of work if you do it that way, I've done it too. But other family members have found they were very happy with taking a box of photos to Walmart, CVS, or online scanning places and they get back the photos and a CD or DVD with all the photos on them. The prices are very reasonable, but of course the biggest emotional hurdle is trusting your photos to an outside service. One way to mitigate that is to break the photos into "chunks" or "groups" so they aren't all committed at one time so if one is lost (I haven't heard of that happening but I suppose it has somewhere) you haven't lost all of them. Or just scan the most precious to you by hand and send the rest out.

+1

That's a very reasonable solution. For me I'd sort them into chunks and do a chunk at a time.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslowdodge Please reread my post. I said a digital camera, not a smart phone. As op stated is having problems putting pages in scanner to lay flat

No, OP (Texas Proud) did not state that. That was target2019, after my post. So please re-read my post, with full context this time.

Yes, I see you said camera in your post, but you also talked a lot about the 'overkill' in some posts, so I thought that referred to the scanner. And since you are a pro photographer, you have better cameras than a casual user, and from what I've seen, many smartphones have better cameras than a typical consumer point & shoot from a few years ago. So no, it wasn't clear what you were getting at.

-ERD50

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aslowdodge Please reread my post. I said a digital camera, not a smart phone. As op stated is having problems putting pages in scanner to lay flat

I am OP and I do not have a problem laying the photos flat... I can take them out of the book and scan them easily...


Edit to add.... we do have a nice Nikon camera and I might try doing some pics and compare with scan... I do think that if I had a stand for the camera so I can have it hang over the pic at 90 deg it would be better... but then that might be overkill....


Thanks all for the suggestions... will do a few of these and see what make sense to me on going forward.... I am going to take this project slowly...