Question on scanning photos

[Texas Proud]

I know there are a good number of people here with great knowledge, so I am trying to get some...


My mom made a number of travel books over the years... most of the stuff is articles, post cards, pics cut out of whatever, but there are pictures she took of herself sprinkled throughout these books... I want to scan them so we can save them and share with family.... not that interested in her pics if she is not in them....


One of the problems is that these were put into books before acid free became a thing... so a number are faded....


My question is what is the best format to scan them into? This is just to get them into a computer.



What scan rate should be used? IOW, DPI...


What program is best to try and get them back to original as we can?


Thanks...

 

[DrRoy]

The Epson V550 Photo scanner is what I bought. Good image quality but doesn't break the bank. Could be a different choice now. Something like Photoshop (or Elements) would help correct the colors again.

 

[MrsHaloFIRE]

Greetings Texas. I dont know about getting them back to original. But it's easy to try a free scanner app on a good quality smart phone to start with. After you snap a pic should allow you to drop it so the lines are square. Then maybe try overlaying a filtering app to sharpen it up. I used to use photos instead of scans all the time at work. No complaints. Looked great. Price is right

 

[Sarah S]

Like Mrs Halo I would suggest at least trying a scanning app if you have decent camera on your phone. Se what you get and how you can work with it.

I am currently using photomyne and it is fast and easy. After a trial it was either 99 US cents or maybe it was 99 UK I don’t remember I was in the UK at the time and not sure which app store I used.

It is a snap to email pictures to others and at the time I was also able to set up a free family website password protected

 

[donheff]

I have scanned and photographed and I have found it actually seems easier for me to just take pictures using my iPhone. I tried one of those iPhone scan apps that take multiple images and stitch them together but that was a PITA. A careful photo with iPhone with focus set on the photo to be imaged works fine. Photoshop can bring faded old photos back to life. An easy fix to try is the levels tool ( image>adjust>levels>). Auto levels often helps a lot although it can sometimes screw up your color balance. Also, for photos that have lost a lot of their original color, the neutral gray eyedropper on levels can do wonders if you can find a gray area of the image to click on. There are free alternatives to photoshop that may have similar or even simpler fixes to bring them back to life.

 

[Freedom56]

If you still have the negatives, I would use a film scanner with Digital ICE and scan the negatives at 7200 DPI. That will get you the best results. I have slowly been converting all my photos/negatives from the early 70's through the late 90's to digital format.

 

[Aslowdodge]

If they are just snapshots I wouldn't bother scanning-too much work. I would just get a decent camera and rephotograph them. I've done this and it's much easier.

 

[OldShooter]

General comment: Buy a decent flat bed scanner, like a good Epson. Trying to use a smart phone will produce crooked, blurred, images that need to be cropped and rotate to square which adds to the already-considerable work you are undertaking.

... My question is what is the best format to scan them into? This is just to get them into a computer. ...

"JPG" aka jay-peg. That is an image format that all photo processing programs will work with. With a photo program you can adjust color to compensate for yellowing, enhance contrast to compensate for fading, etc. This is not magic and cannot create something out of nothing but it is the tool you need to use.

...What scan rate should be used? IOW, DPI...

If you are scanning something that might be printed full-sized (not enlarged) on a laser printer, 300dpi is a good number. For decent quality printed images, 300dpi is usually considered adequate. If you are scanning something like a photo negative, much higher dpi is needed because the image will be enlarged. For example, a 24x36mm "35mm" film image scanned at 1500 dpi then enlarged to 7" wide will result in a final resolution of 1500/5 or 300dpi.

The higher the dpi the slower the scan, so when you look at scanners look at scanning speed.

... What program is best to try and get them back to original as we can? ...

I use Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop Elements; these are not the easiest to learn (but not impossible) but also have more capability that you are likely to need. I'll leave it to others here to recommend less capable but easier to use programs.

Remember to use a backup system so all your hard work doesn't disappear in a hard disk crash.

 

[athena53]

If I can make a recommendation on software since PhotoShop is expensive: a friend suggested Affinity as an alternative. It's $50 for a one-time license. I just started using it this AM and there are some decent video tutorials. I hate tutorials (would rather read text or have more intuitive menus) but that's what you get now. My late husband used PhotoShop to rescue old family photos and slides and it was good at correcting the color deterioration. (In a cosmic joke, a year after he died I got a message saying I needed to re-register his PhotoShop, which was at least 10 years old, and it failed to re-register, of course and no longer works.) I'm hoping Affinity will do the same once I poke around in enough menus.

 

[target2019]

I know there are a good number of people here with great knowledge, so I am trying to get some...


My mom made a number of travel books over the years... most of the stuff is articles, post cards, pics cut out of whatever, but there are pictures she took of herself sprinkled throughout these books... I want to scan them so we can save them and share with family.... not that interested in her pics if she is not in them....


One of the problems is that these were put into books before acid free became a thing... so a number are faded....


My question is what is the best format to scan them into? This is just to get them into a computer.



What scan rate should be used? IOW, DPI...


What program is best to try and get them back to original as we can?


Thanks...

1) Use a lossless format to scan originals. When you modify these (like in PS) save a copy.
2) This article explains DPI, etc. It depends on how pictures will be used. More pixels, mean more resolution that can go into your output.
http://www.ideastraining.com/PDFs/UnderstandingResolution.pdf
3) I use Photoshop. But there are many more apps that can probably do a good job of correcting photos with one click. Photoshop Elements is much cheaper.

Be prepared to learn a lot, meaning put a lot of time into this.

 

[OldShooter]

1) Use a lossless format to scan originals. ...

@target2019 I think you'll need to explain this a little more for the OP.

JPG is a lossy format but IMO its ubiquity and more compact file sizes outweighs its shortcomings, particularly for the OP's project. Life's a tradeoff.

 

[target2019]

@target2019 I think you'll need to explain this a little more for the OP.

JPG is a lossy format but IMO its ubiquity and more compact file sizes outweighs its shortcomings, particularly for the OP's project. Life's a tradeoff.

https://www.howtogeek.com/142174/wh...e-why-you-shouldnt-convert-lossy-to-lossless/
That article explains very well.
For color correction like OP wants to do, lossless is better, IMO.

 

[GrayHare]

For old snapshots I'd scan and store in jpeg format. Jpeg is a compressed format, which means some photo detail is lost in order to reduce the storage size of its digital file. Better photo editing software permits you to adjust the level of compression. Many digital cameras save in Jpeg format with minimal compression.

If you wish, you can probably save each photo in multiple formats. Librarians and archivists often use tiff because it is lossless. Tiff files can easily be 10x or more the file size of jpegs, so lots of photos can take lots of space to store in tiff. To compare for yourself, visit the Library of Congress site which usually offers a given photo in a both jpeg and tiff formats.

The most vexing issue can be scan quality. Surface dust and dirt from the original will scan into its digital image. Some software can automatically minimize the appearance of dust but it does so by smoothing the image, making it appear less sharp. With a photo editor you can instead fix the dust by manually copying similar-color small, non-dusty sections of the photo over the dust particles. That's a tedious, time-consuming effort.

 

[GrayHare]

As for dpi, I typically scan at 600 dpi, or 1200 for a small or special photo. My photo editor scans directly, which means the scanner data comes directly into the photo editor without loss. If the photo needs it I'll correct fading by adjusting contrast. Then I resize the image down to an effective 300 dpi (so if the scan was at 600 dpi, that's a resize to 50%), sharpen it, then save it.

 

[njhowie]

If the photos are important to you, check in your local area for a shop/professional that will do it. They already own all the professional equipment and software, can advise on the best format, will clean them up for you digitally, and can give it back to you on CD, DVD, USB key, etc.

It may cost a little to do it this way. However, letting a professional do it will get it right the first time, will save you the time/effort, and likely get you the best results.

If the cost is more than you expect or are willing to spend, there's plenty of other advice already given for DIY. But definitely get a couple of quotes - there's no cost for that, maybe just some time to investigate.

 

[Aslowdodge]

I think everyone needs to realize that the op wants digital versions of snapshots, cut out pics, print articles, post cards etc.
Consider the original sources. They are not the sharpest nor do they need a huge color range gamut.

Taking each page and scanning it will be clumsy and slow. All these suggestions are overkill for what they need it for. Not to mention scanning rates and file sizes are way more than op needs.
Why scan at 600 dpi? Postcards are printed at a much lower PPI. That's why I recommend just using a digital camera and rephotographing each page.

An 8 x 10 page at 600 dpi is going to be a 86 mb file. A snapshot photo is limited in color range and detail.
It's like telling the op that want a car to get around town that he needs a 600 hp corvette. It's just overkill for the need.

 

[target2019]

Think to the future, when the photos and cards are no longer retrievable.
More will be better.
1 TB can hold 10,000 100-MB scans.
4.6 GB DVD can hold 46 100-MB scans.

 

[OldShooter]

... All these suggestions are overkill for what they need it for. ... That's why I recommend just using a digital camera and rephotographing each page. ...

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.

 

[Ian S]

I vote for a decent scanner like the Epson V5xx (I have the V500.) The scanner software itself will surprise you at the improvement it can make in old faded photos. Of course you can do more with software like Photoshop but there are other quite suitable alternatives. Indeed, Photoshop is only available I believe as a subscription. Photoshop Elements is less capable but will suffice for almost any amateur and it frequently goes on sale.

 

[Texas Proud]

Thanks for the info... I guess I should have looked at my scanner.... the only options I have for color pics are BMP, JPEG/Exif and TIFF...





Update... It wants me to say which program the JPEG file will go.... do not remember doing this before.... or I might have only scanned PDF...


Doing a scan of one pic to see how well it does...

 

[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]

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]

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]

... 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