Best way to scan photos for posterity

Topic

New Reply

I decided to start scanning some old photos I have which are beginning to show signs of deterioration. What would be a proper file size and dpi settings to consider using? I really don’t know very much about picture scanning so my question will probably lack clarity. Please feel free to offer suggestions or ask for more clarification – but please specify what sort of info is needed of course! I am using an Epson scanner/printer/copy unit. It is directly connected to my Mac but I don’t think what computer I am using will make a difference as far as what sort of guidelines I should be following for scanning.

Thanks for any help offered!

Reply | Quote

Replies

Wow, you know from other Lounge threads that I’m a “journeyman” when it comes to photog work, but if I may… This Canon 8400 is the second scanner for me and I bought it because it has 35-mm slide scanning built in. So my first sojurn in using it was to scan in a LARGE collection of slides from mine and Billie’s life together. That was a couple of years ago now and I just looked at the properties of those slides and the files show at 1,200 dpi. I didn’t remember that. However, when I do routine scans, including photos once in awhile, I think my scanner toolbox is set to its own selected defaults – see attached. I think I’d do a little trial and error with yours to see what happens. Obviously, the larger the dpi, the larger the computer file AND the computer RAM required to handle the scanning.

PS In addition, photo files taken with my new camera at 2,816 x 2,112 pixels and copied from the camera card to the computer, show up as 180 dpi, so I don’t know what’s best. I’d sure give 300 dpi a try though.

Reply | Quote

I would look to scan at the highest resolution, i.e. use the max dpi your scanner supports. I would also look to save the data in a lossless file format, e.g. .TIFF. That way you will capture and retain as as much detail as possible. It follows that the output file size will be big your HDD may fill up quite quickly but since you want to preserve the pics it would be more sensible to archive them by burning them to CD or DVD and that’s not expensive. Once you have a ‘master’ high res. (Read-Only) file you can then mess around with it using any one of the usual suspects, PhotoShop, Picsa, IrfanView, [insert favourite app. here].

I’m still stuck on film because I have a good SLR and I’ve always used slides (colour positive / transparencies) that I can project across my living room to a big screen. When I want a digital copy I use Nikon film scanner that scans at something like 4000dpi. The .TIFF file output I get from one slide is about 65Mb! I can then print this out in any number of ways. At its native dpi the print size is only 35x24mm (the size of a slide) but with all that goodness squeezed into such a small area means I can enlarge it to A4 and it still looks good or I can crop out a tiny area and enlarge it a long way before it pixelates.

Does that help?

Ken

Reply | Quote

I’m not very good with metric conversions, but … it appears that a 4000dpi scan of a 35mm slide positive or film negative would be in the range of 920-940dpi on a 4×6 full frame print. It would be interesting to compare the results of those two scans.

Reply | Quote

Okay here’s what I’ve done so far. I’ve scanned the same 3 1/2 x 5″ pic four different times with the following results:
#1- scanned in as 600 dpi – saved as a JPG – resulting file size 3.7 MB – 3000 x 2135
#2- scanned in as 1200 dpi – saved as JPG – resulting file size 13.4 MB – 6000 x 4271
#3- scanned in as 600 dpi – saved as Multi TIFF – resulting file size 18.2 MB – 3023 x 2100
#4- scanned in as 1200 dpi – saved as Multi TIFF – resulting file size 72.7 MB – 6047 x 4200

Al’s right, they all look the same on my computer screen but there certainly has to be something which will be different. Which is the most useful for saving and which will be the most useful for using as a part of a slide show presentation on a large screen? And to really show my ignorance – what does the 6047 x 4200 stand for?

I will also include a snapshot of the scanner’s dialog box to see if there is anything I should be doing differently besides changing the dpi settings?

Thanks!

Reply | Quote

A few minutes later…

I’ve found a scanned slide on my hard drive here at work and done some quick tinkering in Irfanview to try and illustrate the benefits of scanning at as high a dpi as possible.

As I mentioned in my previous post my starting file is a 4000dpi scan of a 35mm slide, saved as a .TIF that’s 65Mb in size. The native print size is the same size as the slide, 35x24mm. The attached is an area of <1mm x 1mm cropped out of this file. When saved as a .TIF it's ~224Kb & too big for The Lounge so the attached is a full quality .JPG at a mere 10Kb. The image is grainy but you can see quite clearly that is a necklace. The point being that you are seeing the limitations of the original film image, not the digital representation of it. I'm not sure how much more I'd have to zoom in before you'd get the the bottom of the digital data and see actual pixelation.

And all in only 10Kb.

Ken

Reply | Quote

I was side tracked today by a sick hubby so I didn’t get to “play on the computer” like I wanted.

BigAl and Ken (stuck) – thanks for the information. I like the idea of scanning enough to fill a CD and then burning them for “keeping safe”. It will free up the HD if I have file sizes of 60 MB+. I was guessing the more resolution I set the scanner for the better the result but when I gave that a go, it took forever to scan? I finally cancelled that effort and went to the 300 dpi that Al suggested. I guess what I’ll need to do it try some and then compare the results. I’m not sure of the best way to do a comparison since everything looks okay “on screen”…so perhaps printing a couple of experiments might show which is better? Or maybe I should just realize that the higher the resolution, the better the picture and trust this reasoning since it makes sense?
I’m rambling so I’ll quit.

Thanks for the help! I’ll post back once I get a few more efforts attempted!

Reply | Quote

You are good to do most at 300 DPI, but if you have a small (School Picture) one, you can boost up the DPI and be able to print it out at a larger size.

You need to check out how a image scanned at different DPI’s and then print out the different scanned images at different scales. You then, may be able to see what is good for you and your equipment.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

Hoping not to offend you OR Ken, since I’ve readily admitted my lack of knowledge of this whole business of photography, computer graphics and so on. But paraphrasing the old saying about beauty being in the eye of … I don’t put photos on my computer with the express purpose of PRINTING but rather viewing, so I don’t think at all about the possible outcome of printed copies. Here is what is probably the world’s worst example of a photo to use for a demo, but it’s one I dug out of a box of pix given to me by my mother years ago. This is a small PHOTO of evidently something she had in a frame and hung at home for years. How it came to be a photo, in this damaged condition, I don’t know and my mom didn’t tell me.

When I scan the small photo using my Canon, I did it first at 1,200 DPI and saved the file as a TIF. I then scanned it again at 300 DPI and saved that file as a 100% quality JPG. The TIF was 69,650 K/bytes and 4,050 x 5,870 in resolution. The JPG was 547 K/bytes and 1,012 x 1,467. I then resized both so I could make an example file to show you. At their LARGEST size, my old eyes can’t see the difference and again I admit that this is a damaged photo so probably a poor example. But if I do this same test with any photograph, I can’t see the difference.

PS It’s a picture of me (the oldest) with my sister and brother, probably taken around 1949 or 1950 but I don’t know for sure.

Reply | Quote

I don’t think you can see any difference if the pixel density is compressed, either to fit a standard screen or to a small version of the image, because the software will average away the additional information. You probably need to print at larger than 8×10 to see the advantages in having the extra resolution in this case. For most people, the extra megabytes to store pixels that might improve a print larger than 8×10 are not justified. (On the other hand, if you wanted to crop out a small portion of the image and be able to see more detail, then the extra pixels may be essential.)

Reply | Quote

Hi Al, since Hubby is watching golf, I can experiment a little bit. My goal is not only to save these older pics in a format that I can work with later on but to also be able to show them on a large screen for a slide show. So the resulting pic from a 3×4 inch photo has to be free from a “grainy” look – if you know what I mean. Since I don’t have a large screen to practice on to see results of a slide view show, I thought perhaps a photo saved with as much resolution as possible could be expanded to the larger size without any degradation to it for viewing? I am really out of my element. The only time I use a scanner for anything is for those few items I want to keep digitally. I’ve never totally understood what all the various settings are for. Now since I am going to the trouble to scan these photos, I figure I may as well capture them in a file size, resolution, etc. that will make working with them in the future easy and give me the results I want, whatever it may be. I definitely agree that your two examples – as a comparison for settings – don’t show any difference! If I could get by saving these in a small file size/resolution, the project would go a lot faster! My projects always take me a while to get going because I “anguish” about them so much! I want them perfect every time!

I’ll give this little photo I have a try and see what happens!
And Dave! I think what you are saying pretty much agrees with Al. Now it is down to my scanner and my ability to come to some understanding of its settings and the results I want or need.

Ken, Al and Dave – thank you very much for providing me information I can work from! The struggle begins……………

Reply | Quote

Most inexpensive home and business LCD projectors top out at 1024×768 (XGA resolution) or 1280×720 (low-HD) so 300dpi should be sufficient for your 3×4 image on one of those. Higher end full-HD projectors go up to 1920×1080, so if you are thinking of using one of those, you might benefit from a higher resolution scan.

Reply | Quote

Hi Jefferson – scanning the pic at 300 dpi saving as a JPG is a 1.1 MB file with 1494 x1050 resolution size. If I wanted to crop the pic, will it still work for my slide show okay?
Thanks!

Reply | Quote

That sounds pretty large, if you are using slide show software, it might add a “frame” to fill in any shortage of image, or it might stretch to fit the screen.

By the way, I tested with two photos and our color copier/scanner at the office. In the first case, the photo had been printed on a color inkjet printer on what seems to be heavy clay-coated paper. The larger resolution introduced more “noise” into the image, so I don’t think the extra detail would be very useful, or it would require some serious doctoring.

Reply | Quote

Is that you, doing your “Price is Right” routine?

Reply | Quote

I think based on what I’ve seen, I’ll go with the 300 dpi jpg format for the slide show and see how it turns out. If I work hard, I’ll be able to get it done this week.

For those pics that I want to keep “for forever”, I may do two scans – one at a high dpi and save as TIFF and one then at the 300 dpi for my project! Seems like a good compromise. Thanks everyone for providing me with info to make decisions with!

Your pic in post 753,564 is interesting! Is that a “behind the scenes” of jscher2000 having a good time at a party?

Reply | Quote

Hey Skitter, I’m kinda late to the party, but you might want to read some tutorials on scanning. Here’s one from Photoshop and this Google search should provide you with more information than you want. HTH

Reply | Quote

Thanks for those links Doc.

I have a project similar to Skitterbug’s and have been watching this thread with interest. I have photos going back to the 50’s and slides going back to the early 60’s. Literally a few thousand and I have been procrastinating and am weighted down by the sheer magnitude of the project. Really have to get it going so I can pass them on to the kids for their collection.

Cheers, Bob

Reply | Quote

Thanks for those links Doc.

I have a project similar to Skitterbug’s and have been watching this thread with interest. I have photos going back to the 50’s and slides going back to the early 60’s. Literally a few thousand and I have been procrastinating and am weighted down by the sheer magnitude of the project. Really have to get it going so I can pass them on to the kids for their collection.

Cheers, Bob

Hi Bob, I was just reading this old post and have some comments.
I am currently 2/3 of the way through scanning my old pics – approx 2500 of them, about the same age as yours.
There were two things that got me going on the project.
1) Some of the old pics had serious color degradation.
2) Most of the pic’s negatives had mould spots on them. Not just a few but 1000s per pic. These are not visible until scanned. Apparently this is pretty normal for old negatives. I live in Melbourne Australia and we don’t have a great deal of humid weather, I shudder to think what condition the negs would have been in in a more tropical environment.
To scan them I had a choice of scanning the pics directly or scanning the negatives. Scanning the negatives gave a MUCH better result, but the scanned pics each needed about 10 minutes cleaning up in Photoshop on average. Some took 2 hours, while some needed no cleaning. But even when the negs did not need cleaning, I still took a few seconds to tweak them in Photoshop – well worth the few seconds it took.
The reason I have posted this is to encourage you to start your project as soon as possible, to nip the mould damage in the bud. But be prepared for some L O N G hours on your computer.

Reply | Quote

Hey Skitter, I’m kinda late to the party

Hey Doc – you are always welcome to come any time to my parties! I’m glad to see you!
And WoW – you aren’t kidding when you say there’s plenty of information to digest! I’ve got the links up and I’m going to have my “nose” buried in reading material for the afternoon!
Thanks!

And a notice to Bob – You’d better get busy or I’ll beat you done!
My slides will have to wait until I get something to scan them with….so you’ll have a head start on those!

Reply | Quote

There is a reason you can’t see the face of “that person” in the photo.

Reply | Quote

The second test was with a photo I took in Merida, Mexico in 1997. It was printed on good photographic paper, but the film was 400-speed, which has a larger grain. And the dancers were in motion. The higher resolution doesn’t seem to me to be producing more usable detail, but perhaps it is a bit “smoother”?

Reply | Quote

I LIKE your ‘world’s worst for a demo’, ESPECIALLY for a demo. It’s a shot that matters to you personally, and that makes it valuable and worth the time and effort of preserving, even if you have to have it done professionally. Here are a few suggestions unrelated to resolution.

The white background ruins any display of it. I suggest black, or a rich dark colour that suits your taste or the occasion.

If the pole in the background was vertical, then use that for your alignment, no matter how the original was cut or whether or not the camera was level.

The shape is fine and makes it what it is: a period shot suitable for a period frame or display. Once the alignment is correct, I suggest you apply the oval as a line, to retain as much as possible of what you have. You can always crop later, but you can’t replace what you have discarded, including the historic details in the background.

Adjusting the contrast is a simple enough matter, although more advanced recovery and editing might be left to others. Even if you do it all yourself, the tools and techniques of the computer far exceed the darkroom tools of the period of the photograph itself.

Good luck with it!

Reply | Quote