Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Scanning thread

Expand Messages
  • Deb Koons
    For some reason, my reply to a message from a member failed - but this is good info for discussion, so I thought I d forward it back to the group. ... T R - I
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 17, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      For some reason, my reply to a message from a member failed - but this is
      good info for discussion, so I thought I'd forward it back to the group.



      ---------- Forwarded message ----------


      T R - I would never use JPG for anything except as a "saved as" file for
      web/email/Facebook. The TIFF format never loses any data, so why not just
      use it? Storage is CHEAP these days. I also always shoot in RAW for that
      reason. And I always scan at a very high resolution, up to 3200 at 100%, as
      the results/effects of tonal and color correction work can be smoother the
      more data Photoshop has to work with, depending on the color space you are
      in. It's also always better to scan at a higher res than you need and res
      down in Photoshop, rather than using its interpolation to res up. There are
      some third-party apps out there for res'ing up that are supposed to be
      excellent, but I wouldn't want to use them unless I had no alternative.

      I am looking at Epson's V-750M for slides & negatives, as it allows for
      fluid-mounting. Just not sure I will gain that much with the old 4x5 family
      negatives. For my 35mm more current negatives, will have to at some point
      evaluate getting a dedicated film scanner. It may be that the V-750M does a
      good enough job, since I am more primarily concerned with archiving the OLD
      family photos and any negatives we have are 4x5 or larger and fluid-mounting
      those should produce as good an image as possible. The V-750M also has a
      very large Dmax. I may use VueScan with it, if I see that it does a better
      job with shadow area detail. I have done some testing at work, on a V-700,
      and it seems like it does.

      Photoshop also has filters to correct for the cross-hatching and moire
      that happens when scanning printed pieces, as does the Epson software.
      I am on a Mac, and have had the best luck with Epson scanners, so I
      haven't looked at Microtek in a long time. It's good to hear that they
      have good products and scanning software.

      Do you primarily scan old photos at this point, and documents/newspaper
      clippings? I am still working my way through a huge treasure trove of old
      family pictures (hundreds back to 1880s) and haven't tackled the
      negatives/slides
      yet. I also have countless old letters and documents and newspaper
      clippings/articles. Trying to get a sense of the best way to organize
      everything, planning to share on DVD with any interested family members once
      I can create a finding aid/index of everything (probably spreadsheets saved
      as PDF with thumbnail images, posted online).

      It's mind-boggling, how much I have to do! And that doesn't even take into
      account all the heirloom keepsakes I have. Have started photographing them
      and entering the info and original owner info and stories that I know. Plus
      I have interviews with relatives on cassette tape and hi8 tape and luckily
      newer camcorders with .mov format.

      Take care - Deb

      ----------------------

      T R to me
      show details 8:34 PM (15 hours ago)
      For Slides and negatives you have to have a scanner with a TMA for the best
      results. Personally I like Microtek scanners with the scan wizard program
      this program also corrects for screens if you are archiving newspaper /
      periodical material. Also 300 resolution should be the lowest res you should
      use and depending how small of picture... 8x10 should be fine for 300 res
      otherwise I would set a bit higher res. and bump the percentage amount to
      make tiny picture larger and clearer. for enlargement sake! you can always
      adjust it in PS after the initial scan for your needs. . tif is best however
      for storage if it is not going to be opened often .jpg should be fine.

      -------------------------

      Original post from June, regarding formats to use in scanning:

      ---
      I'd like to add to this - I scan at a very high resolution for purposes of
      archiving the photo. The higher the res, the smoother the effects of edits
      in Photoshop, for one thing. It's also a way to "preserve" the photo at its
      current state, in case of loss/damage and also because the photo may degrade
      over time. Some of my scans are 400mb and large in size. CDs/DVDs are cheap
      these days, so backing up these scans is not an expensive proposition.

      I do not let my scanner do any "correction" of the image - I want a "flat"
      scan, so that I can make the editing decisions in Photoshop. Some scanning
      software may well be capable of great correction at the time of scan, but
      scanning without any corrections also yields a "raw" scan for archival
      purposes. Scanning is best, because it can pick up amazing detail that still
      lies in the emulsion layers of a photo. I have pulled an incredible amount
      of detail out of a photo that appeared very faded, in which the people were
      barely visible.

      There is no way to know what capabilities future versions of editing
      software will have - it will definitely be possible to edit scans much more
      easily and automatically than we can today. And, for instance, replace
      missing portions of a scan - just look at Photoshop CS5's new feature that
      can do just this.

      Also, always scan the back of the photo if there is any writing on it, as it
      preserves an ancestor's handwriting and original ID - even if you know it is
      incorrect. You can always include updated info with the photo.

      I save as TIFF, since JPG experiences some degree of "loss of data" each
      time a photo is opened and re-saved. I also don't know what algorithms my
      scanner uses to "create" a JPG file format, and would prefer to do it myself
      in Photoshop, so I can choose the settings. I think we should stay away from
      JPEG-2000, as I understand from Adobe that it never really caught on.

      I always work on a COPY of the original scan - I reduce the file size and
      save as JPG only when I'm ready to post a photo online, or send in an email,
      or upload to a photo lab's site for printing. I store my CDs/DVDs in a safe
      place and duplicates of each offsite. Cloud computing / storage areas such
      as MOZY are another thought.

      Regarding the issues of future format compatibility, if the day comes that
      the TIFF file format (or for that matter, CDs and DVDs) begins to be
      replaced by newer technologies, I will have to convert my archives to the
      newer format/media. I'm confident that when this "change" begins, photo
      application software will open TIFF images for long enough that we have time
      to work on this conversion. Software such as GraphicConverter is bound to
      keep old file format compatibility around for a long time. You can also
      always punt to an older version of software to handle file formats that a
      brand-new computer/software may not recognize. Don't think all is lost, and
      discard a file that may be your only scan of an old image, just because a
      new program doesn't recognize it. I imagine online services will also pop up
      over time, to handle file conversions for situations like this.

      And don't forget to always handle an original photo wearing thin cotton
      gloves - you don't want to get fingerprints and body oils on a photograph.
      Always store the photos in acid-free materials. I discovered that acid-free
      postcard sleeves of various sizes are much less expensive (when bought in
      bulk on eBay) than sleeve protectors, and they allow me to handle the photo
      more easily and store the photos in a system that makes sense to me, based
      on my genealogy filing scheme. Large index card boxes are great for storing
      photos up to 6 x 8 in size. Acid-free boxes are best, I just haven't
      invested in them yet.

      My 2-cents ~)
      Deb Koons
      ---


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.