- 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
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
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 ~)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]