Scanning photos

Hi Ryan, I have been working on a similar project to save my families images and catalog them. I use a regular cheapo scanner (my Visioneer cost only $39 and works perfectly.

1 and 2. I scan to 300 dpi TIF files (as close to a RAW file as you can get). I size them while in 16 bit (or 48 if that's what your scanner does), then resize them to 8x10 or some standard size, then save them in 8 bit.

3. That's hard to say. First, I back everything up to multiple drives, but I also backup the images to CDs or DVDs and give copies to family members for safe keeping. Always use archival storage for the originals, even if they were not cared for originally.

4. It almost doesn't matter because they are all pretty good. If I was buying one new, I would get a Canon 9900F (new) or an Epson 500 or 600. I do not personally like the software on HPs. Don't be swayed by massive pixels, you need 300 dpi, and that's it.

5. I think this is answered in #3.

6. Do some research on archival methods of storing images (materials and humidity). Start by looking at ArchivalMethods.com, but there are cheaper sources. Acid free, pH neutral papers and materials, stored in cool, dry, and dark rooms or closets with stable temps, is ideal. You should also think about fire protection, flood issues (don't store them in a damp basement), etc. It isn't rocket science, and all you can do is the best you can do.

BTW, I should have mentioned that a good photo editor is imperative. This can be PhotoShop, Adobe Premier, etc. But you'll need something that allows you to adjust color balances. Many images are faded and have shifted color, but with a good photo editor, you can change them back to normal.

Having trouble attaching this image, but here is a before and after image using my $39 Visioneer flatbed scanner and PhotoShop. Before and after. What is kind of interesting is that my family has been doing a lot of photography, going back to the middle 1800's in Sweden. This image is on his ranch in Portland, Oregon.

Thanks! One more thing--Do you have any color examples?
Cause like I said--I bought a flatbed (Canon) and it did weird stuff to the colors of the original photo. An original photo in good condition would have a guy in a brown shirt and turn that shirt to pink. I want there to be accuracy of colors and whatnot as well as quality. Get the pix as close to as when they were first developed.

Michael Axel's posted images pose the dilemma: to what lengths should you go to "restore" old photos. I think the quick answer is to keep both before and after, if you can afford the space.

For me, at least in this case, the before image invokes more emotion, has more feeling.

The levels adjustment and apparent improvement in sharpness in the after version is nice though.

See my main issue is that for example Adobe Premier (at least on Amazon) is very expensive, so are the newest Photoshop programs, and also I'm not sure which is the best: Premer, Photoshop, etc.

My goal is always to get a good usable image from the original. In the example I posted, the image is larger than the original by about 30%. The original image had many problems. It was falling apart from the top, it had foxing, was very faded, and the base was giving out. By producing the best possible restoration, you can then add back any character you like. I am fully aware that this example was not originally a sepia toned image, but actually yellowed from age, and possibly bad processing. The bad processing seems to be the most common problem I run into. The prints were not fixed long enough, or properly.

The other thing I run into is there are never negatives to be found, for some reason. I think this topic was discussed recently in a casual conversation discussion. At any rate, I add back a very slight amount of silver toning to the images I restore. It gives it a bit more authenticity, without appearing too antique.

Mendel's comment is very valid. My personal goal is to make an image look new enough it gives the viewer the feeling of seeing it for the first time, as though it came back from the lab, and they were part of that generation.

Ryan, I haven't used a current version of Premiere to know if it has the tools you need. Basically I use a lot of curves adjustment (that's how I get the little flowers in the above shot to stand out, where they are nearly gone from the original), but contrast and brightness might be enough. I also use the cloning tool (you sample an area, then "stamp" it back to an area that has a spot on it). And I cut out the image from its border, then add back the border by adjusting the canvas size. I would think you might be able to do most of it in Premiere, but I don't know.

Why is Premiere being recommended? It's a video editing program. If you want to make a photo slideshow I'm using Vegas Studio (under $100) instead of Premier Elements (buggy). If you want to color correct photos I'd use PS Elements or Photoshop.

I'd look at LR (lightroom) it is a good tool for building a database of photos, photoshop and elements are not really concerned with organizing photos.

How many photos are you talking about? I'd give a try to using a good point and shoot and taking a photo of each print. Scanning prints at a high dpi value introduces a lot of issues, like dust and scratches. Color balance is also an issue. And, you will need a trained eye to resolve color balance issues. It is not a trivial task, thats why I like the photo of the prints approach.

IMO skip optical disks for backup, too fragile for me. External hard disks are fairly cheep, get more than one and duplicate the data. IMO that is the best approach. If you have a small enough library of photos then one of the on-line photo sharing sites are a great option as well.

TIFFs are the favorite file format for those who scan and want a lossless format. It is a great format. The only issue is that if you want to share the file with someone who has no digital photo skills then you will most likely have to convert it to jpg in order to share it.