Old photographs - how to copy

Ralph-y

is if you have all the pictures saved to disc then a photo frame showing them as a slide show is one way to go .........

Ralph:cool:

Farway

And if scanning, use the highest resolution [pixels per inch]

It will take longer, but you will have a silk purse & not a sow's ear should you wish to enlarge them

cookie365

lynda.com did a pretty good set of training vids on how to do this in Photoshop Elements:

http://www.lynda.com/Photoshop-Elements-9-tutorials/scanning-and-restoring-photos/69525-2.html

fenlander_uk

I've always found that scanned photographs need a bit of tweaking in something like Photoshop Elements. Usually auto-levels / sharpen / straighten / crop. It takes a bit longer but makes a huge difference to the result.

Mojisola

DigForVictory wrote: »

+1 for scan & print - but in the name of heaven Also Save The File as a.jpeg or .bmp not & whatever the scanner software leaves it floating in.

http://digital-photography-school.com/what-is-the-best-file-format-to-save-your-photos-in-psd-tiff-jpeg-gif%C2%A0-png

jpegs lose a little every time you open and save them.

WTFH

Mojisola wrote: »

http://digital-photography-school.com/what-is-the-best-file-format-to-save-your-photos-in-psd-tiff-jpeg-gif%C2%A0-png

jpegs lose a little every time you open and save them.

That information is not quite correct. It depends on the settings of the application you open them on.
Also, just to point out for any speed readers, the claim is "when you save them", not when you open them. If you do not make changes to a file but just open it for viewing, then you can close the file without saving.

For publication or professional printing, use TIFF. I tend to avoid using Photoshop because if you are not careful it will apply settings automatically to images - no matter what format you use.

But we are talking about scanning images to save them permanently and to have them available for printing. In that case, JPG would be the best choice. If the OP is using Photoshop/GIMP, then they could manipulate them in PSD, but the final product should be JPG, otherwise the CD/DVD that might be distributed will only be viewable to people with the correct software.

googler

Don't let the negatives out of your sight. Get a negative scanner and do the job yourself.

Don't send the negatives away to anyone through the post, and don't hand all the negatives over to anyone all at one time.

neilwoods

WTFH wrote: »

That information is not quite correct. It depends on the settings of the application you open them on.
Also, just to point out for any speed readers, the claim is "when you save them", not when you open them. If you do not make changes to a file but just open it for viewing, then you can close the file without saving.

For publication or professional printing, use TIFF. I tend to avoid using Photoshop because if you are not careful it will apply settings automatically to images - no matter what format you use.

But we are talking about scanning images to save them permanently and to have them available for printing. In that case, JPG would be the best choice. If the OP is using Photoshop/GIMP, then they could manipulate them in PSD, but the final product should be JPG, otherwise the CD/DVD that might be distributed will only be viewable to people with the correct software.

That is down to how the user sets photoshop up in reference to auto apply.

WTFH

neilwoods wrote: »

That is down to how the user sets photoshop up in reference to auto apply.

Very true, but the number of photographers I see on Flickr who think there is a problem with their camera, but the problem disappears when you go back to the original raw file and convert it using the camera maker's own software.

I do 99% of my image editing in Aperture, generally I will only switch to Photoshop if I need to change the paper format, e.g. I had to edit a yacht image which had been taken portrait. The publishing company wanted it landscape so I had to create a page which was larger than the image, which PS will do. Once I'd done that, I put it into Aperture and createded half the image which did not exist.

AshleyPomeroy

hollydays wrote: »

Strangely enough I have been given a scanner which I haven't set up yet and am really not familiar with what it can do but I'll get onto that quick. They are mostly photos but I have got a lot of the negatives too.

I use an Epson V500, because it can cope with 35mm and medium format and it's not too expensive. But you haven't said which format your late dad was photographed with; if it was 110 or 126 (for example) rather than good old 35mm or 120, that complicates things.

Epson V500, half-frame 35mm from an Olympus Pen:


6x6, Kodak Ektar, Mamiya C33:


Scanning negatives is the way to go for quality and flexibility, but bear in mind that it takes ages. You've got to prepare the scan, get the colours close enough to your desired reality to work with, and (people often forget this) you have dust and scratches, which are particularly problematic with black and white. No matter how much automation you use, you'll still have to proof each image manually, which takes time.

A lot depends on how much control you demand, how many images you have to scan, and the amount of time you're willing to put into it. There's no shame in paying an agency to do it for you, although again you have to ask yourself how much you're willing to spend. I've never had a problem with Peak Imaging but at £2.35 a frame that's going to mount up. My experience of Genie Imaging is that their high-resolution medium format scan wasn't as good as the results I could get with a V500, which isn't at all a high-end scanner in any case.