|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 18, 2009 14:49:38 GMT 12
Help!!! To all photographic experts, I have a large collection of aviation related photos in various sizes taken over a period from about 1979 to 1994 using my (then) trusty SLR camera. These days I use a Sony Cybershot so I was wondering what way you would recommend would be best for me to save or convert all of these 'old' photos into a digital format.
I have 2 main reasons for this: to share them with everyone on this website and to have a backup in the event of a fire or other calamity.
Your suggestions/recommendations please :-)
Cheers, Ken
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Feb 18, 2009 15:07:17 GMT 12
Are you intending to scan prints or negatives?
There are two factors to consider - the scanner (hardware) and the scanning program (software).
Most scanning software that comes with domestic scanners is pretty limited. You need to acquire high end software, I use Vuescan but there are others.
Once you have the scanned file, you will probably need to tweak, crop and resize the image so your going to need an image manipulation program as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by obiwan27 on Feb 18, 2009 15:12:56 GMT 12
To be honest I'm not sure which, probably prints initially as many of the photos were prints taken from other people's negatives. I was wondering if there is a 'best' practice or anything else that people on the forum can recommend. Thanks for your advice!!
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 18, 2009 16:06:46 GMT 12
Are you intending to scan prints or negatives? There are two factors to consider - the scanner (hardware) and the scanning program (software). Most scanning software that comes with domestic scanners is pretty limited. You need to acquire high end software, I use Vuescan but there are others. Once you have the scanned file, you will probably need to tweak, crop and resize the image so your going to need an image manipulation program as well. I have a Canon scanner that I should get around to using to convert my favourite prints (mainly travel in Europe and Utah in the late 90's). What features does Vuescan (for instance) have that the basic software typically lacks? I normally use Faststone for cropping and resizing, and GIMP for the limited tweaking that I feel competent to do. TIA |
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Feb 18, 2009 18:29:22 GMT 12
Wherever possible scan negatives rather than prints. Otherwise you are creating a copy of a copy, with progressive deterioration of the image quality.
With VueScan you are able to adjust media size, scan resolution, number of passes of the scanner, output resolution, output size, output format, histogram and bit depth. As you will find, scanning is a lengthy process so you want to do it just once and do it right the first time. This means aiming for the highest quality, and in particular saving the output file in a non-compressed format like tiff, psp or psd. Don't try and save in a compressed format like jpeg. You will save large files, but that's OK.
I save my scans in one folder, then open the saved files, process the scan (using Paintshop Pro in my case) and then save that processed file usually as a 800 pixel x 533 pixel image of around 100,000 bytes. This is a good image size for posting on this and other web forums.
I do however retain the original scan image. If I need to go back to the original image to look at a small part of it, obtain a physically larger jpeg image, or a higher quality image, I still have access to the image without the need to rescan.
I have a Minolta Scan Dual III (good for scanning 35mm negatives and slides) and a Microtek Scanmaker 4 (good for scanning prints and large negative formats). I bought both of these second hand off TradeMe. I believe that you are better off buying higher quality gear second hand rather than low-quality new stuff. A lot of the new scanners in the retail shops are simply incapable of producing good quality work.
There is the tendency - at the beginning - to think "I don't really care about the quality side of things, I'll just bang them through as quickly as possible". I have been there, It doesn't last. Go for better results than you think you will need right from the start.
|
|
johnh
Squadron Leader
Posts: 118
|
Post by johnh on Feb 19, 2009 11:46:56 GMT 12
Thanks for that flyernzl,you have just helped me with a problem I have being having.I bought one of those cheaper brother scan/printer combos,but any old prints I scanned & loaded on to my photobucket account I couldnt get to link on to the forum.Now gives me some ideas.
Thanks John
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Feb 19, 2009 12:58:13 GMT 12
Agree with flynzl. Scanning a lot of photos would have to be one of the chores in computer terms. Best to do it at best possible quality once. Then any copies at a smaller resolution can be done with your image program. I swear by PaintShopPro 9.1. Have tried newer versions (from Corel) but I DOAN LIKE!
Possibly making one high quality scan to save that in TIF format and then move on to the next scan might be a way through the backlog. Everyone will discover their own requirements. As flynzl says - do it once and do it well - then have a computer copy on your harddrive (if you have enough room. Then BACKUP your high quality scans to an external USB2 hard disk (very cheap today) and even at times make archive DVDs of your high quality scans at least as further insurance. No excuse for not backing up your files. ;D
REMEMBER - once you have invested hours of scanning work you don't rely on the original prints or negs as a backup. Why? Because if you lose your only computer copy you will have to rescan them - not a pretty thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Feb 19, 2009 13:06:52 GMT 12
All of the advice is good "do it once do it right"
For my publishing I use a Epsom 1270 scanner with flatbed, neg, and slide holders depending on source. As a general rule as I want to later on use the images for printing purposes the genral rule of thumb is - colour negs or prints scan at a minimum of 300 dpi, black and white negs and prints scan at a minimum of 600 dpi.
After tweaking in Photoshop CS3 I have great images which can be reproduced up to 10x8" without any problem.
Tip No.2 is make sure you archive the images onto an "off computer" archive. I use a mixture of a 260GB external drive and DVDs as they can hold a larger amount of images v's the standard CD
cheers
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by amitch on Feb 19, 2009 14:16:55 GMT 12
Tip No.2 is make sure you archive the images onto an "off computer" archive. I use a mixture of a 260GB external drive and DVDs as they can hold a larger amount of images v's the standard CD DVD's are not a good way to back up. They were designed for video, not storing data. I know of a number of people who have lost images because they backed them up using DVD's. A small mark on the disk can be all it takes to render it unreadable. I use portable hard disks and recommend using two to back up on, ie: The same data on two drives. With 1,000 gigabytes HD's selling at $159 at Noel Lemings, it hard to beet for cost. |
|
|
|
Post by sleemanj on Feb 19, 2009 14:36:06 GMT 12
I use portable hard disks and recommend using two to back up on, ie: The same data on two drives. With 1,000 gigabytes HD's selling at $159 at Noel Lemings, it hard to beet for cost. And needless to say, storing them all in the same place is a bad idea. Said the pot to the kettle. |
|
|
|
Post by barnstormer on May 12, 2009 9:33:33 GMT 12
Thank you for pointing me to the image scanning/posting thread, FlyerNZ. I DID enlarge this last batch of Fletcher photos up to 700dpi width. I think I may stay at that format. Everyone will have different priorities, of course. But at least two of the other forums I visit every day have asked for images no wider than 700dpi-to avoid having to scroll right/left to see whole image. Especially important on the aviation art forum, which is intensely visual...) I use a 24 inch monitor so hard to tell what they look like on a 14 inch laptop..
I am using an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner, because it works quite well with all size negatives and negative processing/descreening/image cleaning etc. It comes with all kinds of professional scanning/editing features, but I just use the HOME use sections of the software. About all I can understand......In order to make as few extra scans and as few extra-resizing steps, I am inclined (until find a better method for my usage) to make the initial scans of 35mm negatives at 4800 dpi, which converts to an approx 8 x 10 image at 600dpi, which is the most common requirement for magazine publications. (but some only ask for 300dpi @ 6 inches) I scan larger size negatives at 1200/2400 dpi. So one high res scan, then one resize to 72dpi res and 700 dpi width for simple computer viewing. (The 4800 dpi initial scan converts amazingly to 90 inches @ 72dpi!-not that anyone would need that..) Then, I ALSO have to adjust for the OTHER several main sizes of OLDER larger negatives. I have some original company (like Curtiss-Wright and others) pre-WWII and WWII negatives that are 8 x 10. Can easily make posters out of those images. Have over 120,000 negatives, so there will be lots of variables for publishable use, versus computer viewing, versus any attempt to find a "common" scanning/sizing format. Another factor to be considered, is putting only lower res (72dpi) images in the Photobucket albums, as those images will migrate all over the Internet, usually without any credit or reference to help the initial scanner.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 12, 2009 13:42:25 GMT 12
Scanning is an amazing topic to cover in a few sentences but all the advice on this thread is very good nevertheless. I would add:
Do not bother to scan any of your images at a "software interpolated resolution of the scanner". I don't know the specifications of your scanner but only go to the maximum "hardware" or "optical" resolution of your scanner. Probably RGB is OK these days for TIFF (LZW compressed) scans (rather than CYMK). Imaging software is very good to handle both colour types these days. You cannot go beyond the advice to 'scan well once' and archive and backup those scans. Then all the rest is easy enough to do when different sizes are required from the master scan.
In this day in the broadband age an 800 pixel wide image of an aircraft is pretty useless IMHO. But if that is what is the max. size on a particular forum then that is that. I'm always agitating for larger pixel sizes such as 1024x768 (with the cropped image taking up all that space) which is one PhotoBucket standard (amongst several others).
Yeah scanning is a chore. Doing it well once is the only way. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on May 12, 2009 14:34:12 GMT 12
In this day in the broadband age an 800 pixel wide image of an aircraft is pretty useless IMHO. But if that is what is the max. size on a particular forum then that is that. I'm always agitating for larger pixel sizes such as 1024x768 (with the cropped image taking up all that space) which is one PhotoBucket standard (amongst several others). Yeah scanning is a chore. Doing it well once is the only way. ;D I don't think I've seen anyone give download time as a reason for limited width here. Given that around 1024 is a very common width for a browser window (either because that is the width of the physical screen or that is the width that it many find comfortable to read multi-line text across), pictures of 800px wide allow for the bumf that is to the left (and to a lesser extent right) of the actual post. 1024px width images require the user to scroll to see the image, and scroll back-and-forth to read any text on the same page (not just that post). Something like 950px would be OK to read the actual posts, just requiring a scroll to see who the author is, but 800px wide is a kind-off standard. Linking the image to a larger version is cool - photobucket provides BBScode to do this I think? |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on May 12, 2009 20:06:00 GMT 12
ErrolC, my comments were not directly specifically to this forum but to the 'unknown' forums mentioned by obiwan27. Notwithstanding any viewing problems on this forum my comment still stands. Difficult to make web-wide rules about these issues. My comment was for reasons described. Yes linking to a larger image is a great idea - covered on another thread - but not as easy as a one stop link to the 1024 image. I'm glad I don't get to decide these things.
I don't have a problem with this forum except.... IE8 in Vista INSISTS on opening at 150% and then reverting to that at every opportunity (not the fault of this forum BTW). Whether I need to scroll or not on this 21 inch monitor at 1600x1200 pixel resolution has become moot with the stupid browser behaving this way. I reckon people have all sorts of issues with their own setups. I reckon computers teach us how we need to use them - no matter what we think or want to do. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by shamus on May 12, 2009 22:08:28 GMT 12
I have a Canon 8400F scanner. One of the best Canon A4 scanners, about $350 and it scans prints beautifully. It is however not so good on negatives, so I prefer prints to scan. I enquired recently with PCL in Auckland about them scanning the negs and making prints for me. They told me that their scanner cost $250,000 and their is no way a $350 scanner could compare. So I will try it out and see what the result is. Will let you know.
|
|
|
|
Post by kb on Jun 6, 2009 21:02:41 GMT 12
Barnstormer. I have played about with high quality scanners but have produced few digital copies. Too busy etc. The basic problem with using a scanner if you have a very large number of slides is the time it takes to scan each slide. Also, while dedicated 35mm film strip scanners are very expensive, equivalent scanners which can handle large format negatives are prohitively expensive. Using flat bed scanners is OK if you intend to post to the net but if you are looking to archive and keep quality they are useless. Because I have little time and because I wanted to archive in such a way that it isn't the end of the earth if my slide/neg developed a major problem I scratched my head for a long time. I finally came up with a solution that is only relatively expensive and is very fast.
I purchased a Canon 5D camera and two lens. One is Canon's 100mm macro focusing lens and the other a very high quality standard lens. The beauty of the 5D is that it's sensor is the same size as a 35mm neg. Then I purchased a copy table and a daylight light table. This is like a picture frame with the centre being a flat glass panel with a light source inside. It sits on the floor of the copy table and my slide is placed on it so that it is back lit. The camera with the macro focusing lens is attached to an arm which protudes at an angle over the table and it can be wound up and down until the slide image exactly fits in to the camera viewfinder. That fixes the camera position. I then photograph the slide, put the next slide on the light table and move it in to the viewfinder area and photograph again. No trouble to do about 80+ per hour. For negative film strips I purchased two sheets of opitically pure glass and I put the film strips between them and photograph as per slides. When I photograph negs I use Photoshop to invert them and thus produce a positive image. So far I have only done reasonably exposed slides/negs and the results have been outstanding. I may have to use my scanner if the original is difficult.
For larger format negs I would just move the camera up the arm until the neg fits the viewfinder and change the lens if necessary.
The other thing is that the camera produces both RAW and JPEG images of the same photo so the RAW image can be aved for archival purposes after processing and converting to TIFF while the JPEG is immediately available for the Web after downsizing.
If you live near Auckland come and have a look. I am quite happy for you to use the eqipment at my place if you are interested.
I hope I haven't rambled on too much!
BTW, I will be posting photos when I get some time.
KB
|
|
|
|
Post by barnstormer on Jun 7, 2009 6:54:27 GMT 12
Hello KB; Thanks for the invitation! I would love to see the step by step scanning procedure and the results, in person. And learn from it. It seems you may be a professional photographer, or at least a Very serious hobbyist. I would love to have my old photo copy stand back, with the light tray and the 45 degree angle side lights for photos, and with the adjustable sliding arms for the height, width and depth. My lower price film Nikon, with inexpensive close up lenses produced wonderful copies on Film, all before the digital image days and long gone now. I believe that the vast majority of people who have quantities of old negatives and slides are probably now in a class we would call Senior Citizens, or close to it. Scanners and Cameras with more than 100 different adjustments, graphs, features etc will be used with about the same amount of capability, as with their computers. Possibly 20 percent of capabilities will be within their/my ease of use priorities. Having some 120,000 organized negatives in all size ranges, a small number of boxes wth slides, and tens of thousands of original old photographs from all Eras, Learning how to use "histographs" etc is not a priority. Neither is spending several thousands of dollars for so many quality extra features and adjustments that feel to be "overkill" to us novices. I am reasonably certain that most professional art directors of aviation periodicals and book publisher can see a "quality" improvement with your excellent method and thank you for the suggestions. But as an "old dog" reluctant to make the effort to learn new tricks, I do the best I can. When you say, "I finally came up with a solution that is only relatively expensive." it does not seem so. The units you mention must cost at least five times the expense of the Epson Perfection 4990 Photo scanner I can easily operate, and scan upwards of 60 high res scans of negs per hour. And they meet all the specified requirements for some of the top aviation magazine image requests. As I delightedly recognized in an earlier post. I could scan a negative of a Chipmunk, (photo taken at some 25 meters distance) and "Zoom In" on the scan and see the 1 o'clock/7 o'clock position of the cotter pin in the axle nut. Additionally, especially when working with OLD negatives, you may have to do some extensive (and long) Photoshop or Photo editing work that is done with one click while scanning the negative. the Epson (WITHOUT even using the "Professional" setting-just the HOME use setting) has a simple click for each of the following: Descreening (for images that were printed in manuals etc; Color Restoration; Backlight correction; and MOST useful with the old negs-Digital Ice Technology, which removes dust and dirt and scratches etc. This particular Epson is rated at Better than most flat beds for photo scanning. It is designed specifically for photo and negative scanning and has all or most of the features a professional could use or want at a VERY modest price of under $500 U.S. It Also comes with negative masks for fivedifferent sizes of negatives, with provision for scanning several of each size, at a time. The reviews are excellent. The three major programs are: Full Auto Mode (I do not use); Home Mode (My normal use-often using the cleaning features I mentioned above) and Professional Mode )with MANY features quite beyond my limited skills.) (If I am going to read a several hundred page manual-it is going to be an old AIRCRAFT manual  ) I am aware of the optical and mechanical levels of resolution claims. If they are inaccurate, so be it. But I can also convert most of the scans back to TIFF or ANY other image formats when filing them. In home mode, the limit is 4800 and QUITE suitable for 35mm negs scanned to publishers' requirements. In Pro Mode they claim up to 12,800! I cannot imagine what result that setting might produce Or the TIME it would take to scan at that setting?? I CAN identify with the routine of using the light box, copy table and probably superior camera focusing? with your methods, but also remember that it was QUITE a chore to drag out all that equipment in the old days, when you just wanted a couple of quick copies, and would probably forget where you found the image in a couple of days-Never getting to them. Your system is without flaw, but I am comfortable and satisfied (and the magazine editors are, too)with the results from this excellent Photo/neg scanner. I don't know if you could observe a noticeable difference without using a magnifying "loop." Now a high-quality PRINTER to print them out is aa WHOLE Different topic! As to your comment: "I hope I haven't rambled on too much!" I fear NObody out rambles me!  |
|
|
|
Post by kb on Jun 7, 2009 12:38:07 GMT 12
Thanks for your comments Barnstormer. Like you I use my scanner for copying photos including those from manuals etc. As you say setting up the copying gear is a bit of a chore and I only do so when I have the time to copy a large batch. My concern is to get high quality back ups for transparencies and negatives. With my system I do get very large files of but hard drive storage is cheap now and computer chips are powerful and when I get around to copying all my junk I will feel happy that I don't have to worry so much about losing my originals to mould, fire, theft etc. I guess we have different objectives which I didn't understand in the first instance. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Jul 1, 2009 19:28:59 GMT 12
One of my three scanners is an Acer 3300U. Quite good for scanning prints and OCR work, as when running under Vuescan it allows multiple passes to create one scan. Bought it new some years ago for what was then a not inconsiderable sum.
However, when I got the Agricola prints home in the weekend and went to scan them, this scanner went clickty-click, graunch graunch and stopped dead. Sounds like something mechanical. Oh dear.
No obvious means of opening up the scanner to check the works, so after scanning the Agricolae in the old trusty Scanmaker I started to search the net for helpful hints on 'how to repair a scanner'.
Found nothing immediately helpful, and then the old grey cells kicked in. Why not look on Trademe?
Surprise - there is a Acer 3300U advertised for sale, closing in 22 hours, opening bid $1, currently no bids. I logged in and bid the dollar.
No other bids over the next day, so its mine. Lady works in Newmarket, walking distance from my office, so I picked it up today.
Just got home, plugged it in and it works perfectly.
So - problem solved for $1. Today's bargain.
|
|
|
|
Post by John L on Feb 14, 2011 17:27:59 GMT 12
Just got a Canon 9000F - the old scanner just wasn't hacking it - $350 at the local store. I can now scan slides and negatives with ease. A good site for reviews - www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN1.HTM |
|
)
