>From: KM0103@aol.com What resolution to scan at: Scanners can be set to scan at a variety of resolutions (the amount of detail captured). While we'd all like the highest resolutions possible, the problem comes in with the file size of the picture you've scanned in. The more resolution, the bigger the file. Color adds to the size as well. A high quality color scanned image can be 21MB in size or bigger! After a couple of pictures, you've eaten up all your hard drive! If you're not planning on doing photo retouching and colorizing and outputting back to film, then you may not need the highest resolution. If you're simply going to view the file on your screen and possibly print it out on a 300 dpi laser printer, then your average low cost scanner would be more than adequate for most purposes. Scanned files of this nature will range from 45k to 300k which is pretty reasonable. Simply estimate the number of pictures you think you'd like to collect and do the math to determine if you have adequate storage space on your hard disk. To conclude, if you can afford a low cost scanner and have the desire to collect photos in your computer, then go ahead. The technology is affordable. Finally, if you are going to do this I highly recommend getting a paint program that will allow you to "clean up" your scanned images. I prefer Photoshop from Adobe, but there are plenty of other programs on the market to choose from. A paint program will allow you to trim off excess material from the scanned image (again reducing the file size). It will also allow you to "zoom" in and/or "resize" your photo either bigger or smaller. And if you're brave enough...photoshop will allow you to "colorize" black and white photo's. Adding skin tone, blue sky's etc. This will really through your family for a loop when they see a color photo taken long before color film was used! If you do this and the image looks great you can take your colorized file to many print shops in your town where they often have film recorders that will "print" your image to 35mm film from which you can have slides or prints made. --Ken ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: DMCKAY@folio.com I have done some work over the past year or so on figuring out the best way to utilize the many photographs that I have in my collection. Most are personal family photos, but some are of ancestors and there are probably many others in the hands of family members which I would like to digitize. I use an HP ScanJet IICX (about $1,100 these days), but most any 24bit scanner these days will work sufficiently well. Most provide TWAIN (Technology Without An Intelligent Name) drivers so most Windows software will work with them. The software that I use (Aldus PhotoStyler) came with my scanner. Most any software package will work, I just happened to get a really good price (free) on this one. I've used PhotoShop, Image Pals, and a couple others - all work equally well for what I do. Since the input hardware and software don't seem to matter, you'll probably wonder what does matter. The answer is in the settings you use and how the images are processed. A bit of a preface here: I don't intend my scanned images to replace the originals, only to allow me to see them on my computer, I don't worry too much if I lose a little quality in my images when they are scanned and compressed. If I was concerned about this, my entire process would be completely different. I would probably choose to let Kodak scan the prints onto a Photo-CD. I scan images into PhotoStyler based on my best guess of final image size and quality. I generally don't pay much attention to resolution or dimensions. Since my final "output" is usually an image viewer on my screen, and since my viewer of choice scales images automatically based on their size and the size of the window I'm using, the scanned resolution (pixels per inch) really doesn't mean very much. I generally scan my images at a final size of at least 1000x800 pixels. For a 4"x6" photograph, this gives pretty good detail. For a 8"x10" photo, it's decent, but I usually go higher (in the 1500x1200 pixel range) sacrificing image size for better quality. I generally end up with images that are 2.5 - 5MB in size when they are stored as .BMP files. I have found that JPEG compression is by far the best to use for my purposes. I set the compression factor (again based on experience - not science) to a setting that will give my image good compression with a minimum of loss of detail. The files usually end up between 75 and 150KB. I can fit about 5,000 images on a single CD-ROM. To view the images I have created, I use two other pieces of software. To catalog and find my images with their thumbnails (based on date, subject, etc.), I use Folio VIEWS a full-text search and retrieval package (in case you're wondering - yes, I work for Folio.) To view the images after locating them, I use VuePrint (ftp.cica.indiana.edu in pub/pc/win3/desktop/vuepri30.zip) I should also mention that the hardware you are using to display your images on determines how good and how fast the images display. I would recommend to anyone considering these methods to have at a MINIMUM the following hardware (aside from the basic Windows 3.1 requirements): a 486 class machine, a video card and Windows driver capable of at least 32K colors in VGA (640x480 resolution) and at least 2MB of free RAM. A 386 with 256 colors will work, it will just be very slow, and will only look so-so. This is what I do with my images. Obviously there are lots of other ways of handling them, so please send comments and suggestions my way. Perhaps there is a list where we can discuss other methods? ...Doug McKay ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >From: Holmes A few paragraphs should be included on preservation of negatives. If you come across old negatives they should be stored either in archival holders or at the very least separated from each other. Lay them flat in a cool, dry area. Negatives do not like sunlight nor humidity. When you are lucky enough to find a glass negative it should be stored in a cardboard or bubble holder. I have two that are in excellent shape but are 8x10 size. Lastly, have some kind of inventory or Identification sheet with each negative. I number pictures and that corresponds to the roll number and frame number. This will make future identifications easier. This is for the pictures I have taken over the last 10 years. I intend to someday go back to my older pictures and classify the known ones. Adolph "Capt Video" Holmes aholmes@ultrix.ramapo.edu voice 201-529-7403 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: "Clark H. Cramer" RE: Personal recommendation for digital photo formats for genealogical records. There are two formats I would personally recommend (noting that my opinion is strictly personal). GIF for quick viewing and/or electronic publication such as on Internet, BBS, or CD-ROM recordable; and PhotoCD for commercially accessible high-quality scanning and archiving. -- GIF is a widely used format that uses a selected palette for each image. Much viewing software is available as free-, share- and commercial ware. By limiting the images to 256 colors and then compressing the image (internally in the file format) the files are comparatively small. Image conversion software is readily available, and many text/image display packages, including a genealogy program or two -- I think -- accept the GIF format. -- PhotoCD provides high-quality commercially available scanning (now of slides, future, of larger formats) with a file format that (like GIF) is platform independant. The individual files are large, running about 4MB, but they are delivered on CD-ROM. After the pictures are digitized, one need not worry about further color degradation of color images, and can have a good deal of success "cleaning-up" damaged photos. Virtually all CD-ROM readers now available read PhotoCD's (although check with the supplier) and retail prices, at least in the Washington, DC, area, can run as low as $150. All the PhotoCD software of which I am aware allow conversion to other file formats, such as GIF. Personally, I have turned to PhotoCD to protect a number of valuable and irreplaceable pictures, including several of the bear-skin rug variety taken of me ~1945. There was some color shift, but commonly available software allowed me to remove most of the shift and resave the "clensed" image. A technical note: If you plan to crop an image and convert it to a 256-color format such as GIF, do the cropping first, copying the cropped portion to a 24-bit (16-million-color) file, and then converting the 24-bit file to the reduced-color format. A better and more pleasing end product is generated. Finally, another compression form, JPEG, provides excellent storage capabilities, and is being increasingly used in the imaging industry. LIKE PhotoCD, JPEG is a LOSSY compression, in that the digital file you compress is not decompressed to an identical file. PhotoCD marketing mavens state that PhotoCD is lossless, but they must be speaking from the standpoint of the cursory viewer, not from the standpoint of whether the image file is altered. JPEG compression is controllable by the compressor, sometimes providing a compression of 50 (or more) to 1, but a wise selection of image compression control factor must be made so as to not get unacceptable degradation. (I guess PhotoCD, which gives a compression of about 4 to 1, can be thought of as providing acceptable degradation.) Looking for HART's -- Clark ccramer@usgs.gov opinion is personal ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: Carrie Stewart THE QUESTION: I am aware that photos are supposed to be written on only in pencil, etc., and that's fine for anything printed on older photographic papers. More recent photos, though, are printed on coated papers most of which will not take pencil. (I am aware that there is a Kodak paper that will, but I do not care for the work (B&W) of the local independent lab that uses it. As I understand it, archival standards require something that is both acid-free AND reversible. I have tried several pens other than ball point, but none are recommended for use on photos: 1. Faber Castell, OH-LUX 1524 This is sold as an overhead marker. It is watersoluble (reversible), it will come off on damp fingers (I know--you are supposed to wear gloves), and I do not think it is acid-free. 2. Pigma pen Advertised as "Permanent, acid-free, pigmented ink ... provides a waterproof line with no fading or discolouration under direct sunlight." 3. Light Impressions Film/Print Marking Pen "Fine tip writes on all plastics and film. Quick drying. Not water soluble." I have also considered acid-free labels with foil liners, but while they may be acid-free, I think the adhesives are permanent. How do YOU mark YOUR photos? -- Please and Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >From: Harry_Liggett@aldhfn.org (Harry Liggett) I know you have FAQ photo info, but this sounded good to me. Permission to use it is OK. Archival Photographs/Copying Old Photos By David M. Scott, Membership Secretary, Clan Scott Society ClanScott@aol.com Before I start giving my opinions on this subject, let me present my relevant credentials: I was formerly a freelance photographer accomplished enough to win first place in a national contest sponsored by Nikon. As operations manager of an in-house graphic arts operation, I oversaw a photo shop with a compete darkroom, studio, and two photographers and learned a great deal about color photography and graphic arts pre-press camera work. Now, I administer high-tech computer research. ********************************************* Copying old photographs for Archival purposes ********************************************* Copying old photos for archival purposes is not like making holiday snapshots. You can do this yourself if you don't trust someone else to do the work properly. If you live in a medium size town, there is a good chance there is a studio/lab that specializes in black & white work. Ask if they also do copy work. (Pretty good chance they do.) Do not take your treasured photos to a place that does quick printing or mainly color work. Ask if they do ARCHIVAL photography. If they do not know what you are talking about, look for someone else. Doing it yourself - depending on the condition of the photo, you may be able to do an acceptable job yourself. For a small (snapshot size) photo. All you need is two evenly matched light sources. For more precision work, you might wish to invest in a four light copy stand. Both lights should be at a 45 degree angle to the surface of the photo to eliminate glare. Table lamps will work in a pinch. If necessary, piece of clean, clear glass larger than the photo may be used to hold the flat. (The heat of the lights may cause the photograph to curl.) Turn off all other lights and close drapes to eliminate other light sources that may cause uneven lighting or glare. Use a fine grain (slow speed) black and white film. There are several on the market. Ilford and Kodak make the best. Use an single lens reflex adjustable camera (the type where you are actually seeing the subject through the camera lens - not an adjacent viewing lens and where you set the shutter speed in fractions of a second and the aperture in f-stops). get as close as you can to the photo and fill up the frame with the image. Shoot several photos at half f-stop intervals to insure optimum exposure and contrast. Long exposures are very likely. The film speed will be slow and you don't want too much heat or lights to destroy the original photo. Get a tripod, copy stand, or some other method to steady the camera rock-solid. You do not want to expose the photos to too much heat or bright lights for a extended time. The heat can cause the photograph to curl and both heat and light can accelerate the aging of the print. The heat will get to you, too. I suggest a cool, well ventilated room for the sake of both you and the original photo. That's the easy part. The processing and printing are the critical part. The film should be processed in a fine grain developer according to manufacturer's instructions. Special attention should be made for best detail in shadows. Do not push-process the film (underexpose and over develop). This will give you faster effective film speed but not good contrast and detail. Each generation (copy) of a photo will loose some detail and you are adding two generations (the film and the print). Choose the best negative for the print - good exposure and contrast. Print on rag (fiber) paper. Do not use resin-coated (RC) paper. Resin-coated paper is used by many photo labs because it takes less time to wash and dry but it has not been proven to be archival. Since the coating is like plastic, I suspect it will break down with light and/or time. Rag paper does not have a coating. If you want a shiny surface, you will have to ferrotype it - this means drying it face down on a polished surface. Photo labs have drum ferrotype dryers. Proper print processing is a must for archival photos. The chemicals should be fresh and the proper chemicals for the paper. The paper must be properly fixed AND washed. Special test kits exist to test a white area of the print to make sure all the hypo (fixer) has been removed. Improper fixing and washing will cause a photo to fade or turn black with time. When selecting the paper, be sure to select a low contrast grade - grade 2 or 3. You won't need a lot of contrast because you will want shadow detail but you need some to keep it from looking muddy. If you are really serious about long life for the photo, you should tone the photo. Several toners may be used. Gold toner is probably the best but is costly. More commonly used is a selenium toner which encapsulates the silver in the image so it will not "rust". Sepia toner could also be used. Be careful, these toners are dangerous - more so than ordinary photo chemicals - and skin contact should be limited. Use rubber gloves for protection. These chemicals and the exhausted fixer should be disposed of properly - they contain heavy metals that will cause problems with your local waste treatment plant. Storage/Display *************** Once printed, archival photos should not be handled with bare hands. Your photo shop carries white cotton gloves. Not only should these be used when handling the negatives to prevent damage, but they should be used to handle the prints. Acids and soil from your hands will eventually destroy the photo. Photos should be stored in acid-free boxes or displayed in acid free-mounts. A photo on display should have ultra-violet screening glass in front of it, too. Photos should be stored in a dark, dry, cool place for long life. (Yep, if you want to keep it a long time, you can't look at it!) Professional Archival Reproductions *********************************** If you wish to have a professional do this for you, you will probably end up with a better product - especially if you select a professional who specializes in archival photography. Ask questions about how the photo is to copied and printed. If you want archival quality, you should expect to pay for it. It is generally printed by hand and extra care is taken with the product. The professional should be using at least a 35mm camera with a close-up lens designed for closeup work, or extension tubes with a "normal" lens, or a bellows attachment with a "normal" lens. Lenses designed for close-up work are called macro lenses by most manufacturers (Nikon calls their's micro lenses.) The photographer should not be using "close up filters" since these result in inferior images. Better professionals will use a medium format (2.25x2.25 inch or 6x7cm film size) cameras to get a bigger image. A bigger image means better contrast and detail in the printing. Better optics and a larger film format will result in noticeably better reproductions. When dealing with a professional, you should agree UP FRONT who is to own the negatives. Courts have ruled that the negatives are "tools" of the trade, an intermediary step in producing a product. The default will be that the photographer retains rights to these negatives. They are the means of production so he can obtain repeat business. (Do you own a dressmaker's pattern if it is custom made for you? Do you own a printer's plates if he prints a book for you? No! Not unless they agree up front to turn them over to you!) If you want to keep the negatives (rather than trust them to the photographers filing & storage), you should arrange that before you allow work to begin. Prices quoted for work with the negatives retained by the customer should rightfully be higher. It is best agree to *all* the terms up front. Permanence of Other Mediums *************************** Any medium that requires a device (other than your eyes and sunlight) may not be truly archival because the device may no longer be available for viewing at some future date. (If the sun is not available, the whole exercise is moot!) In addition, some media are unstable. Color photographs by their very chemistry are not stable. Some will fade within a couple of years (paper type, process methods, and storage all play a part). *All* color photos will fade! Color slides are more permanent than prints, but will fade with time and light (of the projector, for instance) are subject to fungus, scratches, fumes, etc. that will ruin them. Video tape and other magnetic media will eventually loose the magnetic code due to ambient magnetic fields. CD-ROM and laser disks seem to be fairly permanent, but the technology to "decode" the images from the disk is ever-changing and we haven't had CD-ROM disks long enough to *really* know how permanent they are. Black and White silver-halide photography seems to be the most permanent method of archiving images other than paintings. All others either haven't had the test of time are have been proven to be too unstable. If you want any of your family photos to last longer than you do, have them copied and archival printed. Your family snapshots, wedding photos, even old black and white photos (especially those produced during WWII when there were chemical shortages and processing not as good) are all candidates. Perhaps your professional will give you a group rate! David M. Scott Membership Secretary Clan Scott Society ClanScott@aol.com -- Via DLG Pro v1.0 harry_liggett@aldhfn.org or harry_liggett@freenet.medina.org FidoNet: 1:157/534.13 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------