Scanning photographs

[Mungbeans]

I've decided to try my hand at learning photo restoration.  I have a good scanner and PSP X .

I have several old photographs that need fixing.

My first idea is to just scan everything into my computer, then I can return the originals to their rightful owners.  As I only get one go at this, my question is:

What is the best DPI and format to scan originals for storage.  I'm thinking 600 dpi and tiff, as it is lossless.  Is the DPI sufficient or should I make it 1200 just in case?

Once I've got the photos scanned I'll back them up onto CD for storage.  That way I'll always have the untouched originals to work on.

Once I get working on restoration I'm assuming its best to get a copy as a psp format for restoration within PSP X.

Leonie

[rkaa]

If I were you, I'd scan at the highest resolution the scanner is good for. (Not interpolated though.) In this case, bigger is better and you never know what size you may want a print for.  If you want small copies, you can always scale down and maintain the quality. Doesn't work the other way around though.

As for storage media; CD's are not very fit for long term storage. They vary in quality but the worst ones are unreadable after a year. The plastic coating on poor quality CDs oxydize with age, turn opaque, and the laser can no longer see through it after a while.
So make sure you buy quality media, and burn anew after some years.

I use an external USB disk instead - tidyer, much higher capacity, and magnetic storage is in general more reliable. At least when kept them away from electromagnetic fields. And it's possible to resque data from severely damaged HD's. Not so with CD's.

And yes - uncompressed TIFF is lossless - I use that too for originals.

R.K.

[Mungbeans]

I've been playing around this afternoon.  A normal postcard sized black and white photograph scanned in colour at 600 DPI comes in at about 21 mbs.  Considering a CD only contains 650 mb it wouldn't take much to fill a CD. 

At the moment CD is really my only backup option.  I'll just have to make sure I get backups onto my other computers in case of hard drive failure.

I'll take your advice and get some good CDs for back up and also for the copies I'll be giving my family this Christmas.

Cheers
Leonie

[Mungbeans]

Just out of curiosity.  Why do scanned photographs come out so much darker than the original photographs?  I always have to adjust the contrast on all my scanned images.

Is this normal or a problem with my scanner?

Leonie

[rkaa]

Just out of curiosity.  Why do scanned photographs come out so much darker than the original photographs?  I always have to adjust the contrast on all my scanned images.

Is this normal or a problem with my scanner?

Leonie

Perhaps your scanner - and perhaps only the way you scan:

Most scanner software has a preview function. Use that. A "quick-scan" will be performed, and displays approximately how the final scan will look.

Around the preview is a "running ants" kind of border - or stipled line. Mouse over the edge of it. When the cursor becomes a "double arrow": Drag the stipled border and adjust it so it only surrounds the actual target area; the photo itself. The software will always adjust for what it believes is optimal contrast and colors within whatever is the selection area at any time.

This means that while the selection area still covers the whole scanner plate, you will usually also have a large, extremely white area selected: The color of the scanner lid.  If you scan then, without adjusting the selection, the contrast settings will not be optimal for the photo but rather for the entire surface: Photo AND lid and whatever else is visible. This will usually make the photo appear much darker than it should be, as the software tries to expose the "details" in all that white stuff. And the file will become much larger too, using more resources (in particular RAM) during the scan etc.

If the scan gets too bright after adjusting: Make the selection a little larger. It's usually a good idea to also select the "white" edge around a photo - assuming that will be the brightest part of the scan. The software will use that as the "white balance reference".

Hope this helps.

R.K.

[Guy Etchells]

If I were you, I'd scan at the highest resolution the scanner is good for. (Not interpolated though.) In this case, bigger is better and you never know what size you may want a print for. If you want small copies, you can always scale down and maintain the quality. Doesn't work the other way around though.

As for storage media; CD's are not very fit for long term storage. They vary in quality but the worst ones are unreadable after a year. The plastic coating on poor quality CDs oxydize with age, turn opaque, and the laser can no longer see through it after a while.
So make sure you buy quality media, and burn anew after some years.

I use an external USB disk instead - tidyer, much higher capacity, and magnetic storage is in general more reliable. At least when kept them away from electromagnetic fields. And it's possible to resque data from severely damaged HD's. Not so with CD's.

And yes - uncompressed TIFF is lossless - I use that too for originals.

R.K.

I totally agree with the first part of this reply but question the second.
I have been burning CDs since 1996 without any long term failures, but there have been hard drive failures in approx 25% of hard drives used in that period.
Some after only a few months use.
Cheers
Guy

[MaryA]

This has been mentioned before on Rootschat, if you are bothered about long term storage, use a google mail account, by invitation from somebody who already has one - about 2600 Mb of storage free to keep all your storage offline.  I have some invitations spare if you pm me with your email address, don't clutter up this thread with requests.

Mary

[rkaa]

I totally agree with the first part of this reply but question the second.
I have been burning CDs since 1996 without any long term failures, but there have been hard drive failures in approx 25% of hard drives used in that period.
Some after only a few months use.
Cheers
Guy

Well it will please you to know you probably qualify for a place in the Guinness book of records, as far as mishaps with harddisks are concerned At work we have around 800 computers and if there's been a harddisk/disk controller problem with more than 2% of them over the past 21 years I've worked in the IT dept., I'd very be surprised.  And it's almost always a controller problem, if anything. For better recundancy, why not set up a little RAID.

Anway: I'm certain we'll both be sound and alive when your first CD breaks down. Some quote a 75 year life expectancy on CDs. That's IMO extremely optimistic. The product as such has barely rounded 20 years.  And that life expectancy sinks dramatically if stored at high temperatures, exposed to light, chemicals etc. Imagine that... they are read with a laser light but degrade when exposed to light... something doesn't quite rhyme.

Remember the old "Video Laser Disks"? The "glue" in the middle corroded and withered to powder after 10 years. The disks simply fell apart.

Several CD media, typically from manufacturers in Hong Kong and Taiwan, are of very low quality and should be avoided. Anyone can tell you that. But also well known labels have their "lemons" - some rewritables go sour after a short while. I've never had a disk crash myself, but I've certainly had  many bad CDs. Of one 10-pack of "no-label" CD-Rs, only 5 were writable at all, for instance.

The "one year" worst case CD lifespan I referred to earlyer, was from a test discussed at Slashdot some years back. Searched for it now but gave up. "The truth is out there", though. In the same test, several brands also lasted only 2 and 3 years. I think you're lucky who have all your CDs intact after 10 years. You must have bought quality media. But if you intend to keep the data on them, you should probably plan for remastering the older ones in the "not too distant future".

Another problem with CDs: The thin coating containing the data layer is immediately below the "label" side print. Highly vulnerable to mechanical tear and wear. Not all realize that and write on CDs with ballpens etc. For long term storage purposes the CD shouldn't be exposed to "alien" chemicals at all - that includes felt pens and stickers.

R.K.

[Berlin-Bob]

Just a general thought:

- there are various degrees of quality of recording media, whether paper, disc, film, or even the human mind

- there are various degrees of quality of recording equipment, whether scanners, cameras, pens, word of mouth, etc.

-  there are various degrees of quality of the material being recorded

Given all these variables, it is probably unlikely that anyone can give a definitive statement
about what is best, as a large degree of luck also seems to play a part.

Probably the "best" way is to make copies on different media, in the hopes that something or other will survive, and to go for "better quality" media and recording equipment. And as R.K. says

But if you intend to keep the data on them, you should probably plan for remastering the older ones in the "not too distant future".

I say "better quality" in quotes, as there are many cases of good quality firms selling under "no name" labels.

The PC magazines tend to do surveys every so often of raw CDs and DVDs so it is probably worth keeping an eye out at the newsagents, for the next survey

In Germany, the Consumer Watchdog mags. also do surveys --  is "Which" still going, in Britain ? -- that might also be worth a look, or equivalent mags. in other countries.

Bob

ps:
Another point to bear in mind (for long-term planning), is that recording media change !!  There are many horror stories of firms and governments carefull collecting and saving data on magnetic tapes and punch cards -- but the necessary equipment for reading them isn't being made any more !!!!

So keep a weather-eye on technical changes, and be prepared to transfer your collection of CDs and DVDs onto whatever the newest "standard" recording medium is, every 10-15 years !