SCANNING INSIGHT

[jmagarac]

I see and read a lot of comments and questions on here about "scanning" resolution and multiple inquiries about how one can get the best results (or improve their results) from the scanner that they have. Most seem to be using ALL-IN-ONE printer copiers these days. HP is a popular one. No offense or slight is intended for those using better and more expensive scanner hardware and software.

I have been in the business of scanning for over 30 years. I have scanned imagery on large format drum scanners, (Crosfield - UK, DS - Japan and Hell - Germany) to high end flatbeds like Scitex. Very expensive equipment and all cutting edge at the time. With digital photography now the norm, you have very little need or requests for these type of scans (from these scanners) and they have even become hard to find.

Most people are using everyday home office scanners - to mid range flatbeds and some even still invest in the more expensive reflective and slide scanners.

To illustrate the difference between a home scanner scan versus a business professional scan, I have attached two images. One from my home HP Inspire 7200 ALL-IN-ONE scanner printer, and one from my office Epson Expression XL.

Both of these were scanned at 1200 DPI. Both the HP and Epson profess 1200 DPI True Optical resolution (more on that later). Neither full res captures would fit into the 900KB maximum post allowance - so both have been scaled and compressed - making them even more similar for viewing, than they truly are at full size.

You will note that the HP might actually look a little better than the more expensive Epson. That is a bit of an illusion. Although the HP Smart app has Enhanced features in Preference (Auto-Enhancements, Auto-Heal, Auto-Orientation and Flatten Book Pages), I turned them ALL OFF. I wanted its unenhanced capture. So... is the HP better???

Well... the HP cost around 160 dollars (US) and the Epson new was around 4,000 dollars (US). The HP added more contrast and perceived detail (at a lower viewing size), but the Epson is actually much closer to the colors and tone of the original (it was a bit washed and faded). Additionally, when these scans are zoomed in on at the original 1200 DPI resolution, one can see a marked difference in detail.

I will follow up with a section of a scan area in my addendum to this.

[jmagarac]

When viewed online at the scaled and compressed rendition of my dear old Dad's grade school photo, one might conclude, there isn't much difference between the Inspire and the Expression. One might even prefer the HP home scan. But when viewed on my monitor, at full resolution and in multiple ZOOM levels, it is apparent that the Epson Expressions 1200 DPI is worth the expense - if one is truly trying to capture all the detail that exists in the original.

Attached is an enlarged area of the scans. You will note that the HP has more muddied, mottled pixels in the flat even tones within the shirt lapel. The Epson Expression has actually captured the texture of the photograph's surface - in great detail. The stain on the photo in this area is also much crisper, and better defined.

Bottom line - it is amazing what 160 dollars can do for you these days. Something unheard of or inconceivable 40 years ago. AND they will likely get better. BUT... 4,000 dollars will currently still get you a more professional result.

Stands to reason - why does one costs 160 and the other 4,000??? The answer is usually a logical conclusion.

As for the scans done and submitted for Restoration, follow to the best of your abilities the advice that has been shared so often by many on here. Clean your flatbed surfaces and wipe them of dust. Lay your original flat and use at least a 600 DPI setting if at all possible in your setup. When sizing them to fit the maximum allowance, you may have to scale them down a bit, and use some moderate compression. Try doing this all in one swoop, and not in successive steps - as this will degrade your image more than you need to.

[waynenort]

I have quite a few older b/w & sepia photos and have tried various scanners - the office scanner and home flatbed versions. Both generated okay but not great results when scanning the photos.

I found the scans were missing the subtleties in the old photos, especially in faded areas.

Since I don't have access to a good scanner, could photography generate great results? I've set up a photography studio at our work for our graphic design team with a decent Nikon digital camera and continuous Godox softbox lighting.

Have been meaning to try photographing a few of my older photo prints, but have yet to try.

[jmagarac]

I have quite a few older b/w & sepia photos and have tried various scanners - the office scanner and home flatbed versions. Both generated okay but not great results when scanning the photos.

I found the scans were missing the subtleties in the old photos, especially in faded areas.

Since I don't have access to a good scanner, could photography generate great results? I've set up a photography studio at our work for our graphic design team with a decent Nikon digital camera and continuous Godox softbox lighting.

Yes. I have found that a higher end camera, particularly with studio setup and soft boxes will indeed produce acceptable and sometimes even outstanding results. Obviously, you have to position your lights correctly, eliminate any glare, play with your settings a bit. Use f22 (not f5.6 - you are not shooting a portrait). You want complete depth of field. Speed of your lens isn't relevant as you are shooting something static - not moving. If using a zoom lens of any sort - use the sweet spot - usually somewhere in the middle range. That being said, i have gotten better results in a visiting office by using my iPhone by a nearby window versus using their Xerox office copier to scan - which by the way... is terrible.

Have been meaning to try photographing a few of my older photo prints, but have yet to try.

[waynenort]

It looks like I'll be busy in the coming weeks 

Thank you