Scanning old photos
Discussion
When my parents in law died we kept all the family photos. I now want to scan them for my wife but want to make sure I do it right first time.
We have a fairly average Epson MFD (SX525WD) and I've established that I should be scanning at 600dpi. Is there anything else I need to consider, or any tips and tricks?
We have a fairly average Epson MFD (SX525WD) and I've established that I should be scanning at 600dpi. Is there anything else I need to consider, or any tips and tricks?
If you’re just scanning the photo and not going to process them further then you might want to check what the scanning software has in terms of enhancing the scans. For example correcting fade, dust removal or whatever.
Try a couple through first to see what results you get.
After that you’ll need lots of patience, a few bottles and your favourite comfort food next to you.......I’ve done it twice, once for each set of parents, and it’s bloody turgid.
Try a couple through first to see what results you get.
After that you’ll need lots of patience, a few bottles and your favourite comfort food next to you.......I’ve done it twice, once for each set of parents, and it’s bloody turgid.
You may find that 300dpi is enough, and it will make the resultant files much smaller.
If they're normal size prints you can save time by scanning four in one go, then crop the image into four. I'd suggest you need something like Photoshop or simpler equivalent to bash the results into how you like them.
If they're normal size prints you can save time by scanning four in one go, then crop the image into four. I'd suggest you need something like Photoshop or simpler equivalent to bash the results into how you like them.
steveatesh said:
If you’re just scanning the photo and not going to process them further then you might want to check what the scanning software has in terms of enhancing the scans. For example correcting fade, dust removal or whatever.
Try a couple through first to see what results you get.
After that you’ll need lots of patience, a few bottles and your favourite comfort food next to you.......I’ve done it twice, once for each set of parents, and it’s bloody turgid.
Thanks, will check. I know it's going to be a pain, but I'm recently retired Try a couple through first to see what results you get.
After that you’ll need lots of patience, a few bottles and your favourite comfort food next to you.......I’ve done it twice, once for each set of parents, and it’s bloody turgid.
sgtBerbatov said:
If you're scanning the negatives then you might be as well to either use a DSLR with a light box or a better scanner.
If it's just prints you should be alright, and find some good scanning software that will do colour balance and dust removal etc.
Some of them are quite faded so I'm hoping to sort the colour on a number of them.If it's just prints you should be alright, and find some good scanning software that will do colour balance and dust removal etc.
Simpo Two said:
You may find that 300dpi is enough, and it will make the resultant files much smaller.
If they're normal size prints you can save time by scanning four in one go, then crop the image into four. I'd suggest you need something like Photoshop or simpler equivalent to bash the results into how you like them.
I'll do some tests at 300dpi. They are mostly taken with a typical 70's compact camera so the quality isn't great to start with.If they're normal size prints you can save time by scanning four in one go, then crop the image into four. I'd suggest you need something like Photoshop or simpler equivalent to bash the results into how you like them.
We did this with my FiL old slides.
In the end we bought a cheap slide scanner off amazon.
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic, and a stupendously expensive solution couldnt fix that.
TL: DR
Check the quality of what you're copying before you go for an expensive solution.
In the end we bought a cheap slide scanner off amazon.
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic, and a stupendously expensive solution couldnt fix that.
TL: DR
Check the quality of what you're copying before you go for an expensive solution.
sociopath said:
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic....
If they were slides they probably weren't taken on an Instamatic (126 film), but you're right in that you can't add information that's not there.Sounds obvious, but keep the platter clean. Very easy to get a smudge or some dust on it when you're enthusiastically placing lots of photos one after another for scanning. Very annoying to then start looking at them on screen for any correction or adjustments and discover the same mark on every photo....
Simpo Two said:
sociopath said:
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic....
If they were slides they probably weren't taken on an Instamatic (126 film), but you're right in that you can't add information that's not there.
StevieBee said:
Simpo Two said:
sociopath said:
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic....
If they were slides they probably weren't taken on an Instamatic (126 film), but you're right in that you can't add information that's not there.sociopath said:
StevieBee said:
Simpo Two said:
sociopath said:
We decided it wasn't worth spending more time and money because at the end of the day the slide content was old, out of focus, 1960s family stuff, taken on a crap kodak instamatic....
If they were slides they probably weren't taken on an Instamatic (126 film), but you're right in that you can't add information that's not there.This just sparked a memory of those square flash bulbs you'd stick on the top! Photo-kids today eh? Don't know what they missed out on!
clived said:
Sounds obvious, but keep the platter clean. Very easy to get a smudge or some dust on it when you're enthusiastically placing lots of photos one after another for scanning. Very annoying to then start looking at them on screen for any correction or adjustments and discover the same mark on every photo....
Good tip!Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff