getting old photos onto a disk

[Coco H]

I have a stack of a few photos and some pregnancy scans and babyfootprints - all of which Iwould like scanned in onto a disk. (the scans and footprints - advise that you should have these scanned in as they fade badly).

Having spoken to friends - none of us have a scanner that is high quality enough. So where would I go to get this done? A photo shop?

[14-7]

I'm sure Jessops do it if there is one near to you.

[itsnotarace]

A scanner will cost £50

If you take them to a shop, unless you are only talking about 10 photos, it will cost you more than £50

[Simpo Two]

Are these photographs prints or transparencies?

If prints, a 'normal' flatbed scanner will be fine.

If transparencies, what size?

[4hero]

Whatever you do, don't laminate the original scans. I stupidly laminated our first scan and it turned black

[Coco H]

It's a mix of old photos - some of which need repair!

[The_Jackal]

Remember you can increase the scanning resolution, you will probably find your scanner is ok if it was bought in the last 3 years or so.
As for repairing photo, loads on here can do that, including me.

[mmertens]

If you don't intend to blow up the digitized pictures to huge proportions photographing them with a decent digital camera (say 8 or 10 Mpix minimum), using a tripod and some makeshift lighting - or even daylight - is a good, quick alternative to scanning. If you have a DSLR any decent lens at 50+ mm at f8 or something could be used, not much less to avoid distortion. If you have more than a few photos this can save loads of time compared to a scanner. If you set things up correctly the only thing you may need to do is some cropping of the pictures. Depending on the state of your originals you might keep them flat with a plate of glass, but be careful to avoid reflections.

Maarten

[cottonfoo]

mmertens said:

If you don't intend to blow up the digitized pictures to huge proportions photographing them with a decent digital camera (say 8 or 10 Mpix minimum), using a tripod and some makeshift lighting - or even daylight - is a good, quick alternative to scanning.

It's a huge pain in the arse for more than a couple of photos, and printed photos aren't anywhere near as flat as on a flatbed. Any external light will mess things up, at least the white balance, even diffuse daylight.

A 50 quid scanner will do at least four average-sized photos at once. Do a few test scans to get things right (you can preview the scans first) and the rest are a breeze. Sell it afterwards if you like but they do come in handy now and again.

[Simpo Two]

Assuming by 'photo' you mean 'print', 300dpi is ample for most purposes, well within reach of domestic scanners these days. Get cracking

[mmertens]

cottonfoo said:

mmertens said:

If you don't intend to blow up the digitized pictures to huge proportions photographing them with a decent digital camera (say 8 or 10 Mpix minimum), using a tripod and some makeshift lighting - or even daylight - is a good, quick alternative to scanning.

It's a huge pain in the arse for more than a couple of photos, and printed photos aren't anywhere near as flat as on a flatbed. Any external light will mess things up, at least the white balance, even diffuse daylight.

A 50 quid scanner will do at least four average-sized photos at once. Do a few test scans to get things right (you can preview the scans first) and the rest are a breeze. Sell it afterwards if you like but they do come in handy now and again.

Your arse is overly sensitive methinks - if you get the setup right it's definitely quicker than a scanner, and the flatness isn't an issue if you use a plate of glass. You're probably right it takes a bit of fiddling to get things right (mixed lighting is certainly a no-no) but I did this on multiple occasions with a tethered setup and it is really much more convenient than using a flatbed. Anyway, it was just a suggestion to save the OP some cash if he has a camera and a tripod, and it didn't sound to me like he needed every last pixel in quality. I do agree with you that a decent scanner only costs a few quid and he can even save more cash by buying on Ebay, 100's of people not using theirs....

[Coco H]

Thanks for the advice - I have got a compnmay to do the repair work for me as it a one and only picture. They will do the others too. (at great expense I hasten to add). Right now the baby is poorly again and I don't have any time.
BUT I would love to know what decent camera I could buy and scanner?

[The_Jackal]

Just out of interest how much are they charging to scan and repair a picture (I assume in Photoshop).

[GetCarter]

mmertens said:

If you don't intend to blow up the digitized pictures to huge proportions photographing them with a decent digital camera (say 8 or 10 Mpix minimum), using a tripod and some makeshift lighting - or even daylight - is a good, quick alternative to scanning.

I do this a lot. Controlled lighting without reflections can be difficult mind.... esp with gloss prints.

Any Canon, Nikon, Sony entry level DSLR will get you good results if you get the lighting right and use a tripod. Outside on a dull day works fine. (these all done this way: http://www.jilljeffrey.com/ )

[Dan_1981]

If I was to want a scanner to scan old photos in what would people reccomend?

Somethign pretty quick, decent enough resolution but not too expensive - ie less than 100 quid?

[The_Jackal]

To be honest anything from PC is suitable.
£30 will get you an all in one that will scan at 300 dpi. You dont need anything fancy for scanning photos in.

[Coco H]

Scan and repair - dont' know yet - will let you know. The individual scans are pence - obviously all adds up.
I dont' have a decent camera