converting hardcopy to digital
Discussion
You could set them up in a decent light and rephotograph from exactly straight on - a longer lens will minimise distortion. It saves scanning time but you'll need to process for best results. You also have the choice whether to leave them low contrast sepia for authenticity or zing them up to taste...
You describe the scanner as "basic" but that could mean many things.
A higher end flatbed photo scanner may allow a higher throughput (it you don;t have a higher end scanner already). There are some fairly smart scanning applications around that allow, at least potentially, a lost of problem correction activities to be automated as part of the scan. They may not always work automatically to you satisfaction but will usually help.
In the end it all depends on what your objectives are how you might be able to compromise on the tedious aspects to a satisfactory level.
Anything you only expect to share electronically can be scanned at quite a low resolution which should be fairly fast. Anything you might want to prepare for printing at a fairly large size might need a little more or a lot more time and effort. There may be stuff that fits between the two.
Huge volumes may either suggest using an industrial scale office scanner of some sort or getting someone else to do them if you feel able to sned the originals away for the work to be undertaken.
Plan D would be to do it yourself but be very selective about which ones you care about.
A higher end flatbed photo scanner may allow a higher throughput (it you don;t have a higher end scanner already). There are some fairly smart scanning applications around that allow, at least potentially, a lost of problem correction activities to be automated as part of the scan. They may not always work automatically to you satisfaction but will usually help.
In the end it all depends on what your objectives are how you might be able to compromise on the tedious aspects to a satisfactory level.
Anything you only expect to share electronically can be scanned at quite a low resolution which should be fairly fast. Anything you might want to prepare for printing at a fairly large size might need a little more or a lot more time and effort. There may be stuff that fits between the two.
Huge volumes may either suggest using an industrial scale office scanner of some sort or getting someone else to do them if you feel able to sned the originals away for the work to be undertaken.
Plan D would be to do it yourself but be very selective about which ones you care about.
Thanks for the help guys. I'm wanting to do this as a free exercise if possible so i'll plod along scanning at the current pace, there is no rush anyway. Plus i've just noticed that quite a few of the albums have had the pictures glued in 
. I suspect its pritt stick.
I suppose my grandparents never thought about converting to JPEGS much in the 80's.
. I suspect its pritt stick.I suppose my grandparents never thought about converting to JPEGS much in the 80's.
A flatbed scanner is the most cost effective way to do this.
I have used a scanner where you fed the print in, a bit like a very fast laminator, where it would scan a print at 600dpi in about 10 seconds and spit it out the other end.. Was great for blasting through batches. It was build into the top of a massive printer though so hardly cost effective buying a £40k printer just to do some scanning
Photographing them will be even more tedious than scanning with a flatbed.
I have used a scanner where you fed the print in, a bit like a very fast laminator, where it would scan a print at 600dpi in about 10 seconds and spit it out the other end.. Was great for blasting through batches. It was build into the top of a massive printer though so hardly cost effective buying a £40k printer just to do some scanning
Photographing them will be even more tedious than scanning with a flatbed.
mini1380cc said:
Thanks for the help guys. I'm wanting to do this as a free exercise if possible so i'll plod along scanning at the current pace, there is no rush anyway. Plus i've just noticed that quite a few of the albums have had the pictures glued in . I suspect its pritt stick.
I suppose my grandparents never thought about converting to JPEGS much in the 80's.
My family had a a number of albums od stuff from several eras. It has pretty macu all trickled down to me as they have passed on over the years.. I suspect its pritt stick.I suppose my grandparents never thought about converting to JPEGS much in the 80's.
My wife, being somewhat keen on the family trees on the one hand and '"tidying" things on the other has tidied the albums to the point where they hardly exist as the historic record they were, complete with notes in some places. Many needed re-fixing... but it's way past time for that now. No idea who most of the people are or where the shots were taken in many cases.
That said a lot of the 20s and 30s stuff would probably not scan too well.
Were I looking at digitising what was there if it had been well stuck into an album I might, these days, consider setting up a simple rig with suitable lighting and a camera dedicated to copying them in situ. For many prints that may be a record of interest but not hugely significant that might be by far the quickest way of digitising them without de-mounting and re-mounting and the risk of damage or the destruction of the historic reference. Should be faster too.
The benefit if a dedicated flatbed scanner really comes into play when you can use any available 'fixes' for 'repair' of poor prints or correction of faded colours and so on.
That said it's all very dependent on exactly what you have got, what you could reasonably do with it, and what level of expectation you have for the results. Plus how much time and patience you have available.
So a year or so ago I converted a load old photos to digital by just taking photos of them.
I already had a macro studio box I'd made (take old cardboard box, cut sides out and replace with tracing paper).
Then just used 2 cheap manual flashes (you could use 2 desk lamps instead) to light the box and a tripod to hold the camera. 50mm lens set the focus and switched it to manual so I wouldn't have to wait every time for it to focus.
Once you have the flash levels correct and the focus correct it's a pretty fast process.
I didn't worry too much about the photos being perfectly straight as it was quicker to fix that and crop in post.
I already had a macro studio box I'd made (take old cardboard box, cut sides out and replace with tracing paper).
Then just used 2 cheap manual flashes (you could use 2 desk lamps instead) to light the box and a tripod to hold the camera. 50mm lens set the focus and switched it to manual so I wouldn't have to wait every time for it to focus.
Once you have the flash levels correct and the focus correct it's a pretty fast process.
I didn't worry too much about the photos being perfectly straight as it was quicker to fix that and crop in post.
LongQ said:
It has pretty much all trickled down to me as they have passed on over the years.
That said it's all very dependent on exactly what you have got, what you could reasonably do with it, and what level of expectation you have for the results. Plus how much time and patience you have available.
This is pretty much what has happened with me. My gran has passed on the collection knowing she wont be around much longer. That said it's all very dependent on exactly what you have got, what you could reasonably do with it, and what level of expectation you have for the results. Plus how much time and patience you have available.
Also another reason I want to digitise them is that they are decaying ( not sure what the professional term is). As for the results i'm just interested in saving them as is, i'm not going to delve into digital repair or some such.
cornet said:
Once you have the flash levels correct and the focus correct it's a pretty fast process.
I didn't worry too much about the photos being perfectly straight as it was quicker to fix that and crop in post.
mini1380cc said:
cornet said:
Once you have the flash levels correct and the focus correct it's a pretty fast process.
I didn't worry too much about the photos being perfectly straight as it was quicker to fix that and crop in post.
It has occurred to me that if the pics are suitably mounted in an album - ie open mounted rather than behind some sort of self sealing cover that might cause reflections problems and not glossy finish paper - that a recent hi-res camera could probably be used to shoot an entire page at a time and then simply crop out the individual shots if desired. Doing that would also give a reference point for any anotations in the album.
Specific images if greater interest could then be removed and separately processed if required.
If any require colours fixing - 70s and 80s colour lab processing seems to lack even if stored in the dark - I would imagine that could be acheived with a regualr editor but if not the better scanner software usually has facilities to do fix colours when scanning so they might be special cases.
Simpo makes a good point about potential concerns for digital storage of iimages. But then fire and flood or even just dampness can be detrimental to prints and film. Much easier to get an offsite backup in place with digital as well should one feel the need.
Much to consider.
Specific images if greater interest could then be removed and separately processed if required.
If any require colours fixing - 70s and 80s colour lab processing seems to lack even if stored in the dark - I would imagine that could be acheived with a regualr editor but if not the better scanner software usually has facilities to do fix colours when scanning so they might be special cases.
Simpo makes a good point about potential concerns for digital storage of iimages. But then fire and flood or even just dampness can be detrimental to prints and film. Much easier to get an offsite backup in place with digital as well should one feel the need.
Much to consider.
I definitely think that photo'ing entire pages could be the answer. Quick archive, kept the information, work on at leisure later.
I am piecemeal scanning and photoing for MrsBeano's family history archives. It is quite amazing how you can photo a little tiny photo, tweak it a bit and then turn up with an image on an iPad at a Family History Show and get some experts to pore over a badge or some little detail. With faded photo's we've found all sorts of things, like dogs sitting on laps that no one realised were there too.
Hell, I've just realised that for c£20 a year (a fraction of the cost of a new HD and forgetting the time involved) my entire music collection (well minus all the CDs and vinyl I've lost over the years) is in the Cloud and I don't even bother worrying about updating the hard disc every addition.
Have already set my Mac to ask if I want images off the card sent to Dropbox - all it needs is for that to come down in £/Tb for it to be the norm for me.
I am piecemeal scanning and photoing for MrsBeano's family history archives. It is quite amazing how you can photo a little tiny photo, tweak it a bit and then turn up with an image on an iPad at a Family History Show and get some experts to pore over a badge or some little detail. With faded photo's we've found all sorts of things, like dogs sitting on laps that no one realised were there too.
LongQ said:
Much easier to get an offsite backup in place with digital as well should one feel the need.
As much as I am a Luddite, this is probably the way to go. Yes, it's a big trust thing, but a Cloud-based backup is probably THE future.Hell, I've just realised that for c£20 a year (a fraction of the cost of a new HD and forgetting the time involved) my entire music collection (well minus all the CDs and vinyl I've lost over the years) is in the Cloud and I don't even bother worrying about updating the hard disc every addition.
Have already set my Mac to ask if I want images off the card sent to Dropbox - all it needs is for that to come down in £/Tb for it to be the norm for me.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff