PDA

View Full Version : Scanning family pictures


S. Craig
10 September 2005, 03:36 AM
Hello all,

I have recently come into contact with about 100 pictures, many of which are of distant relatives of mine. They will never belong to me but may be donated to our local Historical Society of which I am vice-president.

I have been asked to scan them for our (small, young and poor) Society and then print them out on 8 X 10 sheets of regular paper to be able to add notes when showing them to some elderly descendants of our common ancestor for identification purposes.

--About half of the pictures are 2.5 inches X 4 inches. The other half are larger, about 4X 6 inches.
--I don't forsee blowing many to 8 X 10 on photo paper. Probably the largest will be 5 X 7.
--Also I am not planning on publishing to the web.
--I work on a Mac but most others are on IBM.
--I was planning on scanning and then saving them to a DVD or CD both for myself and the Historical Society (of which the owner of the pictures is aware of). Space or size isn't really an issue (I think-if I save to DVD or CD).

My question is: When scanning, will 200 spi be sufficient?

From all I have read, I am not sure which format to save it in. I have PhotoshopElements and the first three formats (in my question) all have good reasons to use them. Would you recommend that I save in Photoshop, Photoshop PDF, TIFF or JPEG?

If I decide to save some of the better photos on my iMac, would you recommend that I save them in the same format and in my Pictures folder, iPhoto folder or PhotoshopElements folder?

If I decide to link some of these photos to a family in Reunion, should I rescan with a smaller resolution or can I just resave?

There is also a small photo (1 X 1.5 inches), I am unable to get a good look at the 3 people in the picture to identify them. I would like to scan it at the maximum (I believe 1600) will that be too big or take too much memory to scan?


I thank you for any input and suggestions any of you may give me.

Sherry

dfilpus
10 September 2005, 11:07 AM
My question is: When scanning, will 200 spi be sufficient?Probably not. I hope you mean DPI. The proper DPI is dependant on what you want to do with the pictures.

For printing, the DPI when you print is the most important. If you scan an image in at, say, 300 DPI and then blow it up to double size, then the resulting image will be at 150 DPI. All images to print should be at the optimal scan DPI, that is the resolution for the given printer and paper for which any increase in resolution will not improve the photograph. For inexpensive consumer grade photo printers, that may be 300 DPI or may be up to 1200 DPI. For professional printers, the resolution may be higher. For my printers and paper, I print at 300-600 DPI. So I scan at the DPI that will result in the resolution in the that range when the photo is enlarged to the appropriate.

I was planning on scanning and then saving them to a DVD or CD both for myself and the Historical Society (of which the owner of the pictures is aware of). Space or size isn't really an issue (I think-if I save to DVD or CD).Then scan at the highest resolution the scanner scans optimally.

From all I have read, I am not sure which format to save it in. I have PhotoshopElements and the first three formats (in my question) all have good reasons to use them. Would you recommend that I save in Photoshop, Photoshop PDF, TIFF or JPEG?Assuming that you are scanning directly into Photoshop Elements, save in Photoshop (.psd). This format is not efficient, but does not affect the scan in any way. Then you can modify the image in the future without any artifacting. The other three formats will modify the image slightly. Any modification of the image, such as enlargement or color correction or reaving to different formats, will have to convert the image back to standard Photoshop anyway. Use one of other three formats to transfer the image to other tools, depending on what those tools handle. TIFF has very little image modification, but creates large files. JPEG creates much smaller files and can do so with relatively little image modification.

If I decide to link some of these photos to a family in Reunion, should I rescan with a smaller resolution or can I just resave?Photoshop Elements will allow you to adjust the resolution and resave. However, you should always archive the highest resolution images.

There is also a small photo (1 X 1.5 inches), I am unable to get a good look at the 3 people in the picture to identify them. I would like to scan it at the maximum (I believe 1600) will that be too big or take too much memory to scan?Set the scanner to only scan the photograph. A 1 x 1.5 inch image at 1600 dpiwill take less memory than a 3 X 5 image at 600 dpi.

S. Craig
11 September 2005, 12:20 AM
Thanks so much for the information and recommandations. Now the fun stuff is just starting!!

Sherry

PS: ReunionTalk is the greatest!!!!

AE Palmer
12 September 2005, 08:47 PM
The other three formats will modify the image slightly. Any modification of the image, such as enlargement or color correction or reaving to different formats, will have to convert the image back to standard Photoshop anyway. Use one of other three formats to transfer the image to other tools, depending on what those tools handle. TIFF has very little image modification, but creates large files. JPEG creates much smaller files and can do so with relatively little image modification.

Whatever you do, do NOT use .jpg format to save your original digital images! Each time you modify and save a .jpg, you are destroying the image quality.

As a curator for a local museum who has to deal with digital images, I have instituted a policy of using only .psd or .tif formats for storing all original and modified images. The ONLY time I allow the use of .jpg is for web publication where image quality is of limited interest.

Geoff Tani
14 September 2005, 09:50 PM
Whatever you do, do NOT use .jpg format to save your original digital images! Each time you modify and save a .jpg, you are destroying the image quality.

As a curator for a local museum who has to deal with digital images, I have instituted a policy of using only .psd or .tif formats for storing all original and modified images. The ONLY time I allow the use of .jpg is for web publication where image quality is of limited interest.Does your policy of using only .psd or .tif apply to digitized documents as well? I have a lot of documents -- hand-written letters, birth certificates, etc. -- which I want to scan. I will publish some of them to the web. I will burn all of them to DVD (more portable than boxes of paper). Maybe someday, a small portion of them might appear as illustrations in a book. I want the images to be readable on screen, and also to print out well at letter/A4 size.

Given that they have to be readable -- which I assumed is a lower standard than images -- I planned on saving the scans as 300dpi jpgs. However, other people have recommended that the publishing standard for digitized documents is minimum 600dpi tif.

The difference in file size is huge. One A4 greyscale scan at 300dpi jpg = 500k-1.5MB. The same document scanned at 600dpi tif = 33MBs.

Hard drives are cheap, so space is not really a limiting factor, but it seems like unnecessary bloat. Is it really necessary to save document scans to such a high standard and create such big files? Or, if there is a recommended resolution setting for document scans, what is it?

Thanks,

Geoff

AE Palmer
15 September 2005, 10:05 PM
Does your policy of using only .psd or .tif apply to digitized documents as well? I have a lot of documents -- hand-written letters, birth certificates, etc. -- which I want to scan. I will publish some of them to the web. I will burn all of them to DVD (more portable than boxes of paper). Maybe someday, a small portion of them might appear as illustrations in a book. I want the images to be readable on screen, and also to print out well at letter/A4 size.

Given that they have to be readable -- which I assumed is a lower standard than images -- I planned on saving the scans as 300dpi jpgs. However, other people have recommended that the publishing standard for digitized documents is minimum 600dpi tif.

The difference in file size is huge. One A4 greyscale scan at 300dpi jpg = 500k-1.5MB. The same document scanned at 600dpi tif = 33MBs.

Hard drives are cheap, so space is not really a limiting factor, but it seems like unnecessary bloat. Is it really necessary to save document scans to such a high standard and create such big files? Or, if there is a recommended resolution setting for document scans, what is it?

Thanks,

Geoff

For your 1st question, yes

Bill Williams
23 September 2005, 11:56 AM
Whatever you do, do NOT use .jpg format to save your original digital images! Each time you modify and save a .jpg, you are destroying the image quality.This is true in general, but what about saving .jpg pictures to a CD or DVD for archival purposes or sharing with family? Assuming a "write-only" disk is used, the .jpg files should remain unchanged until the disk itself "withers away" (figuratively speaking), right?

AE Palmer
23 September 2005, 07:50 PM
This is true in general, but what about saving .jpg pictures to a CD or DVD for archival purposes or sharing with family? Assuming a "write-only" disk is used, the .jpg files should remain unchanged until the disk itself "withers away" (figuratively speaking), right?

Your assumption is correct. As long as the image stored in .jpg format that has been recorded on a write only media (CD-R or DVD-R) the images are safe from degradation. The problem manifests itself each time you modify the image and do a re-save. As indicated elsewhere in this thread, saving a .jpg is what is known as a lossy process