Which dpi?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

G'day

Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?

The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
have been stored in albums so their condition is good.

I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give better
quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?

Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and thought
I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this too
please? In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
possible.

Once these have been scanned I'll burn them to DVD and it seems more and
more photos are coming out of the woodwork so I'm expecting this will be
an ongoing archival project.

Lastly......any suggestions where I might find an audio file to add to
the DVD? Motor racing/speedway soundtrack would be perfect! Couldn't
find anything by googling, possibly because I wasn't searching for the
correct name.

Thanks in advance for any suggestions
Bronwyn ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, IHateSpam@home.com says...
> G'day
>
> Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
> some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
> The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
> few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
> have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
> I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give better
> quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
> inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?

In general, scanning at a higher dpi will give better results - albeit
at the expense of longer scanning times and larger files. It's a trade-
off which depends on how much time and storage you have - and what use
you want to make of the resulting files.

If you only envisage making same-as-original size prints, then scanning
at 300dpi will prove fine, IMHO.

However, if you wish to enlarge the prints, then scanning at a higher
resolution may well prove beneficial. A *lot*, however, depends on the
quality of the prints that you are scanning: they may not contain more
than 300dpi worth of detail. If they were taken on poor camera equipent,
with poor technique, or have sufferred due to the ravages of time, then
1200dpi may be wasted on them.

For best results, I suggest scanning a couple of representative prints
at 300dpi, 600dpi and 1200dpi, and then "using" each resultant scan in
the way that you envisage, be that an on-screen display, same-size print
or enlargement. Can you see any difference? Is the larger file size of
the higher-dpi files worth any visible difference? Is the difference
not obvious, but the added "security" of those extra pixels affordable
in terms of time and storage?

> Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and thought
> I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this too
> please? In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
> archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
> possible.

The "best possible" for your hardware is obviously 1200dpi ;-) Whether
or not it is worth it is another question altogether.

You may also wish to look at .tif file formats rather than .bmp for
archiving. There are non-lossy compression alogotithms available which
may help reduce file sizes for storage.

> Once these have been scanned I'll burn them to DVD and it seems more and
> more photos are coming out of the woodwork so I'm expecting this will be
> an ongoing archival project.

If it is for archive...then I strongly suggest burning more than one DVD
and storing them in separate places. Then test each DVD periodically to
check it for deterioration. The long-term reliablity of recordable DVDs
is far from proven, IMHO.

> Lastly......any suggestions where I might find an audio file to add to
> the DVD? Motor racing/speedway soundtrack would be perfect! Couldn't
> find anything by googling, possibly because I wasn't searching for the
> correct name.

No idea. Sorry.

Ian
--
Ian Riches
Bedford, UK

 

[Catfish]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

assuming hard drive space is not an issue.....
scan as either 1200 or 600 dpi and save as COLOR TIFF files. TIFF are
more likely to be compatible in future years than bmp files.

You can "sepia tone" TIFF images if you wish, or you can do a MUCH
better job of making "grey" for the in between colors by separating
color layers in paintshop or photoshop or photoshop elements, and then
adjusting saturation.

Yes, I know you said BW photos - but the "grey" isn't really "pure
grey" in these prints any more - the paper has faded and yellowed,
etc, etc, even though you may not notice it. And at some point, you
will be asked to do (or will find some) color prints.....may as well
get accustomed to color scanning now.



HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>G'day
>
>Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
>The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
>few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
>I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give better
>quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>
>Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and thought
>I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this too
>please?

 

[Jim]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

"HC" <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote in message
news:431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> G'day
>
> Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
> some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
> The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
> few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that have
> been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
> I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give better
> quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
> inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
The scanner dpi should depend on your intended use. There is little reason
at present and for the foreseeable future to print at more than 300 dpi.
Thus, to make same size prints, you only need 300 dpi scanns
>
> Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and thought
> I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this too please?
> In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is archiving
> old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction possible.
While jpg is a lossy compression technique, the amount of loss depends on
the amount of compression and the number of times that you edit the image.
I suggest that you use the least compression and that you only edit the
image once. It will be very hard for anyone to tell the difference between
the jpg files and the tiff files. Don't use bmp, that is a proprietory
Microsoft format.
>
> Once these have been scanned I'll burn them to DVD and it seems more and
> more photos are coming out of the woodwork so I'm expecting this will be
> an ongoing archival project.
Save them to more than one medium. Some of these disks go bad without
warning. Manufacturers may also discontinue support for older formats as
well.
For example, my 35mm negative scans take 35 CDs, and I duplicated them on 4
DVDs. Certainly, I can rescan images if some evaporate, but the task is
quite tedious.
Do not use RW; these disks are not intended for long term storage.
Jim
>
> Lastly......any suggestions where I might find an audio file to add to the
> DVD? Motor racing/speedway soundtrack would be perfect! Couldn't find
> anything by googling, possibly because I wasn't searching for the correct
> name.
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
> Bronwyn ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:40:27 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:

>G'day
>
>Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
>The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
>few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
>I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give better
>quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>
>Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and thought
>I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this too
>please? In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
>archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
>possible.
>
>Once these have been scanned I'll burn them to DVD and it seems more and
>more photos are coming out of the woodwork so I'm expecting this will be
>an ongoing archival project.
>
>Lastly......any suggestions where I might find an audio file to add to
>the DVD? Motor racing/speedway soundtrack would be perfect! Couldn't
>find anything by googling, possibly because I wasn't searching for the
>correct name.
>
>Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>Bronwyn ;-)

Hi, Bronwyn

Ian has already given you good advice about size. Personally, I'd go
for an equivalent of twice the size in case you want to make small
enlargements (printing is usually done as about 300dpi, so for twice
the size you need 600dpi). Above that you may find you get too many
artefacts.

Second, I can't emphasize enough how important it is for an archival
project to *never* use a lossy format (i.e. one that uses compression
resulting in lost detail) and to avoid formats that not widely used.
The best format for your images is TIFF. File size doesn't matter -
storage is cheap.

Finally, make more than one copy of the files and keep them in
different places and check the disks every six months or so to make
sure images still load. Regardless, resave to a new disk every three
years or so, and then to whatever new format is next after DVD. ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>G'day
>
>Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>
>The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with a
>few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>
>I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give
>better quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>
B&W prints will generally have more information on them than the
standard rule of thumb of 300ppi for corner shop colour prints, but
generally this isn't more than 600ppi. With the poor MTF of that
scanner at 1200ppi and the limited information on the prints above
600ppi, I doubt that scanning at 1200ppi can be justified on any
grounds.

Ideally you should scan at the limit of the equipment (in this case the
combination of the source material and the scanner probably sets that
around 600ppi) and archive this. Then resample to the optimum output
resolution for your final application using the best resampling
algorithm available to you.

>Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and
>thought I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this
>too please?

Save as Tiff with compression enabled: this is lossless compression
unlike jpeg - although the tiff specification permits jpeg compression,
few packages support it. Not only will you be able to save in less
space than .bmp format but, more importantly, you will be able to
archive your images with more bits per pixel, more dynamic range.

> In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
>archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
>possible.
>
Best archive or best reproduction - they are not the same thing. Best
archive means saving more information that your existing equipment can
reproduce, because sometime in the future you will upgrade, and you
don't want to rescan everything all over again.

>Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>Bronwyn ;-)

Unusual name - only ever met one person called that before, they were
Australian too, but it sounds Welsh. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Thanks to all who replied with such detailed and helpful information!!

Larger file size is not a problem at the moment and as was mentioned
storage is cheap anyway. Time....well, there are never enough hours in
the day but I don't mind spending extra time waiting for higher scans
and better results. I've done a couple of tests at different dpi's and
could see a difference, so think I will continue with a higher dpi.

I don't even know what type of camera equipment was used to take the
originals but they have been fairly well kept in black-paged photo
albums and are in good condition although a couple which appear to have
been kept out of the album have yellowed with age, but still quite
acceptable. Another reason I think the higher dpi is a good idea, is
that I might never have access to these original photos again, they are
only on-loan to me until I can scan them, so the time spent now might be
a good investment in the future.

The suggestions about .tif sounds like a good idea too, thanks!

Jim...I never open my original photo files, they are stored on a
separate HDD (and backed up) and I play with a copy, so will do the same
with these photos.

Hecate...good idea to resave every few years, storage media changes
regularly too.

Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)

Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
envisaged.

Again, thanks so much for all the help, it's truly appreciated! These
groups are such great ways of getting lots of support and helpful advice
that was never available in pre-internet days.

Bronwyn ;-)




Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <431c047c@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>> G'day
>>
>> Now that I've got my Canon scanner operational again, I've been having
>> some discussion regarding dpi and wondering what people here suggest?
>>
>> The main group of photos in this project are 3.5 inch x 5.5 inch with
>> a few around 6 x 8 inch but all are around 50 year old B&W prints that
>> have been stored in albums so their condition is good.
>>
>> I've always been under the impression that a higher dpi will give
>> better quality prints? I've scanned some photos at 1200dpi at 6 x 8
>> inches.....what does everyone suggest for best results?
>>
> B&W prints will generally have more information on them than the
> standard rule of thumb of 300ppi for corner shop colour prints, but
> generally this isn't more than 600ppi. With the poor MTF of that
> scanner at 1200ppi and the limited information on the prints above
> 600ppi, I doubt that scanning at 1200ppi can be justified on any grounds.
>
> Ideally you should scan at the limit of the equipment (in this case the
> combination of the source material and the scanner probably sets that
> around 600ppi) and archive this. Then resample to the optimum output
> resolution for your final application using the best resampling
> algorithm available to you.
>
>> Currently I'm saving these as .bmp because .jpg is too lossy and
>> thought I'd change this via IrfanView or Picasa. Suggestions on this
>> too please?
>
>
> Save as Tiff with compression enabled: this is lossless compression
> unlike jpeg - although the tiff specification permits jpeg compression,
> few packages support it. Not only will you be able to save in less
> space than .bmp format but, more importantly, you will be able to
> archive your images with more bits per pixel, more dynamic range.
>
>> In the past I've just scanned a few photos, but this project is
>> archiving old and precious photos so I'd like the best reproduction
>> possible.
>>
> Best archive or best reproduction - they are not the same thing. Best
> archive means saving more information that your existing equipment can
> reproduce, because sometime in the future you will upgrade, and you
> don't want to rescan everything all over again.
>
>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions
>> Bronwyn ;-)
>
>
> Unusual name - only ever met one person called that before, they were
> Australian too, but it sounds Welsh. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

In article <431d19ae@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)
>
But aren't all the true Aussie's black? ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a ah heck when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:23:08 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:


>Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
>so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
>this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
>envisaged.
One more thing, I don't know what app you're using to edit, but it's
sensible to scan the images as RGB. It makes it a lot easier to get
rid of any colour casts through, e.g., channels in Photoshop.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

LOL.....got a point there!! Don't know my family history so can't
elaborate, sorry!! ;-))

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <431d19ae@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> writes
>
>>
>> Kennedy...my name is Welsh, but I'm true-blue Aussie ;-)
>>
> But aren't all the true Aussie's black? ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

G'day Hecate

I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
one did......so I stuck with it.

Bronwyn ;-)

Hecate wrote:

> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 14:23:08 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Catfish...good point! I know some of my early photos are colour prints,
>>so expect some others will come out of the woodwork now I've started
>>this archiving project, which seems certain to become bigger than I
>>envisaged.
>
> One more thing, I don't know what app you're using to edit, but it's
> sensible to scan the images as RGB. It makes it a lot easier to get
> rid of any colour casts through, e.g., channels in Photoshop.
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:17 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:

>G'day Hecate
>
>I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
>ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
>work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
>one did......so I stuck with it.
>
>Bronwyn ;-)
>
I'm sorry for your loss ;-) (And thereby speaks a Photoshop snob <g>)

Then you'll just have to use the tried and trusted method of
empiricism (or as I'm sure your local down-to-earth Aussie would call
it - trial and error) ;-)

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

ROFLMHO!!.......actually I tried PS7 but an error message said the
scanner wasn't installed and after spending four days getting through
that obstacle I didn't have the patience to start again in PS.

Must admit I had reservations about iPhoto Express too, but it's giving
quite good results. This whole project (while time consuming) is better
than I first anticipated and this is the most work I've done with this
scanner. In hindsight it was a waste of money, although I did have good
intentions at the time but work got in the way, ;-((

I'm sure the owner of these photo albums will be more than happy that he
will be able to watch a DVD of his 50 yr old photos rather than having
the albums stored somewhere out of sight, although that out of sight
place meant they are in good condition and can now stay that way.

Bronwyn ;-)





Hecate wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:17 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>G'day Hecate
>>
>>I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
>>ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
>>work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and this
>>one did......so I stuck with it.
>>
>>Bronwyn ;-)
>>
>
> I'm sorry for your loss ;-) (And thereby speaks a Photoshop snob <g>)
>
> Then you'll just have to use the tried and trusted method of
> empiricism (or as I'm sure your local down-to-earth Aussie would call
> it - trial and error) ;-)
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Forgot to mention that I've decided to upgrade the RAM in my notebook,
so that should speed things up a little.

B;-)

HC wrote:

> ROFLMHO!!.......actually I tried PS7 but an error message said the
> scanner wasn't installed and after spending four days getting through
> that obstacle I didn't have the patience to start again in PS.
>
> Must admit I had reservations about iPhoto Express too, but it's giving
> quite good results. This whole project (while time consuming) is better
> than I first anticipated and this is the most work I've done with this
> scanner. In hindsight it was a waste of money, although I did have good
> intentions at the time but work got in the way, ;-((
>
> I'm sure the owner of these photo albums will be more than happy that he
> will be able to watch a DVD of his 50 yr old photos rather than having
> the albums stored somewhere out of sight, although that out of sight
> place meant they are in good condition and can now stay that way.
>
> Bronwyn ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
> Hecate wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 12:42:17 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> G'day Hecate
>>>
>>> I'm using Ulead iPhoto Express...it came with the scanner many years
>>> ago. After spending 4 frustrating days trying to get the scanner to
>>> work on XP, some other programs wouldn't recognise the scanner and
>>> this one did......so I stuck with it.
>>>
>>> Bronwyn ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry for your loss ;-) (And thereby speaks a Photoshop snob <g>)
>>
>> Then you'll just have to use the tried and trusted method of
>> empiricism (or as I'm sure your local down-to-earth Aussie would call
>> it - trial and error) ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Hecate - The Real One
>> Hecate@newsguy.com Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
>> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:55:56 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:

>ROFLMHO!!.......actually I tried PS7 but an error message said the
>scanner wasn't installed and after spending four days getting through
>that obstacle I didn't have the patience to start again in PS.

Here's a tip - PS eats RAM - processing a scanned image eats RAM.
Never scan into Photoshop. If I had a pound for every person I've
heard with a similar problem I'd have enough money to buy and ticket
and watch the Aussies get walloped again at the Oval ;-)

>Must admit I had reservations about iPhoto Express too, but it's giving
>quite good results. This whole project (while time consuming) is better
>than I first anticipated and this is the most work I've done with this
>scanner. In hindsight it was a waste of money, although I did have good
>intentions at the time but work got in the way, ;-((

Understand. It's always more of a pain, IMHO, having to scan prints
rather than negs/slides.

>I'm sure the owner of these photo albums will be more than happy that he
>will be able to watch a DVD of his 50 yr old photos rather than having
>the albums stored somewhere out of sight, although that out of sight
>place meant they are in good condition and can now stay that way.
>
Plus, if he looks after the digital files and makes sure they are
always on a modern medium, the family will be able to keep them for a
very long time (I *never* say forever <g>).

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 14:02:51 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:

>Forgot to mention that I've decided to upgrade the RAM in my notebook,
>so that should speed things up a little.
>
More RAM is usually the answer to almost everything

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.scanners,alt.comp.periphs.scanner (More info?)

Thanks again Hecate! Some of my embroidery stuff is RAM hungry too, so
I'm used to that and have been threatening to get more RAM for months so
will do it NOW! LOL

The scanning job is moving right along and I've almost completed the
first album, so there is light at the end of the tunnel! The results
are well worth the time spent and I'm noticing detail in the scanned
images that aren't easily visible in the original prints.

Have a great weekend! and again, thanks for all the help!
Bronwyn ;-)

Hecate wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 13:55:56 +1000, HC <IHateSpam@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>>ROFLMHO!!.......actually I tried PS7 but an error message said the
>>scanner wasn't installed and after spending four days getting through
>>that obstacle I didn't have the patience to start again in PS.
>
>
> Here's a tip - PS eats RAM - processing a scanned image eats RAM.
> Never scan into Photoshop. If I had a pound for every person I've
> heard with a similar problem I'd have enough money to buy and ticket
> and watch the Aussies get walloped again at the Oval ;-)
>
>
>>Must admit I had reservations about iPhoto Express too, but it's giving
>>quite good results. This whole project (while time consuming) is better
>>than I first anticipated and this is the most work I've done with this
>>scanner. In hindsight it was a waste of money, although I did have good
>>intentions at the time but work got in the way, ;-((
>
>
> Understand. It's always more of a pain, IMHO, having to scan prints
> rather than negs/slides.
>
>
>>I'm sure the owner of these photo albums will be more than happy that he
>>will be able to watch a DVD of his 50 yr old photos rather than having
>>the albums stored somewhere out of sight, although that out of sight
>>place meant they are in good condition and can now stay that way.
>>
>
> Plus, if he looks after the digital files and makes sure they are
> always on a modern medium, the family will be able to keep them for a
> very long time (I *never* say forever <g>).
>
> --
>
> Hecate - The Real One
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
> you don't have, to impress people you don't like...

 

[375_hh_mag]

HC,

For archiving your old photo's, use the best media you can afford.

Archival Media

Hope this helps.