OT: Digitizing old photos

[cedar]

After years of postponing this task, I've decided it's time to digitize the boxes of old photos we have lying around the house.  I suspect the photos number in the hundreds, rather than thousands.

 

Anyone have an opinion/advice about how to proceed? I own a multi-function printer that can scan, but it's not designed specifically for photos.  I guess the basic question, therefore, is whether to buy a scanner more suitable for that purpose or out-source the job to some company.  I'm guessing that it might actually be cheaper to buy a scanner and do it all myself, but I imagine that would be much more time-consuming.  On the other hand, perhaps the type of sorting I would need to do before sending photos somewhere for scanning would also be very time-consuming.  Whichever method I choose, I guess it's inevitable that I'd want to label and organize everything.

 

Suggestions?

[stillearning]

I owned a digital imaging business in the early days of digital imaging, and back then Epson scanners were very popular for this back then. Stay away from HP. And BIG difference between scanners meant mainly for documents and scanners of photo quality, especially in accurate color rendition. My experience in this area is a couple of decades old now (retired) so this may not currently be the case. Our scanners were SCSI, which was high tech then, that’s how long ago I was in this business! 

[Rod S]

Curious about this as I've been postponing this for ages.  A few things I've concluded

• No insights as far as organizing it - just tons of busy work.  
• When I did some searching, I thought the price per photo to have it professionally scanned was high.  
• Several years ago I bought a miniscanner that was simple to use, but quality so so.  I wonder what scanners exist out there that simplify the loading of photos.   I felt i spent a lot of time with a regular scanner with cutting and adjusting.  I really would like to get this process well defined before really starting.  
• Some of the old photos need color correction after the photo.   Scanning photos from the early 80s for my mom's 80th birthday, i had to color correct > 80% of the them.  However, some of the standard algorithms in the software seem to do the trick, so it was really just a few mouse click, but it was time consuming. 

Just go back from vacation  in WDW with my daughter.  Wish I had my old pics scanned so I could easily locate from the times I went as a kid and teen and compare.  

 

[cedar]

For me, I'm not particularly worried about quality (thought maybe I should). I assume the quality is good enough whether I do it myself, or pay someone else.  And in either case, I also assume some types of correction can be applied later.

 

Big issues I'm grappling with are: (1) cost; and (2) time.  Really unsure how much time I'd really be saving by outsourcing the job.

[elif]

I'm sure others will have better methods but I can tell you how I did it.  In 2018 I scanned the family image collection (about 500) using a flatbed scanner (Epson V600). These included developed photographs, 35 mm mounted slide positives and negative strips, and old roll film negatives.  The scanner came with film holders for the 35 mm and 120 roll film.  I also had some 116 roll film negatives. For those, I bought a 3D printed negative holder that fit the scanner bed.

 

The Epson was not the first scanner I tried.

 

I viewed the scanning process as an archival activity only with no thought to organization of the content.  However, it was important to be able to correlate a scanned object with its image. I named each image filename YYYY_JDT-XXX.ext. For photographs, I also wrote the file name on the back (no ext). The purpose in this was to be able to make notes for an image in an external document and to be able to reference the image by a unique but consistently named indentifier.  (I have never actually done this).

• YYYY year
• JDT  the current Julian date
• XXX  Index starting at 000 at each new julian date
• ext  (png in my case)

Many of the photographs had text on the back, who, where, when, etc.  It is possible to capture this information as metadata in the image file using a tool like Gimp.  Or it can be captured in an external document referencing the image ID, or you could just scan the back of the photo.

 

I took a look at the scanned images and the DPI varied from 600 to 2400. I'm sure I selected it but I have no idea why.  Most of these photos were pretty poor in resolution.

 

I generally scanned 30-40 photos per day over a six month period.  The 500 photos use about 3 GB of storage space.

[KuruPrionz]

If you can find an old copy stand (or rig something up), photographing your photographs with a digital camera is going to be MUCH faster than scanning. 

 

They made slide duplicators (and film copiers) that mounted to the lens mount of cameras as well (I used to work at a film photography lab).

 

Nikon mount would be common, will fit modern Nikon gear and a $10 adapter will allow it to mount on a Canon camera as well. 

 

[stillearning]

40 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

If you can find an old copy stand (or rig something up), photographing your photographs with a digital camera is going to be MUCH faster than scanning…

I did a lot of this work at my business as well. We used a wall mounted vacuum copy stand, which held the photos flat. If you have a reasonably decent digital camera, a copy stand isn’t a bad way to go.

 

Btw, as far as costs go, we charged $5 per scan, this was 20+ years ago, and we stayed very busy with work, mostly in restoration of old or torn photos. Lots of photos torn in half in divorce cases! Same with law enforcement jobs, photos having been torn to shreds. Our scanners then were 1200 dpi high color rendition photo scanners, and we scanned directly into Photoshop as PSDs. Much like measuring amplifiers by watts only, DPI doesn’t tell the whole story in scanners. In those days, Epson was the scanner of choice. It sounds very much like this is far beyond the quality you want or need, and beyond any costs you would like to incur.
 

Any reasonably decent scanner meant for scanning photos will likely meet or exceed your needs. If you don’t plan on zooming in digitally later to enlarge the image files, 600 dpi is usually enough. If you want to potentially zoom in and crop the image files later, 1200 will work better. It might be worth it to invest a few hundred $ in a photo scanner and have at it yourself. I would imagine any photo scanner these days comes with basic software included for cropping and doing some basic editing and color correction. 

[KuruPrionz]

3 minutes ago, stillearning said:

I did a lot of this work at my business as well. We used a wall mounted vacuum copy stand, which held the photos flat. If you have a reasonably decent digital camera, a copy stand isn’t a bad way to go.

 

Btw, as far as costs go, we charged $5 per scan, this was 20+ years ago, and we stayed very busy with work, mostly in restoration of old or torn photos. Lots of photos torn in half in divorce cases! Same with law enforcement jobs, photos having been torn to shreds. Our scanners then were 1200 dpi high color rendition photo scanners, and we scanned directly into Photoshop as PSDs. Much like measuring amplifiers by watts only, DPI doesn’t tell the whole story in scanners. In those days, Epson was the scanner of choice. It sounds very much like this is far beyond the quality you want or need, and beyond any costs you would like to incur.
 

Any reasonably decent scanner meant for scanning photos will likely meet or exceed your needs. If you don’t plan on zooming in digitally later to enlarge the images, 600 dpi is usually enough. If you want to potentially zoom in and crop the image files later, 1200 will work better. It might be worth it to invest a few hundred $ in a photo scanner and have at it yourself. I would imagine any photo scanner these days comes with basic software included for cropping and doing some editing and color correction. 

Scanners do a great job, no doubt. I agree that a garden variety scanner on sale can probably create very useable copies of most photographs. 

I'm assuming we are talking about priints here, film scanning is another animal - especially color negative film. Inverting and color correcting that can be "interesting" to say the least. 

Slide film depends on how it's been stored, color shifts are not uncommon (I used to print Type R - positive to positve). 

 

My only real objection to scanners is the time involved. Unless the quality of the print is very high, a digital point and shoot could do a great job for most images, even a better cell phone camera should work fine for internet or small prints. 

 

A "selfie copy stand"? 🤣

[cedar]

Do I understand correctly that a reasonable approach would be for me just to use my iphone 12 to take photos of each pic?  This would certainly seem faster than using my scanner.  

 

What's the downside?

[Reezekeys]

There's a pretty big difference in quality between a scan of a pic vs using your phone, imo. To take a good quality picture of a photo, I think you'd need to have the photograph as flat as possible with no reflections coming off it. Easier said than done - but you can certainly try it to see if the results satisfy.

[elif]

24 minutes ago, cedar said:

Do I understand correctly that a reasonable approach would be for me just to use my iphone 12 to take photos of each pic?  This would certainly seem faster than using my scanner.  

 

What's the downside?

As long as the photos aren’t curved like potato chips, have at it!

[cedar]

31 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

There's a pretty big difference in quality between a scan of a pic vs using your phone, imo. To take a good quality picture of a photo, I think you'd need to have the photograph as flat as possible with no reflections coming off it. Easier said than done - but you can certainly try it to see if the results satisfy.

Now that you mention it, I could see it being a little tricky dealing with the lighting and reflections.  I guess I'd need a room that had pretty good natural lighting, since lamps/overhead lights might all tend to create some kind of reflection.  I suppose I'll give it a shot.

[stillearning]

When we used a copy stand at the business, we had a mount for the camera, and two lights from the sides, each at about a 45 deg angle.
 

If I were doing what you’re doing, I would rig up a mount for your phone using the type of phone mount typically used for iPads or iPhones on stage, clipped onto a boom mic stand if you have one to hold it steady and in position, rather than hand held for each shot. Then get two inexpensive clip on utility lights, mounted on whatever is handy, about 18 to 30 inches away depending on the size of the photos, at an angle. Use LED bulbs in the 4800 - 5500 deg range (daylight), which will help with color rendition. Holding curved photos flat might be tricky, maybe try using a dark metal oven baking tray as a backing board, with small magnets holding the photo edges down. A darker tray will lessen any bright reflection from the light which would alter the phone camera’s automatic exposure setting, or use a piece of dark paper on top of the metal tray under the photos. Don’t use overly bright bulbs, you won’t need a lot of light, just enough to evenly light the photos without shadows.

[o0Ampy0o]

When my father died there were a lot of albums, slides and 8mm movies. I have a multi-function all in one printer  and started scanning them for the family. It was time consuming. Someone suggested just snapping everything with my cell then if anyone wanted a good print they could ask then I would do the better version. That was plan B. It was still monumental and I had to clear out the rented storage unit I kept it all in. Finally I just cell video captured the movies projecting them on the wall. Lost track of the slide projector. Turned it all over to oldest sibling unfinished. Got in a number of specifics for individuals. The oldest is the only one who cares that much. Pictures are just like people. When no one remembers who you are / were it is like you didn't exist. When my mother died I walked through the cemetery and mortuary I realized most there no longer have anyone living who knew them. Only a couple of us are left who experienced the people in the archives.

[KuruPrionz]

1 hour ago, stillearning said:

When we used a copy stand at the business, we had a mount for the camera, and two lights from the sides, each at about a 45 deg angle.
 

If I were doing what you’re doing, I would rig up a mount for your phone using the type of phone mount typically used for iPads or iPhones on stage, clipped onto a boom mic stand if you have one to hold it steady and in position, rather than hand held for each shot. Then get two inexpensive clip on utility lights, mounted on whatever is handy, about 18 to 30 inches away depending on the size of the photos, at an angle. Use LED bulbs in the 4800 - 5500 deg range (daylight), which will help with color rendition. Holding curved photos flat might be tricky, maybe try using a dark metal oven baking tray as a backing board, with small magnets holding the photo edges down. A darker tray will lessen any bright reflection from the light which would alter the phone camera’s automatic exposure setting, or use a piece of dark paper on top of the metal tray under the photos. Don’t use overly bright bulbs, you won’t need a lot of light, just enough to evenly light the photos without shadows.

This all sounds solid and sensible to me. 

There is a difference between a scan and a photo of a photo but unless you have an archive of master quality fine art photos you'll not see much of that difference at all. If they are all snapshots of memories you may not see any difference or it won't matter. 

 

The flat part can be tricky, consider a piece of non-flare glass that you can put on top of the photos to press them flat. It might work wonders. 

I would paint the edges black or put black electrical tape on them. The large, flat surfaces of non-glare glass are fine but the edges may allow flare underneath the surfaces.

[o0Ampy0o]

If you scan you don't want to bother with massive resolutions. A photo will look like crap if you think a high resolution will allow a decent enlargement. No doubt these are typical family photos that probably look the best they ever will at original size. All you will do is enlarge the crap throwing resolution at it. You will also create unnecessarily large files.

 

I say avoid the photo of photo thing. It invites glare, the photos wont be flat and it must be perfectly square / parallel lens to photo surface.

 

Cut time by scanning multiple photos at once. Later crop and make adjustments when they are isolated. Also use a grayscale strip with each scan so you can determine absolute white and absolute black. Keep in mind you don't go off your screen / display you need to go by measurements. Displays quality is independent of image file data. (Your display brightness slider doesn't effect file content, for instance..).

 

Also printer resolution and file resolution are not related exactly. You can get a decent printed photo with a file scan of 150ppi  off a 600dpi printer for instance. Depends on source of course. This if you plan to print. Life will be easier if everyone is happy with digital screen resolution images only.

[Outkaster]

Kudos for doing this.  I did it in 2007 when I was laid off and it took forever.  I was able to share these to a lot of relatives and parents who were still alive.  It also helps if you are building a family tree online.  I still have my dads and wife's family to do also.  If I get some that I find laying around the house I will scan them as I think it's important for later generations to look at.  Years ago in the 40's and 50's people didn't take as many photos so I was lucky to find what I had.  That said it is a tough and length process.  I did close to 500 myself.

[Lou Gehrig Charles]

I've "scanned" countless color slides and negatives using the abovementioned DSLR + macro lens + tripod with center column inverted method.  It's quick and easy and in my case was nearly free since I already had almost everything I needed to do so.  I had to buy a light pad (but a lot of people use tablets or phones).

 

I recommend shooting in RAW because there is always some minor post-processing that needs to be made; typically brightness or contrast.

 

Digital pics of the negatives can be easily "converted" from negative to positive using a program called Negative Lab Pro.

 

I also "scan" a lot of B&W negatives this way and those are even easier; the same program I use to convert Raw to JPG can be used to convert them from negative to positive.

[stillearning]

Whichever method you go with, it goes without saying to be sure you backup the files as you go in multiple ways, stored in separate locations. Nothing worse than going to all the effort for naught.

[Iconoclast]

I've got an Epson that's specifically made for scanning fotos, it's amazingly fast. If you have your photos organized beforehand it will scan them, color correct them and put them into computer folders for you and even upload them to the cloud if you set it up that way. It wasn't cheap but it works as advertised. FF-680w is the number and it's around $600.

I do not recommend a flatbed...it will take you forever. I have one of those two and it's still good if you have outsized or cut up pics or old newpaper clippings etc. Anything that won't work in the feeder of the epson.

The epson software could be better but it's still better than any alternative I could find.

Another downside is if anyone finds out you have it...https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/epson-fastfoto-wireless-photo-document-duplex-scanner-black-ff-680w/apd/aa806237/printers-ink-toner?gacd=9646510-1025-5761040-266794296-0&dgc=st&ds_rl=1282786&gclid=Cj0KCQjwspKUBhCvARIsAB2IYusU6XNtLgIqHgPtx3rHdpPZFlo-kVDrUvQOTbEZi0DLm7yuivTFbhMaApBkEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds&nclid=4qDQxBaBhejpRgxKIHzkUWMxiiXA03eB73QzMhYuJYkixe_Sk3EtR9u0GJbKWv1C

 

[Konnector]

The few times I've copied old photos, I took pictures of them with a decent digital camera & then tweeked them with software. Worked quite well and they looked better than the original photos in the end. Long process if you have loads of photos to copy. I only did a handful so it worked for me.

[The Real MC]

Some scanners come with frames to hold multiple 35mm slides, various size prints, etc.  Working with a uniform format frame in a scanning session, a good scanning program lets you can configure multiple scan windows, configure it for batch scans, then with one button it scans all the windows.  My Epson V850 came with two of each frame, so while one was scanning I was loading the next one.  Makes for quick work.

[o0Ampy0o]

Delete

[o0Ampy0o]

17 hours ago, Lou Gehrig said:

I recommend shooting in RAW because there is always some minor post-processing that needs to be made; typically brightness or contrast.

 

 

Most people do not know as much as their camera and software. RAW is for people who know enough to do better than their camera and software. For the rest of us TIFF, PNG or PSD are the way to go. All of these work well when making adjustments. Afterwards, share images for viewing on your phone and on computers in a quality JPEG or even a PNG. 
 

As a general rule when making adjustments: 1. Make a copy in a non-compressed or lossless file format (these are just snap shots). 2. Save the original image file in a safe place. 3. Adjust the copy, never alter the original.

[ElmerJFudd]

The 12mp or better on our phones will do a pretty good quality photo scan.  And there is software that automatically finds edges and corrects for the phone not being perfectly angled.   The issue is lighting, especially with photos printed to glossy paper.  If you can get the right lighting and positioning of the light (to avoid your own shadow and glare), laying your photos on a black background.  It works quite well.  

[elif]

2 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

 Adjust the copy, never alter the original.

Photoshop does non-destructive editing.  As for Gimp, non-destructive editing is planned to be introduced in version 3.2, currently at version 2.10.  If you use Gimp, use "save as".

[Reezekeys]

This looks interesting, it has features to eliminate glare and correct perspective:

 

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/photoscan-by-google-photos/id1165525994

[Iconoclast]

I'd rather get dental work than scan a couple hundred photos on my phone.  This sounds like an incredible PITA unless you're only doing a couple photos.

I'm not sure how valuable your time is to you, but the epson ff-680W scanner (or something similar) will save you an incredible amount of time.  It scans front AND BACK Simultaneously (saving the the back of the photo only if it detects writing) and automatically adjusts color (if you'd like) and automatically groups them into folders that you identify and backs them up to the cloud in the same folders.

I've been saving my parents old photos (Probably over 1000 photos) and this is a godsend. My sister comes over with her photos and it usually only takes 15-30 minutes to back up a couple shoe boxes as long as she has them organized first.

The two photos below show the automatic color correction it applied to a polaroid taken in 1971.  I did nothing but click on the box that said "apply color correction and keep original file".  After a few batches I quit keeping the original and just trusted the color correction.

Look how fast this thing is. At 300 dpi it just rips. This guy is using it at 600. At 1200 it's much slower but you're getting a huge file.

 

[o0Ampy0o]

23 hours ago, ChoppedHam said:

Photoshop does non-destructive editing.  As for Gimp, non-destructive editing is planned to be introduced in version 3.2, currently at version 2.10.  If you use Gimp, use "save as".

Photoshop also offers destructive editing. Mistakes, crashes and ignorance are factors to take precautions against. Better safe than sorry. Common philosophy in graphic design and desktop publishing: Always work with a copy and store the original in a safe place.

[cedar]

One thing this thread has made clear to me is that my first step should be organizing the boxes of photos I have.  Whatever I do down the line, this step seems necessary.  At this point I don't even know the number of photos I'm dealing with or the scope of the job.