OT: Digitizing old photos

[KuruPrionz]

18 minutes ago, cedar said:

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.

This is smart.

You will probably find that there are not as many photos worth scanning as there are photos. 

Many people who owned cameras took an abundance of images of more or less the same thing. 

Weeding the gems out of the dross takes time but far less time than scanning a massive archive of not so great images. 

[Wrrtyuuiioop]

A lot a very varied advice each with its pros and cons.

 

Totally depends upon what you want from the digital image as to the best method to use.

 

Paper photos themselves vary dramatically in surface finish from high gloss to deeply embossed, so a flexible system is needed.

 

It is widely accepted that scanning at a 300 dpi resolution will give a very good quality digital image.  As I often want to printout on A3 photo printer I scan at a resolution where the print will be as sharp as possible so a bit of trial and error works.

 

For 35mm slides a specific scanner intended for that purpose will give a mush superior digital image.

 

Taking an image with a mobile or DSLR you already own will be the quick and dirty and cheapest method, do bear in mind that the resulting colours of the JPG file will vary if different devices are used as the processing in the device to create the JPG is not to an accurate standard for archive purposes.  Shooting in RAW is a better way, save the original as is, and always use Save As when correcting and processing the digital file.

 

Scanning yourself is or can be time consuming so do consider outsourcing.

 

My Wife has an All in One printer that scans OK but its quality is way behind my 30 year old dedicated Epson A4 scanner that by some miracle still works.