I will be scanning in a bunch of heritage photos. In most cases these are the only copies and the original negatives are long gone. Some of them are in pretty bad condition. Some are very faded.

I will be working on the photos in Photoshop, but what I would like at this time is some advice on how to scan them in.

I am using a Canon scanner that can scan up to 1200 dpi. Is it worth going up that high? I'd like to do this once or at least not do it again for the next 5 years. In some cases this will be the second round of scans because the first round was not done on a flat bed scanner. That scanner had a "missing pixel" which left a line down every scan.

There are some settings available in the scanner itself. How much playing around with them would you suggest a beginner do?

Thank you for your help.

It's worth scanning as whatever your scanner's max resolution is - but be careful you're talking about real resolution. Some scanners claim to scan up to 1200 but when you look at the small print they only really scan up to 300 and interpolate from there to get the higher resolutions, and in that case you're better off scanning at the real maximum resolution of 300 and resizing yourself later.

Welcome aboard Stella. Lea's right about the resolution. If your scanner lists resolution, such as 600 X 1200, the optical resolution is the lower number. Scanning more than that only adds to file size without adding information. A good site for scanning information is http://www.scantips.com/ . Check it out.

Ed

If you scanner allows, scan at 16 bit which will bring out more detail in the shadows and the overall color balance will be more accurate if high quality is needed. Just convert to 8 bit in PS to access all the tools and filters. This technique may improve your scans more than scanning at a high resolution (1200).

You might try a 16 bit at 400-600 DPI setting.

VidKid

If you have the access, I would try a very high resolution digital camera, especially if the orginals have any silvering on them.
Mike

What wonderful suggestions.

I come and look at this thread regularly and have found one great idea after another. I want to thank all of you for taking the time to answer my question.

Scanning at 16bit is an excellent idea, but you're not going to get any more detail past 600ppi.

I'm working on a major historical project for a college and have been playing around with many methods of getting their older photos into a computer for mastering. This is the process I have come to for getting silvered photos ready to restore:

1. Scan the photo (sometimes that actually works, it depends on the grain of the silvering.)
2. If that doesn't work look at it on a copy stand and see how much reflection there is a lot of reflection. If not push the button.
3. Even is there is not a lot of glare I usually do this next step too. I use a product called extender. It is a combined cleaning agent and oil based conditioner for the photo, it usually takes about 20-30 years of visible damage off the photo.
4. Try scanning the cleaned photo (this again, sometimes works)
5. Take a photo of that picture as well.
Note: I use regular film, mainly because I have a dark room and need to make new copies for their archives anyway. Then I take them down to the darkroom, make a new copy, and scan that. I have not tried it with a high res digital camera.
6. Go to town in Photoshop.

The extender is the real key. You need a really good lint-free cotton cloth to apply it and it takes 2-3 minutes to clean a 4x6 photo. It by no means makes it perfect, but it can really give you the leg up.

I'm including a before and after example of an original scan and the resulting image that (obviously) needed to go the whole way through the darkroom process.

Michael

PS. if you need extender, any photographic supply store that carries darkroom materials should have it, I use one made by Marshals.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for bringing new life to an old thread, and welcome to RP. Do you know who manufacturers extender? It sounds very interesting. I'm wondering what a conservator would think about using it on different types of photos.

Ed

Marshalls extender is listed as a product that "lightens hand coloring oils without thinning them".

So it must be oil based. I have done some hand coloring many years ago, and I always used new prints, we never put anything on a old print.

I do not think that I would be wiping down any kind of historical print till I found out a lot more about what that stuff would do to the print, both in the near and far time.

Mike

I do not think that I would be wiping down any kind of historical print till I found out a lot more about what that stuff would do to the print, both in the near and far time.

Mike

Thanks Mike. That's exactly what was in my head, but you put it in words. It is often very difficult to predict what will happen to a print in the future. Even fumes from painted walls can have devistating effects in the long run. We might not be aware of the fumes, but they're there. If I remember correctly, you shouldn't put prints on a wall for three or four years that has oil based paint applied to them. It's been a while since I dug out my books, but I'm sure long term effects are something to be concerned with.

Ed

A few things to note about my post...

Marshalls Extender is listed as: "A colorless product of the same consistency and general properties as Marshall Oils. Makes color paler without thinning it. Excellent for cleaning small areas." It is a transparent oil paint specifically designed for use on photographs.

Thanks to Ed for pointing out some additional information on this. This is not a product that should be used in the conservation of old photographs. It is a useful trick when working in image recovery and restoration, but it must be noted that it can cause long term yellowing on most mediums.

That being said I should also point out that you should ALWAYS attempt to scan the photo or copy it without applying anything. And it is rarely needed. The photos I use it on are like the one on my original post, so badly damaged that there is very little of the original visible to the naked eye, let alone a scanner or camera.

I'm not saying that you should use it on every project, or that it is God's gift to photography. I'm just saying it is another tool that can be used. Weigh the pros and cons carefully before attempting to use this product.

Take care,

Michael

Mike wrote:
"If you have the access, I would try a very high resolution digital camera, especially if the orginals have any silvering on them.
Mike"

This is what I was wondering.... I have a CanoScan Scanner (1200 x 1400 dpi - 42 bit) that is a couple of years old. When researching scanners awhile back, I read it wasn't one they recommeded for photo scanning... (although I have used it a bunch for that purpose) So, I have old family photos and was wondering if it would be better to scan or just take a digital pic. I have a Nikon Coolpix 8700 (8mgpixel). I am not a professional photographer so if pics are better, then I would appreciate some information on how to get the best picture to work with. I am much better at working with the pictures on the computer than taking them. (PSE3) Pretty sorry, huh?! But I am enjoying learning about the whole process and seeing the resulting smiles I get from others!

Thanks for the comments. I sincerely appreciate your input and advice.

Beth

Beth

The basic idea of copying with a camera is to:

Keep the camera at right angles to the print.

Light the print evenly and start with the lights at 45 degrees to the print, one light on each side of the print.

For silvered prints, place a polorizing filter over each light, and over the lens of the camera. Make sure the plane of the filters on the lights are the same, and rotate the filter on the camera till the silvering disappears.

Filters large enough to cover the lights can be found at camera stores (usually expensive) or at stores that sell theatrical supplies (sometimes cheaper, as they usually sell in large sheets which you can cut up).

They make a device called a copy stand that helps one to do this easily, but if you do not have one or have the need to buy a piece of special equipment like this, one can use a tripod. Its easier to have the camera look down on the print than to try to place the print on some kind of vertical surface.

Your camera should be a SLR type.

In my case, I can and do shoot tethered to a computer when I do this. It makes it a lot easier to check the image on a computor screen rather than the LCD screen on the back of the camera. I shoot all orginals in RGB so that I can check the various channels to see which is the best to use when I get it into PS.

It all sounds kind of complicated, but once you have done it a few times, it isn't. And the quaility of the output is really great, without having to work for hours in PS trying to get rid of the silvering. Lets face it, to get a high quaility copy of a silvered print, you are going to have to put some time into it, either setting up a copy station or scanning and sitting at the computer.

Good luck and hope this helps

Mike

Thanks Mike, for your great advice. Many of us who have old photos to digitize will benefit from your help.

Along these lines I have a further question. Many old photos are no longer perfectly flat, not necessarily bent but slightly curled. How do you handle this situation so that the photo is lit equally?

MaryLynn

Mike,

Thank you for an excellent answer. I understood what you were saying. However, I have a few more questions....

"Light the print evenly and start with the lights at 45 degrees to the print, one light on each side of the print." - I don't have any professional lighting equipment. Is there something common from home I can use?

"For silvered prints, place a polorizing filter over each light, and over the lens of the camera. Make sure the plane of the filters on the lights are the same, and rotate the filter on the camera till the silvering disappears." ---What is "silvering"? I've had prints in bad shape before - mostly torn or aged. The ones I'm getting ready to use are thankfully not in too bad of shape.

"Filters large enough to cover the lights can be found at camera stores (usually expensive) or at stores that sell theatrical supplies (sometimes cheaper, as they usually sell in large sheets which you can cut up)." ---I purchased Richard Lynch's book "The Hidden Power of Photoshop Elements 3" and have been reading through it trying to learn. Mostly while I was traveling (someone else was driving :happy: ) and just now decided to see if there was a polarizing filter on it. Seems like I remember reading about it.... (I couldn't get everything to install, but don't tell him! I'll read up on it more first!) Would the PSE polarizing filter work? Probably. Would the real thing be better?

They make a device called a copy stand that helps one to do this easily, but if you do not have one or have the need to buy a piece of special equipment like this, one can use a tripod. Its easier to have the camera look down on the print than to try to place the print on some kind of vertical surface. Peter i Nova's (Mastering Nikon Compact Digital Cameras) ebook recommended a copy stand. Said it wasn't too expensive and you ought to give them as stocking stuffers. So I thought I would invest in one.

Your camera should be a SLR type.

In my case, I can and do shoot tethered to a computer when I do this. It makes it a lot easier to check the image on a computor screen rather than the LCD screen on the back of the camera. I shoot all orginals in RGB so that I can check the various channels to see which is the best to use when I get it into PS. --Thanks to Richards book, I think I'll be able to do this in PSE.
It all sounds kind of complicated, but once you have done it a few times, it isn't. And the quaility of the output is really great, without having to work for hours in PS trying to get rid of the silvering. Lets face it, to get a high quaility copy of a silvered print, you are going to have to put some time into it, either setting up a copy station or scanning and sitting at the computer.

Good luck and hope this helps

Mike[/QUOTE]

I'm looking forward to trying all of this. Thank you very much for a clear and practical anwer.

Beth

Thanks Mike, for your great advice. Many of us who have old photos to digitize will benefit from your help.

Along these lines I have a further question. Many old photos are no longer perfectly flat, not necessarily bent but slightly curled. How do you handle this situation so that the photo is lit equally?

MaryLynn

No friend like a sheet of glass! I go down to the local glass store, and pick out a piece that is about 1/4 inch thick, has no "waves" in it, get them to cut it to a size I can use (usually about 11 x 14 inches or so, and have them grind down the edges so I do not cut myself while handling it. Keep it in a large envelope or box so it does not get scratches and keep it clean.

Mike

Beth

Lights: Assuming you are copying a black and white orginal, then you can use just about any light source you want, BUT, you will have to work in B&W in PS because in RGB your color would be so far off as to be just about unusable. So a couple of incandsent bulbs would work. I have used a couple of the little flash units one usually puts on a camera. Set them up in the proper place, then to fire them, I put another flash unit of the same type on the camera, flipped it up at a wall, and when it went off, the others fired. One can buy incandesent photo bulbs that put out light at a constant color temperture. They are more expensive than just a plain old 60 or 100 watt bulb, but they put out a lot more light and can be eaiser to work with. I do not know where you live, but most communities have some kind of store that sells stuff for farmers. If you can find one, see if they any "chicken brooder" lights. The thing is a large aluminium reflector with a light bulb in it. Buy the one's with the ceramic light base. Now you have professional lighting gear! :bigthmb:

Silvering is a condition that happens to old photos that can be seen when holding them at an angle to the light. Areas of the print will appear silver in color and when you photograph or scan them that area will reproduce as a dead black with no detail.

I am not familier with the polorizing filter in PSE. My guess would be that it will not work in this case, as what we are trying to do is cut off some of the reflection of the silvering before it gets to the film/imiger in the camera. We are doing that by limiting the plane the light waves are in. Once the camera captured the waves that plane is destroyed so I do not think that you could reserect the planes in the computor. Hope that you can kind of understand what I am trying to say, not sure I can :dizzy:

Good questions, hope this all helps and let us know how you do.....

Mike

Mike,

Can't tell you how I chuckled about the lighting suggestion :lol: I live in South Georgia. It's pretty and rural here (with surprisingly good cultural opportunities). There are a few good quality farm stores in the town too. I grew up on a farm in the midwest and know exactly what a brooder light is. Can't wait to have professional quality lighting! (Don't know that any of the neighbors would recognize it for that though.)

Thanks for explaining the silvering. I'll make the effort to find the polarizing filter.

I am encouraged by your answers. Once I know how to do something and know the results will be worth the effort, I am excited about trying.

Have a wonderful weekend!
Beth

Is the filter a type of material? If so, can I drape it over/around and secure with rubber bands? (okay - at this point everyone knows what a novice I am! :blush: ) I've seen the polarizing filters sold by Nikon etc. But when you said it could be cut to fit, I pictured material....

Thanks again,
Beth

Beth

Glad you are one of those practical minded farm people like me. I have used that description of the lights with others and just left them in the dust :bigthmb:

The filter material is a kind of plastic sheet. One can cut it with scissors or a paper cutter. It will melt if it gets too hot, so do not let it touch a lite bulb!
When I used the brooder lights, I took some wire (as in hay baling) wrapped it around the light, with some extra bent down to hold the filter which was secured to the wire with (ready for this?) wood clothespins. Nothing but the latest, best designed, professional gear is used here in my studio :D :D

Mike (and now you know how cheap I am! or is it broke?)

Mike,
I had to call home and tell my folks a new use for baling wire we had never tried!!! Farmers are some of the most intelligent of people. If they paid someone to fix everything that broke, they would never turn a profit. Hence, necessity is the mother of invention. I admire anyone who can figure out how to do something with what they have without having to make a trip to town to buy a new tool or ... Don't get me wrong, I LOVE tools.

I'll let you know how everything goes.

Beth

P.S. I do need to make a trip to town for brooder lights and baling wire. I already have wooden clothes pens! :lmao:

Have you ever bought the filter sheets from a company I could try online? I'll search, but maybe someone can give me some ideas. Thanks again.

For those of you who might be struggling with lighting concepts, I have a suggestion. Try your local library to see if you can find photographic lighting books by Dean Collins. They will not be dedicated to copy work, but once you understand the concept, you can use it for any situation. I bought a couple of videos of his techniques, probably in the 1980s. This guy is a master of lighting, and he explains things very clearly. If you are like a lot of people, you can improvise to make use of his information without putting out a lot of money. You will almost surely be able to get library books on photographic copying techniques by other authors, and they will likely have plenty of pictures to help you understand the copy setups. Good luck. One thing I should note is that I don't think he mentions baling wire. :)

Ed

Mike,

Do you have a favorite brand/wattage of bulb you use?

Thanks,
Beth

P.S. The brooder lamps were only $8 a piece!

For black and white copying, one can use just about any brand, but I like to stick to a 200 watt or so because I want the output, but there color temperature is unknown. I really prefer to use photo flood bulbs because they will put out a known color temperture light. Then if I want to copy a color photo I can place the proper filter over the camera lens to correct the color of the light to daylight. The photo flood lights also are 250 or 500 watt bulbs, hot but lots of light!

I agree with Ed, get some books on lighting and they will explain this much better than I can do here. There are other authors besides Dean Collins, but while he is very good, I do not know if he gets down to the really basic's.

I think that is less for the brooder lights than I paid years ago!

Mike

1)Which filter(s) do you use to correct to daylight. I've been looking at the polar filter I need and I think I need a lens hood/filter adapter.

2) Is the method the same for copying color photos as BW?

3)I went to the library. They had a couple of books on lighting, but not very helpful. Can you recommend books/authors you think I can learn from. I am able to wade/work through the non beginner books. My library is good about getting books we don't have through interlibrary loans. I have been floored with the $$$$ books they will let me use from colleges etc.

4) Thanks again!

Beth

In my opinion (for whatever thats worth) the best book on copying is a Kodak pub called :Copying and duplicating in Black and White and Color". The one I have is coded "M-1"

It was written for film users, but it goes into all the considerations of setting up a copy stand, lighting, filters, polorization, etc. I think that by reading how they did this with film, you can get a good idea of what you have to do in PS to attain the same result.

It can get quite technical, but it gives you the data you need. I think you can still order one from Kodak. Check your library first, then if you wish add it to your personal collection. A quick google search turned up quite a number of referances to this volume.

Mike

Mike,
Thank you. Aren't Google and Amazon great! I'm looking forward to my new journey. Hope I find a pot of gold along the way!

Beth