Scanning and saving old family photos

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 08:38:09 GMT, "John Conrad"
wrote:

MikeS wrote:


"John Conrad" wrote in message
newsJrIc.1774$vH5.1092@amstwist00...
Hi-

I want scan and save some old family photos. What is the best file
format? Any other tips would be apreciated. The photos will be
saved on a cd and will be viewed on a computer screen and maybe
even printed.

Thanks
John Conrad
John,
What options are you given in the scanning program?
MikeS

Hi
DPI and picture type.
John

In that case, your scanner will nsert the image into a graphics
program (PSP, for example), right?
So you can save to whatever file type the program will save to.
Which shoukld you actually save as? Depends on what you want to do.
What format do you save your camera images to?
Will you want to work on the images? If so, the native format of the
graphcs program is a good bet; it will keep details, layers, and that
sort of thing intact.

Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

"John Conrad" writes:


I want scan and save some old family photos. What is the best file
format? Any other tips would be apreciated. The photos will be saved on
a cd and will be viewed on a computer screen and maybe even printed.

For viewing on screen, a moderatly small jpeg. For archiving and
printing, a stultifyingly huge TIFF. There's no good single answer if
you want to do a good job of archiving, and if you want to keep
printing in the picture.

Be sure to preserve as much information about the photos as is
availabble -- anything written on them, anything that can be deduced
from their sequence in album or storage box, anything anybody now
alive remembers....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

Tahnks for the input!
--
May your trails be dim, lonesome, stony, narrow, winding and
,/'_ | only slightly uphill. May the wind bring rain for the
slickrock
(_)\(_) | potholes fourteen miles on the other side of yonder blue
ridge.
| May God's dog serenade your campfire, may the
rattlesnake and
o | the screech owl amuse your reveries, may the Great Sun
dazzle
[] | your eyes by day and the Great Bear watch over you at
night.
/\ |
\ \ | - Edward Abbey, Beyond the Wall

MikeS wrote:


"John Conrad" wrote in message
news:VzsIc.1784$vH5.1353@amstwist00...
Keith Sheppard wrote:

I have been doing a lot of this recently (scanning in old photos).

I have achieved best results telling the scanner it's a "colour"
photo even if it is black and white because you get a better
rendition of the original "temperature", especially if it's got a
bit of a sepia tint to it.

I tend to do it at about 600dpi. I think any more would be going
beyond the resolution of the original but that's just a gut feel
- no science to it.

For other settings, I just have a few goes and pick the best
looking image.

I had amazing results scanning some really faded prints - it looks
like I've got more detail than was in the original (which I know
is impossible). Presumably the scanners "eyes" are better than
mine.
Thanks for the help
--
May your trails be dim, lonesome, stony, narrow, winding and
,/'_ | only slightly uphill. May the wind bring rain for the
slickrock
(_)\(_) | potholes fourteen miles on the other side of yonder blue
ridge.
| May God's dog serenade your campfire, may the
rattlesnake and
o | the screech owl amuse your reveries, may the Great Sun
dazzle
[] | your eyes by day and the Great Bear watch over you at
night.
/\ |
\ \ | - Edward Abbey, Beyond the Wall

On 2004-07-12, uufda wrote:

you also say that data is lost every time you resave.

Yes, as long as for "resave", you mean save, close the image, and
reopen it again. Repeatedly saving the same "open" image will have no
effect (because you are saving the same in memory bitmap.)

The exact amount and significance of the loss depends on the image
contents, the application and it's settings. For most uses, one or two
extra edit/save cycles at high quality settings will not be visually
significant.

Even if you did no manipulation?

Of course, if you did no manipulation why would you save it?

But, anyway, the answer is still yes. Let's say you have image A.
After you save it in JPEG with certain settings, you have image A'
where say 1% of the pixels are slightly different. If you load and
resave A' you'll have A" where again 1% of the pixels may be slightly
different from A' (and possibly even more different from A). Because
A and A' are different inputs, the compressed outputs will be
different as well. JPEG does not have "state" to say "oh, this pixel
pattern means I previously compressed some original pixels to this
output before, so I'll just repeat the original compression". Instead
each image is the original and is compressed differently.

Does this help?

--
Erik

"E. Magnuson" wrote in message
om...
On 2004-07-12, uufda wrote:

you also say that data is lost every time you resave.

Yes, as long as for "resave", you mean save, close the image, and
reopen it again. Repeatedly saving the same "open" image will have no
effect (because you are saving the same in memory bitmap.)

The exact amount and significance of the loss depends on the image
contents, the application and it's settings. For most uses, one or two
extra edit/save cycles at high quality settings will not be visually
significant.

Even if you did no manipulation?

Of course, if you did no manipulation why would you save it?

But, anyway, the answer is still yes. Let's say you have image A.
After you save it in JPEG with certain settings, you have image A'
where say 1% of the pixels are slightly different. If you load and
resave A' you'll have A" where again 1% of the pixels may be slightly
different from A' (and possibly even more different from A). Because
A and A' are different inputs, the compressed outputs will be
different as well. JPEG does not have "state" to say "oh, this pixel
pattern means I previously compressed some original pixels to this
output before, so I'll just repeat the original compression". Instead
each image is the original and is compressed differently.

Does this help?

--
Erik

I think he is asking whether just opening the file, viewing it and then
closing it alters the file.
In that case it doesn't.
However if you open the file, alter it in any way (color,tint,sharpness,
whatever else)
then it will attempt to compress that image again, resulting in some
data loss/alteration.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----