Scanning Tips

[skitterbug]

I want to scan old photos and I am wondering what best practices might be? I have an Epson V600 scanner that has its own scanning software. I use it in the professional Mode. But I've always have been unsure what settings to use?

Currently it is set to scan using the following:

for photo (obviously), 24-bit color
Resolution - 600dpi
size is the size of the pic to be scanned.
I've recently found that I can use an unsharp mask at low, medium or high.
The image format that I've chosen is TIFF.

So are those fairly decent settings? Can I make any changes to improve my scanned product? Opinions and help will be appreciated!

Thanks!

[Shadowman]

You should have a preview function which will give you a good idea of how it'll turn out. I've read that 600 dpi can be overkill, depends on what the final output will be; monitor viewing or prints.

[pnodrog]

The maximum scanning dpi depends on the quality of the media and printing method of the document being scanned. Very good glossy photographs can be successfully scanned at 600 dpi (sometimes even higher) whereas a document offset printed with some sort of screen applied needs to be scanned at a much lower dpi to try to avoid all sorts of strange artefacts. Prints on textured, stippled or matt papers also tend to need to be scanned at lower dpi, often 300 is recommended.

Having said that I have just been scanning some very small old glossy photographs at 1200dpi just to upscale them. Usually, I would upscale after scanning but for these photographs, it seems to work just fine doing it all in one hit.

So the true answer is it depends....

[JohnRostron]

Some scanning software (VueScan and SilverFast) allows you to scan at a high resolution, and then it will combines these into a lower resolution final image. I understand that this is intended to average out small-scale imperfections (such as grain).

John

[skitterbug]

You should have a preview function which will give you a good idea of how it'll turn out. I've read that 600 dpi can be overkill, depends on what the final output will be; monitor viewing or prints.

Yes, my software allows me a preview pic before I do a final scan. In a perfect world, what I see should be what I get. Mostly, I'll view them on a monitor/TV, etc in digital format but I also want to be able to print since what I'm scanning are family photos.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[skitterbug]

The maximum scanning dpi depends on the quality of the media and printing method of the document being scanned. Very good glossy photographs can be successfully scanned at 600 dpi (sometimes even higher) whereas a document offset printed with some sort of screen applied needs to be scanned at a much lower dpi to try to avoid all sorts of strange artefacts. Prints on textured, stippled or matt papers also tend to need to be scanned at lower dpi, often 300 is recommended.

Having said that I have just been scanning some very small old glossy photographs at 1200dpi just to upscale them. Usually, I would upscale after scanning but for these photographs, it seems to work just fine doing it all in one hit.

So the true answer is it depends....

These pictures are on all sorts of quality paper so it is a task to recover some of them. I want enough of a file to be able to work cleaning up scratches, dust spots - artifacts is a good description of the alien life form that seems to pop up in the scanned pic.
Also I am curious what file format do you choose? JPG, TIFF, etc.

When you mention "upscale", what are you doing to them? My thought for some of these would be to enlarge the picture to 5 x 7 or even 8 x 10 but it has to first be something decent to work with? In the scanning software, there is an area where I can change the "document size" but I wasn't sure if this compromised the picture file? Also it could make "adjustments" such as applying an unsharp mask, etc. Is it a good idea to do these things and allow the scanner to make the changes or would it be better to scan the file and then work with it in another photo editing program? Do you have a preference?

I know I am asking lots of questions but since it is time consuming to do this task, I want to get it done with the best results as possible.

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

[skitterbug]

Some scanning software (VueScan and SilverFast) allows you to scan at a high resolution, and then it will combines these into a lower resolution final image. I understand that this is intended to average out small-scale imperfections (such as grain).

John

The scan software came with the scanner that I have and it is called Epson Scan. One thing that I didn't even consider was checking to see if there is an update offered for it. It says it has ICE technology, but I haven't a clue what that is supposed to mean.

Confession time - When it comes to scanning for posterity sake, I'm the typical person who wants to have excellent results in spite of not knowing what I am doing! LOL So my goal is to learn and get it done correctly!

Thanks for your comments!

[Geoff F]

My settings are similar to what you are using, Sandy, although I don't use any unsharp mask until I have taken the image into my editing software and resized it, plus any other changes. Epson V800 scanner.

The Digital Ice software seems to do a good job but can take a long time so I generally don't use it. It is probably more useful for people who don't have alternative high quality editing software. There was some other editing software which came with my scanner but it wasn't as good as a 'proper photo editor'. I think it was called Silverfast.

I normally check the colours/saturation/brightness after a preview scan then make any adjustments using Curves or Levels, etc. Curves is my preferred method. Also, when scanning with these preadjustments I make sure the auto brightness levels are turned off. My experience has been that this basic auto adjustment tends to be a bit on the harsh side with excessive contrast etc.

[benm]

Sandy, a few years ago I did a scanning project which involved more than 5,000 photos so I have some experience.

First, where do you want to end up? What are you going to do with the scans and how are you planning on displaying them? On a large monitor? On an iPad? Only a smartphone? Are you planning to print? If so, how large?

Scan a couple of photos at 600 dpi and then display on a large monitor or print the largest size you expect to ever print at. Do the same at 300 dpi (same photos). Compare. 300 dpi may be enough depending on the quality of the photos and the cameras that took them.

All the other settings (unsharp mask, color correction, etc.) I left at default values. Almost all of the photos I was scanning were black & white (going back to late 1800's) and Kodak Instamatic color photos (basically not too sharp to begin with).

But here is the really important stuff:
1. Scanning will only take about 20% of your time. 80% will be doing other stuff like organizing, keywording, captioning, adding capture date.
2. Organize your photos before you start scanning. Place photos taken at the same time together (maybe they are already still in their original processing envelopes, that will help). Then you can change the date on that group of photos to the capture date (if you know it), add the location/event/persons. Anything you can do in batches will save time.
3. Pay attention to the back of the photos, sometimes they have dates or text identifying persons in the photo, etc.
4. Some processors added the date when the photos were printed. But that is not necessarily when the photos were taken. I had plenty of winter photos with an August date.
5. Brush the photos before scanning to remove dust. They have dust even if they were in an envelope for 50 years.

That should get you started.

[skitterbug]

Hi Geoff ~ I've been debating about the unsharp mask since I can do that within PP software. I didn't know if there was any advantage using it in scan. And I think I've finally figured out how to resize my scans within the PP software as well so no need to attempt that while scanning.

I thought about using different scanning software but it all comes at a cost that I'm not interested in especially when it seems that my current scanning software is doing a decent job of it. (Epson Scan)

In regard to the rest of the adjustments, it may be better for me to wait until after the scan. I don't think my scan software is as apt to get that right or as I may want it.

Thanks for covering things I hadn't thought about - brightness levels being one of them.

[skitterbug]

Hi Ben ~ My thought for use of my scan results will probably be digital display on 5K monitor, TV screen, etc. as well as some prints so I'll have to keep that in mind as I scan.

I've tried some at 600dpi as well as 300dpi, I'm leaning toward 600dpi.

The "important stuff" you list are all excellent to consider. I am horrible about keeping things organized. So to make this project work, I'm going to have to set up a system to keep things in order. You've made some good suggestions! In fact, I'm printing off your reply to keep it close at hand!

Thank you!

[proseak]

Since you're having to rework some of these, I'd say scan 48-bit colour, 600 lpi, and save as TIFF. Save all the PP work for PP software.

The ICE you mentiuoned is really only useful for film scanning;it uses a secondary IR lamp to detect surface imperfections. Here's Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE

Others have mentioned the importance of organising first, and they're quite right - oddly, it's much easier to sort prints than image files.

HTH

Peter

[skitterbug]

Since you're having to rework some of these, I'd say scan 48-bit colour, 600 lpi, and save as TIFF. Save all the PP work for PP software.

The ICE you mentiuoned is really only useful for film scanning;it uses a secondary IR lamp to detect surface imperfections. Here's Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_ICE

Others have mentioned the importance of organising first, and they're quite right - oddly, it's much easier to sort prints than image files.

HTH

Peter

Hi Peter - I do have a few slides to scan eventually but the pictures come first.

And oh my, you and Ben are both right about sorting them out. I think I am going to sort by families first and then try and get them lined up by date. These are left from several others sorting through them so you can imagine the jumble. Very few are marked or dated..... It is going to take a miracle but I'm game. My Mom and Dad were only children so they didn't seem to care much about family history but I sure wish they would have..... <huge sigh> I should have been asking lots of questions while I still had reliable sources available.
(I'm starting to ramble.... sorry)

I also think I am only going to scan the better pics rather than try and capture them all. So many of them have deteriorated beyond even decent material to scan. That is sad to me, family history melting away....... It does impress upon me how important the choice of printing paper, ink and subject content are. It may also start to affect what sort of photos I take.

Thanks for verifying the settings to use. Those are the ones I've been using now for the few that I did scan and the results seem decent. And yes, it does help!

[dem]

Hi Sandy. I know next to nothing about scanning negatives but saw early today a discussion on a Fuji forum that might give you a few ideas:

https://www.fujix-forum.com/threads/...ng-info.77689/

[skitterbug]

Hi Dem - I haven't begun to scan negatives yet. I'm in the same boat as you are, I know very little about the process. I have a feeling that scanning negatives won't happen until next winter since I am still ankle deep in old photos!

Thanks for the link. Information is always good!

[stuck]

Regarding the settings you mentioned, 24-bit color is a good choice for scanning photos, as it captures the most colors possible.

Thank you for your contribution but this thread was started 5 years ago, in 2018.