Time to be with your loved ones

Time to be with loved ones

by sat

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

14

If you want to use it for documents as well, you're looking at a flatbed scanner, and there are a few options. The two I hear recommended most often are Epson's v-series (in particular the v700 and up) and PlusTek. I have a slightly-older Epson 4990 (the immediate predecessor to the v700s), and have been perfectly happy with it. For printing, most flatbed ...


13

The easy way to think about this is as follows: Imagine that instead of one camera, you had a grid of 100 cameras in a 10x10 array. When you fire a shot, each of them shoots at the same time. They will each have a slightly different view of the thing that you are taking a picture of. There are some mathematical models you can use to sort of "reverse ...


12

A modern scanner of typical resolution should be able to do a reasonably good job on old photos if well used. Method of use can make a difference. See references at end for some tips and guidance. A 6" x 4" print at 300 dpi corresponds to 1800 x 1200 pixels ~=.... 2.5 megapixels A 6" x 4" print at 600 dpi corresponds to 3600 x 2400 pixels ~=..... 9 ...


9

The scanning process shouldn't damage your prints in any perceptible way. If you were to scan them multiple (read hundreds) of times then there might be a noticeable effect. I'd make sure you use a flatbed style scanner- not the document feeder, which can subject prints to mechanical stress. Even a flatbed requires some care if the prints are badly curled. ...


9

A better negative scanner (like my Nikon Coolscan V) has one tremendous advantage: dust/scratch removal (ICE - Nikon, FARE - Canon) That is (in my case) done by an extra IR-lightsource that adds the information of bumps and scratches that can't be part of the picture. I once tested it with a now about 40 year old dia-positive of my father: without ICE it ...


8

There are a number of important details missing from your question: What resolution do you require? Color or black and white? Does the scanner have to be able to handle a mix of sizes simultaneously, or can you sort them ahead of time so that all the photos in a given stack are the same? (Sheet feeders typically work best when the sheets are about the same ...


7

I'm the originator of the flickr discussion, and I'm flattered that it's thought to be worth reviving here :-) I went through the process mainly for archiving purposes. The fear of losing these personal negatives was much more important to me than technical quality. Whatever I did, it had to be fast so that I could do every single one of my negatives. I ...


7

Here is my nutshell after reading through Ren Ng's very approachable paper. In a traditional digital camera the incoming light is focused onto a plane, the sensor, which measures brightness at each photosensitive cell, pixel. This produces a final image in the sense that the resulting raster of values can be plotted as a coherent image. A light-field ...


7

I would scan at the max of 600 dpi - however if the print resolution is so low that printing artifacts are visible at this resolution (e.g. small colored dots), then the result should either be downscaled or a median filter should be applied to eliminate them (or both). Don't go under 300 dpi no matter what or you won't be able to use them to reproduce new ...


6

Well, first off, its highly doubtful there is a color negative "filter" that would invert the negative in such a way that it came out color positive on the sensor. Color negative film is converted to a color positive print in a multi-step process, ultimately using the film itself as a color filter when enlarging it onto photographic paper with the correct ...


6

The quality from a DSLR photograph might rival a scanner if you get the macro lens properly positioned, but I'd say the big thing you'd lose is time. Hours and hours of time. It will take forever to line those slides up properly for each frame, and then you're going to have to spend some time on your computer rotating slightly, cropping, and doing lens ...


6

If you would like to scan the slides the "Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner" seems to get good reviews for slide scanning as well for scanning 35 mm negatives - see amazon (4 stars and 281 customer reviews): http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000VG4AY0/ If you would like to outsource it - ScanCafe might be a good option: http://www.scancafe.com/


6

Don't forget, for less than $100, you can get a decent all in one printer with scanner, that likely does as good a job as the local officemart. Plus, you can control the conditions, cleanliness of the glass, and redo any that don't meet your specs. With enough prints it might break even. I currently have a Brother MFC-J825DW, that supports 2400 x 2400 dpi ...


5

Currently (July 2010) in the UK: photo express develop & scan 35mm or APS to 2048 x 3072 on CD for £4.50 Metro Colour Lab develop & scan 35mm to 4MB on CD for £6.50 or £7 for 18MB peak imaging develop & scan 35mm to 1800 x 1200 on CD for £6.96 (or more for higher resolution)


5

First, I strongly recommend Ctein's book on photo restoration. It's got all of the gory detail work and techniques in it that are needed for this: Photo repair .com site Not sure what scanner you are using, but modern scanners, even really inexpensive ones, are pretty good. I've done a fair amount of recovery work of family photos using under $100 Canon ...


4

Since you're open to a negative scanner consider the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000ED, it can scan whole rolls of negatives, individual 6-photo strips of negatives or up to 50 slides (in a slide hopper) at a time. I use the 6-photo strip adapter and slide hopper. The 50 slide hopper and negative roll adapter are extra attachments you need to purchase but the ...


4

Aside from the recommendations from @Itai, do take your time to browse several related questions and answers here at photo.SE. Or just go ahead and browse the slides tag. There's tons of great advice all around this place.


4

There are plenty of alternatives for this: Have it done for you. Most photo labs offer this service. The advantage is that professionals do it and they may even clean up dust and spots for you. There is nothing for you to learn or buy, just spend the money for each slide. This is probably the way to go for small quantities in the low hundreds. Buy a slide ...


4

Let me answer your direct question first: The document imaging folks have been doing this for ages. They typically are used for huge image scanning projects, like the US Census form processing. I've never seen one for photos, but that is really just a difference in pixel density -- everything else would be the same. These are insanely expensive to buy, and ...


3

Super 8 is a pretty tiny format: 4.0mm x 5.8mm. At first glance, this would appear to be even smaller than most of today's compact cameras, which have 1/2.5" (10mm), 1/1.7" (15mm), etc. sensors. However, due to a weird anomaly in how CCD sizes are specified, that's actually just larger than a 1/3" CCD, which is pretty common. Many webcams, security ...


3

I'm pretty sure they don't sell a digital super-8 back after some Googling around. I'm also pretty sure the required level of expertise to make such a thing is quite high. I'm not going to say its impossible, but well beyond the hope of the average person hoping to save some money on digital recording. If you're interested in shooting the film and ...


3

I agree with the other answers: scan at the highest resolution. Downsampling to the desired size will always give you a better result than just scanning at the desired size. Getting a good scan is never as easy as simply pressing the "scan" button. Taking the time to set black and white points will get you a much better scan. If your scanning software ...


3

For color film copy transparency, they took a color photograph (negative), developed a color transparency (positive) and scanned the transparency to produce a digital file. Digital file from original means that the original was either scanned or digitally photographed. It has to do with what was digitized, was it the original or some kind of copy.


2

If you're going to copy slides/negatives by taking a picture with the camera, you almost certainly want to get (or build) something closely akin to a slide copier -- something like a set of extension tubes to screw onto the filter threads of the lens, with a little holder on the end that will automatically hold the slide/negative aligned and at the correct ...


2

CVS/Eckerds Target Walgreens All very cheap, although I prefer Target.


2

If I cared about the photos I would scan in the highest resolution possible. Storage is fairly cheap and it’s a pity to lose information by scanning in lower resolution. Today it might seem overkill to scan in 600 dpi for display purposes, but then again five years ago I would not have believed I’d have a display with 2048×1536 resolution and 264 ppi. The ...


2

Keep in mind that dark is bright on a negative. Anything black is going to become white, so underexposing the image of the negative results in an overexposure of the positive. Boost your original exposure of the negative and the inverted version will be more natural. It's probably being exposed dark due to being on a light table which is probably throwing ...


1

I have been using this method for scanning my negatives into my computer via a DSLR. Originally, I was doing this to scan black and white and slide film. Once I read some details about color correction, I was better able to use filters that I had to correct for the orange film of a color negative. What's been identified in comments above is that the blue ...


1

I'm in a similar boat (looking for a photo scanner with automatic photo (document) feeder). But in my case I do not have negatives. So far the only candidate I have found which: Appears to be available to purchase in the UK Definitely supports the automatic scanning of a "stack" of photos ...is the HP ScanJet 5500C. I'm going to try and pick one up ...


1

A great scanner will normally do a better job because it can hold the film flatter. But I said a great scanner. If you are just shoving the film into a carrier or slide holder, you aren't doing that much better than you would with a DSLR and a macro provided you could create a jig that would line stuff up right. But the scanner is the right tool for the job. ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible