Information about scanning photos and negatives are common topics discussed in this category.
A few months back I wrote a post call Data Archiving Method where I talked about which media I chose to backup my scanned photo and negative archives. I also mentioned the labeling method I chose to keep track of each photo. I haven’t wrote much about archive since then so I decided to provide more information for those that are archiving.
In this post I will elaborate on the organizing and photo properties that I have chosen for the archives.
For those who like to edit and print your pictures with the same colours you see on a computer monitor, then learning how to manage colours is very important. Although the colours may look similar between a printed photo and how it is displayed on a computer monitor, chances are that there is some colour differences.
In this post I will discuss what colour management is, and how best to use it to reproduce the colours in the photos you see on your monitor.
If you were to show a thousand people various shades of red and ask each one to point to the true red colour, you will probably get a thousand different answers. Each person has their own opinion on what the colour red looks like. Devices to some degree are no different.
There are many devices that deal with colours: scanners, printers, digital cameras and monitors. If they all displayed the same colour the same way, then there wouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, each device displays colours differently so if you were to transfer a picture between two devices, chances are the colours won’t be the same. This is where colour management comes in.
The goal of colour management is to obtain a match of a colour between devices, provided the device is capable of displaying the necessary colour.
In order to get the same colour to display on a device you would first need to calibrate the device. A search on Google for monitor calibration will result in almost two million pages in the search results. There is much discussion on calibrating your monitor. Once you have calibrated a device, you will then have a colour profile that can be associated with that device.
Once you calibrate your monitor you can save the information in a file called a colour profile. This file contains information about mapping the colours for that device. Some mappings may provide information about the closest possible colour and remap the entire colour range to allow for different gamuts.
Many of the devices that are used to present specific colours to the user include an ICC colour profile that may be installed along with the drivers and applications. The colour profiles may also be available on the vendor’s Web site or through a third party.
You may need several colour profiles for a particular device to ensure that your colours are as accurate as possible. For example, a photo printer can print a photograph on many different types of paper: glossy, matte, normal printer paper. Each of the paper types reproduce colours differently, and as such will require a separate colour profile for the printer. You may be able to get a profile from the paper manufacturer, or they may suggest a profile to use. Either way, it is best to use a profile specific to that paper type.
In photo editors, there is an option to define the various colour profiles to use for the devices. Make sure you select the colour profile that is associated with each device that you will be using to ensure that your get accurate colours.
When saving your photos, you can embed the ICC colour profile so if someone were to open that photo on a computer without the profile, the colours will still be displayed accurately because the profile information is embedded inside the file. The downside to this is that it makes your image file larger.
Each device that is used with photographs can display colours differently. To get accurate colours, it is important to use a colour profile for that device. The device’s vendor, or a third party vendor, can provide you with the necessary colour profile for the device. Some devices, such as printers, may require different colour profiles depending on the target output, such as glossy or matter paper.
I have began archiving the photos and negatives that are conveniently stored away in boxes. It is a great undertaking, but one that I’m sure I’ll enjoy. I describe my organizing method in my post titled Data Archiving Method. The one issue I have had, however, is determining the resolutions I will use for the digital archives.
There are many questions about resolution with regards to scanning. I haven’t found any conclusive evidence on which resolutions to use, but I have made up my mind as to which ones I will use.
One of the most debated points with regards to scanning pictures, negatives, and slides is the resolution to use. The general consensus is to print at 300dpi (dots per inch), so what should we be scanning the original in at? The answer to that question is it depends. Let’s take a look at how resolution plays a roll in the printing of a picture.
Suppose you have a 4×6 photo that you want to scan in and eventually print. You scan the document in at 300dpi with the size in pixels of the picture at 1200×1800. The size is calculate by taking the size of the photo, in this case 4 inches by 6 inches, and multiplying each number by 300, since you are scanning in at 300dpi.
Now if you want to print the photo at 300dpi you would get a 4×6 photo, which is the same size as the original. If you want to make a larger print of the photo, you can do one of two things: either print at the current resolution by decreasing the 300dpi to something like 180dpi, or rescan the original at a higher resolution.
If you were to rescan the original at a higher resolution, say 600dpi, you will now have a photo that is 2400×3600 pixels. Dividing both numbers by the print resolution of 300, you can now enlarge the photo to an 8×12.
Keep in mind, however, that because you are scanning a photo, and not the original negative, you won’t gain much if you continue to increase the resolution. That only helps to enlarge the photo, and not increase the clarity.
I read somewhere that some think the resolution of a negative is equivalent to a 20-megapixel digital camera. I’m not sure how accurate this statement is, but I can tell you one thing: you can get scan at a much higher resolution and get better prints from scanning negatives than an actual photo. When you do scan negatives, you will definitely need a higher resolution, unless you like really small photos.
The size of a single 35mm negative is 1.42×0.94 inches. If you scan a negative at 300dpi, you will get an image size of 426×282. Printing this image at 300 will give you a picture the same size as the original negative: 1.42×0.94 inches. That is a really small photo. You will need to scan in the negative at a much higher resolution.
Many scanners can now scan above 3000dpi. If you plan on scanning hundreds or even thousands of negatives you may want to go with a scan dedicated to slide and negative scanning. I didn’t have the money for one, so I have invested in a flatbed scanner. Dedicated slide and negative scanners can go as high as 4000dpi, or possibly higher, while my flatbed can go up to 4800dpi, although with results not as good as a dedicated scanner.
If you were to scan a negative in at 3000dpi, you would end up with an image that is 4260×2820 pixels in size. This is equivalent to a 12-megapixel camera. This allows you to print 9×14 inch photograph at 300dpi (4260 divided by 300, and 2820 divided by 300). For most people this will more than suffice for printing.
If I were to scan at the full 4800dpi, the image size would be 6816×4512, or 31 megapixels. The file size would be monstrous to the point where I wouldn’t be able to easily save many photos because the larger the image files, the more space you are going to need to store it. If you do scan at a high resolution, make sure you have the storage space to accommodate all of your files.
To help you determine what resolution to use, please check out Scanning and Printing Resolution Calculator. The Web site also provides great tips on scanning for both photos and negatives.
I have read many posts regarding scanning resolution online, and everyone seems to have there own opinion. For me, when I’m archiving my photographs, I’ll scan them in at 600dpi to leave a little room for enlarging. For negatives I will scan them in at 3200 since it is a nice compromise between file size and resolution. I probably won’t be printing any large photos, but it would be nice to have enough overhead just in case I would like to many years in the future.
In the end, however, scanning resolution will be decided by your requirements, needs and capacity.
There is much discussion on the Internet about the best method for backing up digital photos. Some say CD/DVDs are the best media, while others prefer hard drives or tapes. In my opinion there is no right way to back up digital photos as each method has its advantages and disadvantages. I will discuss the various media and their advantages and disavantages in this post, and then discuss the method I use to back up my digital photos.
CD/DVDs are perhaps the most popular method for backing up digital photos, as most computers now come with a burner and software. Most photo organizing software also include the ability to burn your photos to a CD/DVD.
Advantages: Very little cost to storing your digital photos, as your computer probably includes a burner. You can buy CD/DVD spindles that include hundreds of blank discs for a few dollars. A single layer, single-sided DVD can hold up to 4.7GB, which means you can store thousands of photos on a single DVD.
Disadvantages: The biggest and possibly most talked about problem with optical media is that they could develop problems as time passes. This could lead to you digital photos becoming unreadable. To help minimize read problems in the future, only buy name brand CD/DVDs.
Another disadvantage with CD/DVDs is the fact that they are a progressing technology. This means that in a few years they will be replaced by another form of optical media. For example, the CD is now being replaced buy the DVD, which in turn is slowly being replaced by high-definition DVDs. This means that you will have to eventually move your backups to the next generation of optical media every few years.
Hard drives can store enormous amounts of information, much more than either tapes or CD/DVDs. All computers come with at least one built-in hard drive so you don’t need to buy anything else. An external hard drive, however, is preferred for backing up data.
Advantages: As mentioned they have massive amount of storage capacity, meaning one hard drive can probably store your entire digital photo collection. You would only have to purchase the drive and no additional media. An external hard drive is very common today, and can connect to your computer through the USB port. This keeps your data safe in case your computer fails and you need to reinstall your operating system. Unlike the other media, hard drives have been around for many years, and although the technology may change, you will still be able to use your current hard drive for many years.
Disadvantages: The biggest problem that you can run into would be a hard drive failure. Always keep in mind that anything with moving parts can break, and a hard drive is no exception. If you take care of your hard drive, then it should last for many years.
This is not as popular for a home user as it is for a business user. Tapes are popular for a business since they can store much more than a CD or DVD, and they are more reliable.
Advantages: Tapes, as mentioned, can store a large amount of data, although not as much as a hard drive. Not only can they store a lot of data, but they can also be erased and rewritten many times. If you take care of your tape, then it can last for many years.
Disadvantages: Out of the media mentioned in this post, tape backup is probably the most expensive. You would need to buy a tape drive, and then the individual tapes, and depending on the type you buy it can be quite expensive. This is one of the reasons tapes or used more in business than at home. Tapes can also degrade if used on a frequent basis, which could cause problems with your data, so just like the other media you will need to take care of your tapes.
This type of backup isn’t discussed as frequently because most don’t think about using an online service to store their data. There are many places online that can provide you with enough disk space for your entire digital photo collection, but you will need to research the best Web site that suits your needs.
Advantages: One of the biggest advantages is that you don’t need to worry about resaving your data as technology progresses. Your chosen online company will do that for you. Another advantage is that the online company probably has a good backup and restore system in place in case of a hardware problem (at least you hope). This will help ensure that you never lose your data.
Disadvantages: You will probably need to pay a monthly fee to store your data on the servers, and depending on your budget, this may not work for you. You will also need to do much research into the online company first to ensure that your data is safe and secure. The last thing you need is to see your digital photos all over the Internet because someone accessed your backups.
After reading this post, you may be wondering how I choose to back up my digital photos. Here is what I do:
As you can see I don’t stick with one method of backing up my digital photos. The best thing you can do when backing up your photos is to make multiple copies. This way if one copy doesn’t work, you have another.
I discussed the various media that you can use to back up your digital photos. I have also described the method I use to backup my photos. After reading this post, I hope that you will be able to choose your preferred method to keep your photos safe for many years. Remember: always make multiple copies of your data.
There have been many times in the past when someone has sent me an e-mail with picture attachments. I don’t mind picture attachments, if they are resized. Many times the pictures have not been resized and I end up downloading 5 files that are a combined 10MB. Even on broadband this can take some time.
In this post I will outline the steps I use to resize my digital photos so they can be easily sent by e-mail or posted to a Web site. The steps outlined are general enough where they can be used by most photo editors as they all have the needed features.
Every time I read articles or tutorials about saving images for Web pages or sending through e-mail they always mention saving the images with a resolution of 72dpi or Dots Per Inch. The interesting fact about this suggestion is that a computer monitor doesn’t deal with dots or inches, but rather with pixels.
The resolution of a monitor is indicated as two numbers: [number of pixels for width]x[number of pixels for height]. For example, resolutions are indicated as 800×600 or 1024×768. You notice no mention of dots or inches because a monitor only cares about the number of pixels. This means that when creating images for viewing on a monitor it is important to pay close attention to the size of the file in pixels.
Let’s see an example of how this works. Below you will see two images from the same image. The top image has a print resolution of 300dpi, while the bottom one has a resolution of 10dpi. You will notice that when displayed on the monitor, they are identical. With regards to monitors, both are the same size: 225×300.
A 225×300 pixel image will always be displayed as 225 by 300 pixels regardless of the screen size in inches.
Summary
Unlike printing, DPI as no affect on how an image is displayed on a computer monitor. When resizing an image for Web sites or e-mails it is important to resize the image based on the number of pixels, and not DPI.
I have read many articles and posts on the Web on how to scan photographs. There are many opinions as to the best way to perform the scan, and I have my own. This post will explain the most common settings that I use when scanning photographs.
There is some debate about how many pixels per inch to use when scanning a photograph. Some say 240ppi, others 300 ppi, and a few say more than 300ppi. My take on the situation is this: I try to aim for 300ppi. What do I mean by this? I’ll show you.
Lets say you have a 4×6 photograph that you would like scanned in, and printed at 4×6. This is rather simple to do, simply specify 300 in your scanner software where it says PPI and scan the photo. When completed, you will get a photo that is 1200×1800 (4×300, 6×300) pixels in size.
What if you want to increase the size of the photo to 8×10, and still print at 300ppi? You would increase the PPI in the scanner software to allow for a bigger print. In this case 600ppi would double the size of the print to 2400×3600 (4×600, 6×300), which allows a print of 300ppi at 8×12 inches.
Most of the time, however, I would print the same size of picture that I scan in. This means that I would keep the PPI at 300.
I always scan photos in at 48bit colour. I usually need to correct colour casts in the scanned photos, and 48bits provides me that extra overhead to change the colours of the photograph without any banding. Banding can be seen when using Adobe Photoshop using the Levels tools to view the distribution of pixels in the different tonal values. If there are gaps between the lines, then it shows that those tonal values don’t have any pixels, otherwise known as banding. One of the downsides to using 48bit colour instead of 24bit colour is file size. The size of the photos is double at 48bit, meaning more memory and hard drive space is needed. With the large hard drives and 1-2GB of memory in most systems these days, most people would have the space. Another downside to 48bit is that not all photos-editing software can edit photos at that colour depth. Many of the big name editors, such as Adobe Photoshop, are providing more functionality for editing 48bit images.
When saving photos for later use, I like to use the TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) format. This file format is uncompressed, can be used on many types of systems (PC, Mac, Unix), and supports layers and 48bits. The downside is that it can be much larger than a compressed format, such as JPEG. Since it is uncompressed, there is no data loss, so you can continuously edit and save the file with any image degradation.
When sending the photo through e-mail or posting it online, I use JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group). This is the same format used by digital cameras, and can compress to a much smaller size than TIFF. The big downside to this format is that it uses a lossy compression, meaning every time the picture is saved, it is compressed and some information is lost. The compression can be adjusted to help balance between size and image quality.
Here is a summary of what I mentioned in the post to make things easier to remember:
In later posts I’ll describe how I catalogue and archive my digital photos, both scanned and those taken with my digital camera.