Scanning multiple prints -- front and back?

01/04/2009 05:05:34 PM · #1

Does anyone have an recommendations/tutorials/etc. on how to scan and organize a collection of prints -- both front and back (for photos which have names/dates/etc. written on them)?

I'm sure this is a very common thing to do -- I have a collection of family photos I'd like to scan, fix up, preserve, reprint, blah blah blah... and just looking for some tips on the easiest way to run through them. I'd love to see any specific tips on scanning multiple images at once, especially related to scanning multiple images while linking fronts and backs.

I've got some workflow ideas in mind using PS to scan and split up the scanned pages of prints, then LR to stack the fronts and backs, etc., but it still involves a good bit of human work (with the possibility of human error), and I'd like to automate as much as I reasonably can.

I've seen some services where you mail in your photos and let them do the work -- I'd prefer to keep mine here and just do them by hand. (I don't have boxes and boxes of them -- just a couple albums-worth right now).

Thanks for any ideas or pointers...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2009 05:29:18 PM · #2

If the pictures are already mounted on pages in an album, I'd start by scanning/copying the entire pages in low-resolution and printing them out to form a guide for later work. You can go through those pages first and name/number all the pictures before making the final high-resolution scans -- having a logical naming system goes a long way towards making it easier to work with/organize the files later.

I highly encourage you to scan each image individually rather than scanning multiple images at once -- you will get better "exposures" to start with, and won't need to make as many adjustments later. You can usually "preview" a bunch of images at once, then scan each separately without having to reload the scanner for each scan.

Also, scan at the highest "optical" or "native" resolution of the scanner -- avoid scanner-based interpolation to acquire more pixels; it is unlikely to be as good as what you can do manually later, if necessary.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/04/2009 05:44:33 PM · #3

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I highly encourage you to scan each image individually rather than scanning multiple images at once -- you will get better "exposures" to start with, and won't need to make as many adjustments later. You can usually "preview" a bunch of images at once, then scan each separately without having to reload the scanner for each scan.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh -- I had not considered that -- that's a VERY good point; I might have figured that out "the hard way" eventually. Thank you SO much -- that alone just saved me a lot of time. :) Yes, scanning them one-at-a-time will be the way I go.

At you might have guessed, I don't scan often. ;)

Any other hints/tips/tricks anyone have in mind?

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

01/04/2009 07:13:37 PM · #4

Errrrr.....why scan them? No matter how well you clean a scanner, they still leave small residue on the scanned files....as well as the odd colour shift.

I have been known to have do over 300 photos in a hit. I can knock this on the head within a couple of hours by simply placing the images on a white piece of paper on a table. I then have the camera and tripod directly over the image and use my macro lens (better detail) and my remote. I sit there and take a photo of a photo, then swap the old photo for the next one, click, swap, click.....and so on.

It makes it easier for fixing on the pc and a better size print from the image.

NOTE - This is also a really good method when the image you need to scan is bigger than the scanner.

Message edited by author 2009-01-04 19:15:40.

01/04/2009 08:46:04 PM · #5

Originally posted by Judi:

Errrrr.....why scan them? . . . I can knock this on the head within a couple of hours by simply placing the images on a white piece of paper on a table. I then have the camera and tripod directly over the image and use my macro lens (better detail) and my remote.

[ mouth hanging open, speechless ]

I... I... I never thought of that...

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2009 09:28:20 PM · #6

A scanner will have a far higher resolution than any typical dSLR out there right now, and no lens distortion out near the edges, or lighting (shadows, glare, White Balance) issues.

If you need to reproduce art too large for a scanner or just want to use a camera, the device built for that purpose is called a "copy stand" -- and has a mount for the camera parallel to the arwork, and adjustable side lighting to get even coverage without glare. Try to have matching lights on either side of the artwork, at about a 30-45Â° angle. Make sure the sensor plane is exactly parallel to the art, and that the center of the lens is directly over the center of the art, and that the art lies perfectly flat.

Judi

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/04/2009 09:36:21 PM · #7

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Hmmm...I am sure I will find one out in the paddocks somewhere....the nearest one (if I am lucky) would be over 500kms away.....!

I understand what you are saying General...but by having the white paper I do one click in my RAW programme and it changes all of them to the correct white balance...and by using a prime you reduce the majority of distortion. Lighting is easy for me.....I do mine outside under our patio roof which is Laserlight 99%UV....a lot of my portraits you see on this site are done under that lighting with no additional lighting sources.....not even a reflector.

I think scanning is one of those things that is up to the individual to decide which one is better for him/her....but by having all the options laid out, it makes it easier, especially when resources aren't always available due to location/finances/availability etc.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2009 09:42:39 PM · #8

Originally posted by Judi:

I think scanning is one of those things that is up to the individual to decide which one is better for him/her....but by having all the options laid out, it makes it easier, especially when resources aren't always available due to location/finances/availability etc.

Yup -- that's why I know what a copy stand is in the first place. ;-)

As always there is always more than one way to accomplish something like this, each with benefits and potential problems.

But, if the OP already has a functioning scanner (as it seemed to me), then I would recommend scanning over copy-photography, especially for someone inexperienced at both.

01/04/2009 10:36:23 PM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

But, if the OP already has a functioning scanner (as it seemed to me), then I would recommend scanning over copy-photography, especially for someone inexperienced at both.

Yup, all three of those apply to me -- have a scanner, but haven't done any scanner nor copy-photography. ;)

I'm sweating over different dpi settings now... Everything I find online advises color prints can only be reasonably scanned at 300dpi (anything above that being a waste of data)... My own experiments confirm that beyond 600dpi, I see no improvement in detail; but I "feel" like I'm resolving better details on my scans at 600 vs. 300dpi. (Scanner supports 4800 dpi)...

Am I just smoking crack? I'm not comparing images by "zoom" -- I'm upsampling the lower dpi images to match (up to 600 in this case), and then viewing them side-by-side at 100% -- from what I've read (and makes sense), that's the "fair" way to compare them.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/04/2009 10:54:29 PM · #10

try to find out the "optical" resolution of your scanner -- if it "suports" up to 4800 dpi then it is likely to be 1200, 2400, or maybe as low as 600. Scan at whatever that resolution and do your re-sizing/resampling (if any) afterwards.

Or, scan the same high-detail image several ways and see which actually looks best.