Old Pictures

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by fudge, Mar 6, 2007.

  1. fudge

    fudge Guest

    I have some old heirloom type black and white pictures from the 1950's. Some
    are as small as 2"x 3". I would like to get them into a format a computer
    can process and hopefully sharpen them up a bit and then make some large
    prints. Can anybody recomend some software and/or a process? I am running
    Win XP Home Edition.

    Farmer John
    fudge, Mar 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. fudge

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:23:40 -0500, "fudge" <>
    wrote:

    >I have some old heirloom type black and white pictures from the 1950's. Some
    >are as small as 2"x 3". I would like to get them into a format a computer
    >can process and hopefully sharpen them up a bit and then make some large
    >prints. Can anybody recomend some software and/or a process? I am running
    >Win XP Home Edition.


    Well first things first.

    Do you have a scanner?
    Evan Platt, Mar 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. fudge

    fudge Guest

    Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures and now have
    them in digital format. I further assume all scanners are alike?

    F.J.
    fudge, Mar 6, 2007
    #3
  4. fudge

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "fudge" <>
    wrote:

    >Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures and now have
    >them in digital format.


    Ok, so assuming they're already scanned, depending on the resolution
    you scanned them at, you may or may not be able to make a print of a
    2x3 photo to anything larger than 2x3 without it looking like a bunch
    of dots.

    In regards to sharpening the photos and modifying them, that all
    depends on your budget and expertise with photo editing software.
    Paint Shop Pro is reasonably priced, but a little hard to learn, then
    there's Adobe PhotoShop, all depends on your taste. Most software has
    a free trial so you can see if you like it before you spend any money
    on it.

    >I further assume all scanners are alike?


    Nope. That's like saying all cars are alike.

    Scanners have different interfaces, from parallel port (old school) to
    SCSI, USB, FireWire, etc.

    And then there's DPI or resolution. If you are scanning a small
    picture and want to make a larger print, you'd want to look for a
    higher resolution.

    And some scanners can scan negatives and slides, some can't.
    Evan Platt, Mar 6, 2007
    #4
  5. fudge

    WhzzKdd Guest

    "Evan Platt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "fudge" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures and now have
    >>them in digital format.

    >
    > Ok, so assuming they're already scanned, depending on the resolution
    > you scanned them at, you may or may not be able to make a print of a
    > 2x3 photo to anything larger than 2x3 without it looking like a bunch
    > of dots.


    Agreed - the scanner resolution is the key. Get one with REAL (not
    "interpolated") resolution of at least 1200 DPI, and scan at the highest
    level. Otherwise, when the photo is enlarged it gets ugly fast.

    > In regards to sharpening the photos and modifying them, that all
    > depends on your budget and expertise with photo editing software.
    > Paint Shop Pro is reasonably priced, but a little hard to learn, then
    > there's Adobe PhotoShop, all depends on your taste. Most software has
    > a free trial so you can see if you like it before you spend any money
    > on it.
    >

    I've used Photoshop CS2, and several other versions, but I've found that I
    can do pretty much everything I want for my home use with Photoshop Elements
    5. Our local community college has classes for Elements, and even a local
    users group, which was an excellent resource for tips and learning how to
    get more done in less time.

    >
    > And some scanners can scan negatives and slides, some can't.


    I spent last year scanning photos and slides with an "Epson Perfection 1660
    Photo" (over 3500 slides, many over 50 years old). Scanning at maximum
    resolution, I was able to get nice (not perfect, but nice) prints using an
    HP 935C printer on 8.5x11 photo paper.

    So it doesn't have to be done with the most expensive toys - my scanner and
    printer are several years old and considered obsolete, but still did a very
    nice job.
    WhzzKdd, Mar 6, 2007
    #5
  6. fudge

    Soundblaster Guest

    "fudge" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have some old heirloom type black and white pictures from the 1950's.
    >Some are as small as 2"x 3". I would like to get them into a format a
    >computer can process and hopefully sharpen them up a bit and then make some
    >large prints. Can anybody recomend some software and/or a process? I am
    >running Win XP Home Edition.
    >
    > Farmer John
    >

    Scanning a picture, then enlarging will cause a loss of definition and
    pixelation.
    Interpolation is the term used for increasing resolution for the purpose of
    producing a clear larger size image. This basically is when a "guess" is
    taken
    and as the size increases, the software "fills-in" around the pixel,
    surrounding
    with same color/hue etc.
    Such software also has the facility for user defining edges etc, such as
    where
    grey becomes black etc. Or where with interpolation it would turn eyes all
    black
    or all white etc. What you require can be done with good image editing
    software.
    Start here:
    http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/increaseresolution/Increasing_Image_Resolution_Software.htm
    Soundblaster, Mar 6, 2007
    #6
  7. fudge

    fudge Guest

    Evan: Great advise. Thanks

    F.J.
    fudge, Mar 6, 2007
    #7
  8. fudge

    Special Ed Guest

    "fudge" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures and now have
    > them in digital format. I further assume all scanners are alike?
    >
    > F.J.


    Yeah, same as all girls, cars, baseball teams, etc. are alike ;-)

    Ed
    Special Ed, Mar 6, 2007
    #8
  9. fudge

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, fudge made these interesting comments ...

    > Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures
    > and now have them in digital format. I further assume all
    > scanners are alike?
    >

    it is clear that you have much homework to do in order to attain
    even a minimal knowledge of what you want to do. asking questions
    in this forum really won't help, as you're not likely to get a
    scanning 101 lesson, nor lessons in how to buy HW, nor computer
    graphics 101 classes, so without some reasonable criteria as to
    what you have, what you intend to do with the digital versions, the
    condition these old photos are, how valuable they are so that you
    don't damage them in the process, and your budget would surely be
    good places to start when asking for help in an area that people
    devote a lifetime to learning, but others simply want to capture
    mom, pop, and the older relatives onto a CD to pass around.

    P.S. all scanners are NOT alike, as you will find

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 7, 2007
    #9
  10. fudge

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, WhzzKdd made these interesting comments ...

    >
    > "Evan Platt" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:54:48 -0500, "fudge"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures
    >>>and now have them in digital format.

    >>
    >> Ok, so assuming they're already scanned, depending on the
    >> resolution you scanned them at, you may or may not be able to
    >> make a print of a 2x3 photo to anything larger than 2x3
    >> without it looking like a bunch of dots.

    >
    > Agreed - the scanner resolution is the key. Get one with REAL
    > (not "interpolated") resolution of at least 1200 DPI, and scan
    > at the highest level. Otherwise, when the photo is enlarged it
    > gets ugly fast.


    How can you leap to this conclusion with no facts from the OP?
    Getting a decent print on a good printer can easily be
    accomplished with 200 PPI, often with much less, considering that
    the orginal photo is likely quite soft. But, old photos have a
    variety of damage and are often grainy, which turns into noise in
    a digital. But, for a quick example, scanning from 2 x 3 with the
    intent of printing at Meijer to 4 x 6 could be accomplished with
    a rather mild DPI of only 400-600. Going to 1200+ would likely
    make the scan worse, not better, and proper noise reduction,
    sharpening, and other enhancement techniques are not for the
    faint of heart.

    >> In regards to sharpening the photos and modifying them, that
    >> all depends on your budget and expertise with photo editing
    >> software. Paint Shop Pro is reasonably priced, but a little
    >> hard to learn, then there's Adobe PhotoShop, all depends on
    >> your taste. Most software has a free trial so you can see if
    >> you like it before you spend any money on it.
    >>

    > I've used Photoshop CS2, and several other versions, but I've
    > found that I can do pretty much everything I want for my home
    > use with Photoshop Elements 5. Our local community college has
    > classes for Elements, and even a local users group, which was
    > an excellent resource for tips and learning how to get more
    > done in less time.
    >
    >>
    >> And some scanners can scan negatives and slides, some can't.

    >
    > I spent last year scanning photos and slides with an "Epson
    > Perfection 1660 Photo" (over 3500 slides, many over 50 years
    > old). Scanning at maximum resolution, I was able to get nice
    > (not perfect, but nice) prints using an HP 935C printer on
    > 8.5x11 photo paper.
    >
    > So it doesn't have to be done with the most expensive toys -
    > my scanner and printer are several years old and considered
    > obsolete, but still did a very nice job.
    >

    Many people also go way overboard with the DPI when scanning
    slides, thinking the same sillyness as digital camera buyers who
    buy the marketing hype that more mega pixels automagically means
    better pictures, whatever that really means, so people try to
    scan at outrageous DPIs above 4800 and find that the grass on
    next year's lawn will need cutting before they get through even
    the first batch of old slides.

    In short, one needs to have a firm grip on what they intent to DO
    with scans, e.g., just view them on-screen, print to 4 x 6, try
    to print to sizes larger than 8/5 x 11, make posters, t-shirts,
    whatever. Each has its own requirements, one size does NOT fit
    all. Also, everyone has their own definition of "good quality"
    and everyone has their own talent limitations and their own
    tolerance for time and effort.

    Finally, the scan DPI which equates to pixels which then equates
    to print PPI can be quite deceptive, again based on the actual
    visual information in the original photo, AND, the intended
    viewing distance of the print. I have scanned hundreds of old
    family snapshots from the 1940s-1960s as well as my father's WWII
    snapshots. To say that the technical quality of the originals is
    POS is to be complimentary. But, I have still created
    breathtakingly beautiful prints on glossy paper on a really old
    HP 1220C inkjet and a newer Canon Pixma 6600 photo printer. The
    key to getting a "good" 8.5 x 11 from a "bad" original is some
    skill in the digital darkroom, but also not putting one's nose on
    the print and looking for jaggies, posterization, noise, and
    other obvious defects. No, my scans and my prints are not pro
    quality, nor would I claim that, but sitting in a frame on my
    mantle or on my wall or on CDs I can pass around to friends and
    relatives get oohs and aahs, not criticisms that "it is obvious
    you didn't scan at enough DPI."

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 7, 2007
    #10
  11. fudge

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, Special Ed made these interesting comments ...

    > "fudge" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Nope, no scanner. Let us assume I have scanned the pictures
    >> and now have them in digital format. I further assume all
    >> scanners are alike?

    >
    > Yeah, same as all girls, cars, baseball teams, etc. are alike
    > ;-)
    >

    I have been able to almost batch process some older snapshots with
    a fast scan and maybe only a minute or two of post-processing with
    PSP 9, while others take 10-20 minutes, but I have spent upwards of
    2, 4, 8 hours on a single scan that is very important to me but is
    a mess from cracking, discoleration, spots missing/torn off, severe
    grain problems, etc. They have to be done one at a time with some
    idea of what you want to accomplish, and, the subjects cause the
    effort and results to vary widely, e.g., some old family snapshots
    or even pro studio work are of people, of course, but some are of
    vacation scenes or the family buggy or almost anything, including
    scenery or buildings, so again, it just ain't possible to creat a
    one-size-fits-all scan/process scenario. But, if the OP's intent is
    to inexpensively create a digital album in minimal time, then it IS
    possible with some compromises in quality.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 7, 2007
    #11
  12. fudge

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, Soundblaster made these interesting comments ...

    >
    > "fudge" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I have some old heirloom type black and white pictures from
    >>the 1950's. Some are as small as 2"x 3". I would like to get
    >>them into a format a computer can process and hopefully
    >>sharpen them up a bit and then make some large prints. Can
    >>anybody recomend some software and/or a process? I am running
    >>Win XP Home Edition.
    >>
    >> Farmer John
    >>

    > Scanning a picture, then enlarging will cause a loss of
    > definition and pixelation.
    > Interpolation is the term used for increasing resolution for
    > the purpose of producing a clear larger size image. This
    > basically is when a "guess" is taken
    > and as the size increases, the software "fills-in" around the
    > pixel, surrounding
    > with same color/hue etc.
    > Such software also has the facility for user defining edges
    > etc, such as where
    > grey becomes black etc. Or where with interpolation it would
    > turn eyes all black
    > or all white etc. What you require can be done with good image
    > editing software.
    > Start here:
    > http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/increaseresolution/Increasing_
    > Image_Resolution_Software.htm
    >

    All of this is very true and I appreciate the link as well. Now,
    going from a 2 x 3 photo to an 11 x 14 print may or may not be an
    enlargement in the sense you are referring to IF there's enough
    real image information available in the original to get enough
    PPI for the desired print size and IF the OP can quickly acquire
    the skills to digitally enhance the images, again, not a task for
    the faint of heart. But, what he says he wants to do isn't
    necessarily a simple pixel enlargement at all, so while jaggies,
    posterizations, et al MAY be an issue, they don't have to be.

    I have found by experimentation, that it is foolhardy for me to
    waste scan time on these old drug store prints past about 600
    DPI. I can get twice that without interpolation, but I'm really
    just adding damaged pixels. So, many of my old family photos
    won't generate much over a 1024 pixel image, some maybe 1280-
    1400, which in turn theoretically limits the PPI I can attain
    when attempting to print large. But, assume that Mom and Dad are
    in a soft 1950s B&W snapshot and all you really want to do is
    honor their memory by framing a once-in-a-lifetime photo op in an
    8.5 x 11 frame, it CAN be done, IF you spend some time on it and
    view the resulting print from maybe 2 or 3 feet away.

    Back to the OP, he needs to much more carefully define what he is
    working with, the originals, how much money and time he wants to
    throw at the task, what he intends to do with some or all of the
    digital scans, and his own definition of "quality". It really
    doesn't matter what any of us think. Not everyone wants, needs,
    nor can afford a multi-thousand dollar scanner, 10-cartridge
    printer, and a $800 graphics app, but they can be happy as clams
    passing out self-generating CDs/DVDs that can easily be played on
    a TV by their friends and relatives.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 7, 2007
    #12
  13. fudge

    Soundblaster Guest

    With an obssession to make himself look sillier with every post the
    following dickhead:
    "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns98EC4C6CDE183ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...

    snip
    Soundblaster, Mar 7, 2007
    #13
  14. fudge

    HEMI-Powered Guest

    Today, Soundblaster made these interesting comments ...

    > With an obssession to make himself look sillier with every
    > post the following dickhead:
    > "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns98EC4C6CDE183ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
    >
    > snip
    >

    hey, fuckhead/faggot/pervert/imbecile, you have not presented even
    ONE fact or factoid to at all support your assertions, and you've
    also proven yourself to be a pathological liar as well as one
    completely devoid of integrity, so **** off as best you can, hear?!

    --
    HP, aka Jerry
    HEMI-Powered, Mar 7, 2007
    #14
  15. fudge

    philo Guest

    "fudge" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have some old heirloom type black and white pictures from the 1950's.

    Some
    > are as small as 2"x 3". I would like to get them into a format a computer
    > can process and hopefully sharpen them up a bit and then make some large
    > prints. Can anybody recomend some software and/or a process? I am running
    > Win XP Home Edition.
    >
    > Farmer John
    >
    >



    a free photo-program the GIMP

    http://www.gimp.org/





    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    philo, Mar 7, 2007
    #15
  16. fudge

    ClueLess Guest

    On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:40:03 -0800, "WhzzKdd"
    <frack_this@email_is.invalid> wrote:

    >I spent last year scanning photos and slides


    Hi

    That interests me. How did you scan the slides? I have nearly 500+
    slides and I have not been able to get a good scanned image.

    Thank you for any help you can give me.

    ClueLess






























    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    ClueLess, Mar 10, 2007
    #16
  17. fudge

    Guest

    ClueLess <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:40:03 -0800, "WhzzKdd"
    ><frack_this@email_is.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>I spent last year scanning photos and slides


    >That interests me. How did you scan the slides? I have nearly 500+
    >slides and I have not been able to get a good scanned image.


    You create an aluminum Triangle, the object is to reflect the light
    back into the scanner, thru the slide. and How I did it until the
    prices made it look foolish :)

    Go to www.froggle.com and search - slide scanner
    --
    Just a singer in a band
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=RqOSzkqPhbA
    , Mar 10, 2007
    #17
  18. fudge

    Guest

    , Mar 10, 2007
    #18
  19. ClueLess wrote:
    > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:40:03 -0800, "WhzzKdd"
    ><frack_this@email_is.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>I spent last year scanning photos and slides

    >
    > That interests me. How did you scan the slides? I have nearly 500+
    > slides and I have not been able to get a good scanned image.


    I'm thinking you're not using a slide scanner or a scanner with a slide
    attachment.

    --
    Blinky RLU 297263
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
    Blinky the Shark, Mar 10, 2007
    #19
  20. fudge

    thanatoid Guest

    ClueLess <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:40:03 -0800, "WhzzKdd"
    > <frack_this@email_is.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>I spent last year scanning photos and slides

    >
    > Hi
    >
    > That interests me. How did you scan the slides? I have
    > nearly 500+ slides and I have not been able to get a good
    > scanned image.


    While many recent scanners have "35mm attachments", the only way
    to get a *really* good slide scan is to use a scanner which does
    JUST that, slides, at 3600 or 4800 dpi. Canon makes them, and a
    few other manuf's. They are relatively expensive although I have
    not looked at the actual prices in years.

    "Interpolated resolution" is an abstract selling concept, so
    remember that when using a home scanner, you are scanning a
    roughly 1 x 1.6 inch image at 300 or 400 dpi. Even with an
    "attachment", you can't expect much.

    Or you could go to a pre-press service bureau and see if you can
    get a deal on scanning a whole bunch. Might be cheaper to buy a
    slide scanner, though, or to make prints from the slides and
    scan those on your scanner. Of course, the color depth and
    resolution of a slide is much higher than that of a print, but I
    guess it depends on how picky and how rich you are.

    --
    Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.
    thanatoid, Mar 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    525
  2. Ian Roberts
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,447
  3. Albert

    BIG pictures or SMALL pictures ?

    Albert, Feb 12, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    607
    scrammit
    Feb 20, 2007
  4. Robert Montgomery

    12-megapixel pictures as sharp when enlarged as 18-meg pictures?

    Robert Montgomery, Jun 16, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    95
    Views:
    1,919
    Bigguy2011
    Jun 21, 2012
  5. Dale
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    94
Loading...

Share This Page