Scanning Photos

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by goldie955@gmail.com, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice, damage the
    photograph?
     
    , Dec 2, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ray Guest

    On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:46:20 -0800, goldie955 wrote:

    > Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice, damage the
    > photograph?


    No. No more than viewing it a few times.
     
    ray, Dec 2, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. HEMI-Powered Guest

    added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

    > Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    > damage the photograph?
    >

    Technically, yes. The light of a scanner lamp varies as to
    intensity and color temperature but is pretty bright. But, unless
    the photos are very old and hence both rare and valuable, I
    wouldn't worry much about it. I scanned all of my old family
    snapshots, maybe 500, as well as a subset of my father's WWII
    Marine B & Ws and I can't say I see any significant fading or other
    damage, but then, I'm just using my eye and not a lab measurement.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry

    "Never complain, never explain" - Henry Ford II
     
    HEMI-Powered, Dec 2, 2007
    #3
  4. HEMI-Powered Guest

    ray added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

    > On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 19:46:20 -0800, goldie955 wrote:
    >
    >> Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    >> damage the photograph?

    >
    > No. No more than viewing it a few times.
    >

    See my coments to the OP. I think that the typical scanner light
    bar or other type light emits a much brighter light than does
    normal room ambient lighting, but I don't think it is at all
    damaging to the photos.


    --
    HP, aka Jerry

    "Never complain, never explain" - Henry Ford II
     
    HEMI-Powered, Dec 2, 2007
    #4
  5. "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99FA2F6154FA8ReplyScoreID@140.99.99.130...
    > added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    >
    >> Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    >> damage the photograph?
    >>

    > Technically, yes. The light of a scanner lamp varies as to
    > intensity and color temperature but is pretty bright. But, unless
    > the photos are very old and hence both rare and valuable, I
    > wouldn't worry much about it. I scanned all of my old family
    > snapshots, maybe 500, as well as a subset of my father's WWII
    > Marine B & Ws and I can't say I see any significant fading or other
    > damage, but then, I'm just using my eye and not a lab measurement.


    True. Think of it this way. If you print a photo and place it in a sunny
    window, each moment that the sun is falling on the pigments they fade a
    little bit. A days worth of sunlight won't make a noticable difference. But
    over time and repeted exposure, the pigments will fade to a nearly
    transparent level. The same thing can happen with a scanner or any bright
    light. A single or even a hundred scans is unlikely to show any noticable
    damage. But eventually, with enough repeted exposures the light can cause
    damage to a measurable level.

    On top of that some papers, pigments, or chemical coatings may be more or
    less sensitive. Thus many museums insist on no flash photography of old
    paintings, or old documents as the repeted bright light can have a
    degenerative effect over the years.

    On the other hand, for most photo prints, simply repeted scanning of a print
    would tend to require hundreds of thousands of scans to have a noticable
    effect on the print.

    JMHO

    Randy B.
     
    Randy Berbaum, Dec 2, 2007
    #5
  6. Randy Berbaum <> wrote:

    > "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns99FA2F6154FA8ReplyScoreID@140.99.99.130...
    >> added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    >>
    >>> Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    >>> damage the photograph?
    >>>

    >> Technically, yes. The light of a scanner lamp varies as to
    >> intensity and color temperature but is pretty bright. But, unless
    >> the photos are very old and hence both rare and valuable, I
    >> wouldn't worry much about it. I scanned all of my old family
    >> snapshots, maybe 500, as well as a subset of my father's WWII
    >> Marine B & Ws and I can't say I see any significant fading or other
    >> damage, but then, I'm just using my eye and not a lab measurement.


    > True. Think of it this way. If you print a photo and place it in a sunny
    > window, each moment that the sun is falling on the pigments they fade a
    > little bit. A days worth of sunlight won't make a noticable difference. But
    > over time and repeted exposure, the pigments will fade to a nearly
    > transparent level. The same thing can happen with a scanner or any bright
    > light. A single or even a hundred scans is unlikely to show any noticable
    > damage. But eventually, with enough repeted exposures the light can cause
    > damage to a measurable level.


    > On top of that some papers, pigments, or chemical coatings may be more or
    > less sensitive. Thus many museums insist on no flash photography of old
    > paintings, or old documents as the repeted bright light can have a
    > degenerative effect over the years.


    What is often a lot more damaging than light to ancient pigments is
    hydrogen sulphide. The largest source of that in museums and galleries
    is people farting. The problem is working out a reasonable way of
    banning farters.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Dec 2, 2007
    #6
  7. HEMI-Powered Guest

    Randy Berbaum added these comments in the current discussion du
    jour ...

    >>> Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    >>> damage the photograph?
    >>>

    >> Technically, yes. The light of a scanner lamp varies as to
    >> intensity and color temperature but is pretty bright. But,
    >> unless the photos are very old and hence both rare and
    >> valuable, I wouldn't worry much about it. I scanned all of my
    >> old family snapshots, maybe 500, as well as a subset of my
    >> father's WWII Marine B & Ws and I can't say I see any
    >> significant fading or other damage, but then, I'm just using
    >> my eye and not a lab measurement.

    >
    > True. Think of it this way. If you print a photo and place it
    > in a sunny window, each moment that the sun is falling on the
    > pigments they fade a little bit. A days worth of sunlight
    > won't make a noticable difference. But over time and repeted
    > exposure, the pigments will fade to a nearly transparent
    > level. The same thing can happen with a scanner or any bright
    > light. A single or even a hundred scans is unlikely to show
    > any noticable damage. But eventually, with enough repeted
    > exposures the light can cause damage to a measurable level.


    Photos printed from some sort of PC printer, e.g., an inkjet,
    would seem to me to be different than traditional color and B & W
    prints made from a chemical process. I would agree that the dyes
    in ordinary chemical prints can and do both fade and get color
    shifts, sometimes non-linear across the print depending on where
    it was stored.

    I would also agree that it would likely take many, many scans to
    produce visible damage, not just a couple as the OP's question
    would seem to indicate.

    > On top of that some papers, pigments, or chemical coatings may
    > be more or less sensitive. Thus many museums insist on no
    > flash photography of old paintings, or old documents as the
    > repeted bright light can have a degenerative effect over the
    > years.


    The same is true for most anything in museums that are subject to
    light damage, e.g., our U.S, historic documents. Some museums
    even prohibit flash for more mundane objects, including cars, but
    that would seem to be overkill to me.

    > On the other hand, for most photo prints, simply repeted
    > scanning of a print would tend to require hundreds of
    > thousands of scans to have a noticable effect on the print.
    >

    I don't know about hundreds of thousand,Randy, but certainly a
    sizable number. And, you've done an excellent job of separating
    the various printing processes and their likely affects to even
    bright sunlight.

    --
    HP, aka Jerry

    "Never complain, never explain" - Henry Ford II
     
    HEMI-Powered, Dec 2, 2007
    #7
  8. On Dec 2, 3:39 am, "HEMI-Powered" <> wrote:
    > added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
    >
    > > Does the light from scanning a photograph once or twice,
    > > damage the photograph?

    >
    > Technically, yes. The light of a scanner lamp varies as to
    > intensity and color temperature but is pretty bright. But, unless
    > the photos are very old and hence both rare and valuable, I
    > wouldn't worry much about it. I scanned all of my old family
    > snapshots, maybe 500, as well as a subset of my father's WWII
    > Marine B & Ws and I can't say I see any significant fading or other
    > damage, but then, I'm just using my eye and not a lab measurement.
    >
    > --
    > HP, aka Jerry
    >
    > "Never complain, never explain" - Henry Ford II


    Isn't the damage wavelength dependent? I thought the primary problem
    was with the blue and UV end. Incandescent lamps do not have much
    very blue or UV component, flourescent can, but many do not, so it may
    depend a lot on the lamp.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Dec 2, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest

    A few passes with a scanner should not cause any noticeable fading
    effects on either modern inkjet or recent silver halide color prints
    or negatives.

    However, several of the posts in this thread bring up relevant topics
    affecting print lifetime.

    1. The kind of light does matter. Probably most important is the
    amount of UV or ultraviolet content of the light. UV light is higher
    in energy than light in the visible spectrum and is absorbed
    deterimentally by most colorants. Incandescent light (from a tungsten
    bulb) has very low UV content, fluorescent light (like that used in
    most scanners) is higher in UV, and direct sunlight has even more.
    Fortunately some of that UV is filtered by the glass plate of the
    scanner. A sheet of plastic between the glass and the scanned object
    will remove even more. For the kinds of prints mentioned above (as
    opposed to an old, historic photo), such precautions are overkill if
    all you're going to do is a few scans.

    2. The colorants in both silver halide color papers and ink jet prints
    are subject to very similar light fade mechanisms. Pigments, used in
    some ink jet systems, can be more resistant to light fade than dyes,
    but it also depends on the underlying structure of the colorant. Some
    ink jet systems apply a UV-filter coat (as is also found in silver
    halide products) or you can do it yourself.

    3. All color imaging materials are subject to other kinds of fade in
    addition to light-induced dye fade. The three other major factors are
    heat, humidity, and pollutants. The latter has been especially
    problematic for ink jet materials (the dyes in silver halide prints
    are more protected by their gelatin matrix and the organic chemical
    phase that the dyes are in). Some ink jet materials, for example, show
    quite rapid fade in the presence of ozone, which is formed by any
    number of made-made and natural processes. Since most prints (over
    95%) are kept in the dark, light fade, in a scanner or wherever, may
    be the least important factor in print preservation, especially since
    home light levels are relatively low and prints can be displayed
    behind glass or plastic.

    Bottom line: unless you've got a rare original Autochrome print that
    you're planning to scan, don't worry about running your prints through
    a scanner a few times. But do remember that digital files themselves
    are not everlasting; everything from bit drift to media obsolesence
    can limit their lifetimes as well.
     
    , Dec 3, 2007
    #9
    1. Advertisements

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. PEmpson181

    Scanning Photos for Reprints

    PEmpson181, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,397
    Andrew McDonald
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. Joseph Meehan

    Re: Scanning old photos - prints vs. negatives?

    Joseph Meehan, Sep 8, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    3,841
    Maw888
    Sep 9, 2003
  3. David J. Littleboy

    Re: Scanning old photos - prints vs. negatives?

    David J. Littleboy, Sep 9, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    527
    David J. Littleboy
    Sep 9, 2003
  4. Kenneth Sibley

    Software for Scanning Multiple Photos?

    Kenneth Sibley, Oct 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    664
    PTRAVEL
    Oct 28, 2003
  5. Patrick Briggs
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    1,115
    Marvin
    Feb 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page