I'm about to start the process of scanning hundreds of old family photos.  I
don't really know a ton about how this stuff works and would love to have a
few questions answered before I get too far into the project.

My scanner supports up to 1200 DPI.  The next step down is 600 DPI.  I don't
know which to use.  My instinct is go with the higher DPI because we're
going to want to have these pictures forever and the scans may end up being
the only copies we have if something happens to the originals.  On the other
hand, the difference in size is substantial: over 26 MB for 1200 DPI and
only 6.5 for 600 DPI.  What are the pros and cons of each?  Is 1200 DPI
overkill?  I have mostly black & white photos to scan, but some are in
color.  Should I use the higher setting for just the color photos, both or
neither?  Any advice would be much appreciated.

Also, I'm just planning on saving the scans in the jpeg format.  Any reason
not to?  Should I be using a different file format?

Thanks again for any help you can provide.

"Nikko" <nothanks@yourmomma.com> wrote in message
news:6hvrc.4886$be.2792@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I'm about to start the process of scanning hundreds of old family photos.
I
> don't really know a ton about how this stuff works and would love to have
a
> few questions answered before I get too far into the project.
>
> My scanner supports up to 1200 DPI.  The next step down is 600 DPI.  I
don't
> know which to use.  My instinct is go with the higher DPI because we're
> going to want to have these pictures forever and the scans may end up
being
> the only copies we have if something happens to the originals.  On the
other
> hand, the difference in size is substantial: over 26 MB for 1200 DPI and
> only 6.5 for 600 DPI.  What are the pros and cons of each?  Is 1200 DPI
> overkill?  I have mostly black & white photos to scan, but some are in
> color.  Should I use the higher setting for just the color photos, both or
> neither?  Any advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Also, I'm just planning on saving the scans in the jpeg format.  Any
reason
> not to?  Should I be using a different file format?
>


It all depends at what size you will print
Roughly: original size 300, twice the size 600 since you are going to print
at 300 dpi
Save as JPEG if you know you are not going to edit them much otherwise use
TIF
Remember, CD do not last long, read this before you think you are archiving
your family photos by burning them on CD:
http://tinyurl.com/2mqa7

Stephan

What does that mean "CD do not last long"  Does this mean, even if you don't
use them over and over, they corrupt, or what?  I am in the dark about how
long a CD will last....
Thanks,


> It all depends at what size you will print
> Roughly: original size 300, twice the size 600 since you are going to
print
> at 300 dpi
> Save as JPEG if you know you are not going to edit them much otherwise use
> TIF
> Remember, CD do not last long, read this before you think you are
archiving
> your family photos by burning them on CD:
> http://tinyurl.com/2mqa7
>
> Stephan
>
>

Nikko <nothanks@yourmomma.com> wrote:

> I'm about to start the process of scanning hundreds of old family photos. 
 I
> don't really know a ton about how this stuff works and would love to have 
a
> few questions answered before I get too far into the project.
>
> My scanner supports up to 1200 DPI.  The next step down is 600 DPI.  I don
't
> know which to use.  My instinct is go with the higher DPI because we're
> going to want to have these pictures forever and the scans may end up bein
g
> the only copies we have if something happens to the originals.  On the oth
er
> hand, the difference in size is substantial: over 26 MB for 1200 DPI and
> only 6.5 for 600 DPI.  What are the pros and cons of each?  Is 1200 DPI
> overkill?  I have mostly black & white photos to scan, but some are in
> color.  Should I use the higher setting for just the color photos, both or
> neither?  Any advice would be much appreciated.

1200 dpi is indeed overkill, because the original will not have more
detail than you can capture with 600 dpi or even less. So if you scan at
1200 dpi, you'll get more pixels, but not more detail.


--
Johan W. Elzenga            johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer      http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Well, I scanned my photos and saved them to CD-R.  Later I decided to
transfer the scans to a DVD+R to save space in my cabinet.  Alas about 10%
of the 35 CD-R that I made were either partially or completely unreadable.
None of these CD-Rs are more than 3 years old.  That easily consists of not
lasting long.
Jim
"HIKER4LIFE" <HIKER4@CHARTER.NET> wrote in message
news:10at29chfvvml19@corp.supernews.com...
> What does that mean "CD do not last long"  Does this mean, even if you
don't
> use them over and over, they corrupt, or what?  I am in the dark about how
> long a CD will last....
> Thanks,
>
> 
> print 
use 
> archiving 
>
>

Nikko wrote:

> I'm about to start the process of scanning hundreds of old family photos. 
 I
> don't really know a ton about how this stuff works and would love to have 
a
> few questions answered before I get too far into the project.
>
> My scanner supports up to 1200 DPI.  The next step down is 600 DPI.  I don
't
> know which to use.  My instinct is go with the higher DPI because we're
> going to want to have these pictures forever and the scans may end up bein
g
> the only copies we have if something happens to the originals.  On the oth
er
> hand, the difference in size is substantial: over 26 MB for 1200 DPI and
> only 6.5 for 600 DPI.  What are the pros and cons of each?  Is 1200 DPI
> overkill?  I have mostly black & white photos to scan, but some are in
> color.  Should I use the higher setting for just the color photos, both or
> neither?  Any advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Also, I'm just planning on saving the scans in the jpeg format.  Any reaso
n
> not to?  Should I be using a different file format?
>
> Thanks again for any help you can provide.
>
>
Go here:
www.scantips.com

It will explain why scanning at 600DPI would be a waste of time and disk
space for prints.

"HIKER4LIFE" <HIKER4@CHARTER.NET> wrote in message
news:10at29chfvvml19@corp.supernews.com...
> What does that mean "CD do not last long"  Does this mean, even if you
don't
> use them over and over, they corrupt, or what?  I am in the dark about how
> long a CD will last....
> Thanks,

That is why I provided a link my friend, click on it!

Stephan

"Stephan" <NoMoreSpam@Thank.you> wrote in message
news:5cxrc.1111$AN1.145@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> "HIKER4LIFE" <HIKER4@CHARTER.NET> wrote in message
> news:10at29chfvvml19@corp.supernews.com... 
> don't 
how 
>
> That is why I provided a link my friend, click on it!
>

Sorry I just realized these greedy Britts want a pound from you to read
their old news, cheap bastards!
Anyway, CD are the worse way to store info, they become unreadable faster
than you think sometimes in less than two years.
Buy hard drives for longtime storage.

Stephan

So how come my audio CD's from the early 90's are still 100% playable
even after a LOT of use over the years?  In my opinion, *if* CD's don't work
for two reasons:  1)  cheap/crappy blanks and 2)  cheap/crappy burners.  My
first burner was an HP and it was an early generation.  A few months later I
got a much nicer Pioneer but it wouldn't play the CD's I had just burned
with my old drive but they *would* still play in the old drive.

Since the nice new drive and new media I've had no problems archiving
data on CD's.  If a hard drive gets moved around, even a little in some
cases, you could lose everything.  Anyway, my advice would be to use
multiple formats to store valuable things but CD's work best for me and
maybe I'm in the minority but whatever...

--
Erik Muna
Freelance Web Design & Graphic Arts
www.petfishonline.com  ...  my online portfolio
ICQ:  13466765



"Stephan" <NoMoreSpam@Thank.you> wrote in message
news:pjxrc.1143$AN1.678@twister.socal.rr.com...
CD are the worse way to store info, they become unreadable faster
> than you think sometimes in less than two years.
> Buy hard drives for longtime storage.
>
> Stephan
>
>

Erik Muna wrote:

>     So how come my audio CD's from the early 90's are still 100% playable
> even after a LOT of use over the years?  In my opinion, *if* CD's don't wo
rk
> for two reasons:  1)  cheap/crappy blanks and 2)  cheap/crappy burners.  M
y
> first burner was an HP and it was an early generation.  A few months later
 I
> got a much nicer Pioneer but it wouldn't play the CD's I had just burned
> with my old drive but they *would* still play in the old drive.
>
>     Since the nice new drive and new media I've had no problems archiving
> data on CD's.  If a hard drive gets moved around, even a little in some
> cases, you could lose everything.  Anyway, my advice would be to use
> multiple formats to store valuable things but CD's work best for me and
> maybe I'm in the minority but whatever...

WRT manufactured CD's, as long as they are stored correctly, they should
last many years without deterioration.  Temperature and humidity can
cause damage to these.

Home burned CD & DVD's are much more of a problem.  However if done
properly archiving using CD-R & DVD-R's can last many years as well.

First, a high quality burner and high quality media are important.  I
personally use Plextor drives and Verbatim DataLifePlus and Taiyo Yuden
media.

For storage, because the media are dye-based, temperature, humidity,
and light can cause deterioration.  After burning I store my archives
in a closet.  Burning a second copy and storing in a second location
(another house) is good insurance.

Conclusion, if you use a $25 burner with cheap, low quality media
you are risking all your image files.