Photo Scanning Help

[mubs]

I'm scanning quite a few old (35+ years) photographs, most of them black & white, on an "Epson Perfection 2480 Photo" scanner. Specs say:

2400 dpi main scan
4800 dpi with Micro Step (sub scan)
output resoulutions from 50 dpi to 12800 dpi

16 bits per pixel per color internal
1, 8 and 16 bits per pixel per color external

The plan is to scan and then tweak (with my limited knowledge) using a photo editor. What res. (and color depth for color pics) should I use for best results? The scans will be archived (negatives are lost). Is scanning at a higher rez like 1200 too much of a good thing? I'd appreciate some pointers from the photo pros here. Thanks!

 

[LunarMist]

300 DPI is usually appropriate unless you will be enlarging the print output to be larger than the originals. In that case 600 DPI will reduce the need to upres for printing. 16-bit color scans will provide the greatest flexibility in editing, and even allow some different B&W appearances depending on the prints. I am not familiar with that particular scanner, but some flatbeds now have digital ICE, which may save hundreds of hours of retouching dust and spots. (That may be a moot point if the originals already need retouching.)

Spend a while working with one print and adjust the scan settings until the results are acceptable for your needs. Then you may be able to crank out the others with less total time expended. Be prepared to spend some post production time rotating and cropping the images. It is advisable to keep a copy of the scans (or save as a layer) at this stage for future use before processing the color, curves, sharpening etc., or otherwise throwing out image information that may be useful later.

 

[sechs]

If you are scanning these for archival purposes, I'd suggest using a high resolution. On non-colour photographs you should experiment with scanning in grayscale, as well as colour; I have found that this sometimes leads to better results.

 

[mubs]

Thanks, LM and Sechs. I've scanned some in hi-rez and straightened and cropped, but obviously need to play a bit more. They're mostly 2"x2", high contrast prints.

Most here are young, so a trip down memory lane might be fun.

The household had a Viceroy bellows camera that used 120 film. It was the prized possession of the eldest sibling (brother), who took the word "possess" quite seriously. It had a smallish lens (f5.6, IIRC, but did stop down to f22). It did take good pics. It was even used for weddings, but was expensive; it used those one-time flash bulbs that were ruined after the shot and had to be replaced (the bulb got so much current that it burned itself out, providing a bright light in the process). I couldn't find a pic on Google, but the Agfa Isolette II is a fair representation of it if anybody wants to see.

Since the prints are so contrasty, I think they were taken with the cheapo Agfa Click III that was purchased to keep the siblings from messing with the Viceroy. The Agfa was a simple point and shoot, with the only creative control being a dial that had marked on it a sun, clouds, and the outline of a home. Shown here is the Click-II, and the III was almost exactly the same.

In 1969, a Yashica 635 Twin Lens Reflex was purchased. This took 120 film and showed the image on a ground glass screen in the top (very easy to use); it also came with an ingenious adapter that you stuck in the film chamber, that allowed you to use 35mm film. This was a boon, since we had access to vast quantities of 35mm film (from a still camer's point of view) , and would get some spooled into 35mm cartridges. Endless film for free, the cost only for developing and printing!

To hone the time frame a bit more, I think the pics were taken between 1964 and 1967.

 

[mubs]

Time for more scanning; more oldie-goldie pics of family were unearthed (no negatives again)!

I'm curious, at what dpi were BW photos printed in the photo lab in the '60s and '70s? Color pics? And what rez / color depth are color pics printed today (from negatives)?

 

[LunarMist]

Optical prints have no dpi. I stand by the comments above.

 

[mubs]

Thanks Lunar, I value your advice.

 

[time]

Optical prints have no dpi. I stand by the comments above.

Chemical prints would be a more accurate nomenclature.

I suspect that even 300dpi is a form of "over-scanning" to compensate for deficiencies in the scanner. Traditional color prints are pretty low-res ...

 

[Buck]

Optical prints have no dpi. I stand by the comments above.

Correct, thus the invention of the halftone.

 

[mubs]

Which is the best stitching sw? I have large old originals that I cannot scan in one pass. So I'm scanning each half separately with enough overlap and stitching them. I read somewhere that Autostitch is the best. They don't appear to sell that program directly, so it looks like I have to buy a commercial program that uses the Autostitch engine. Comments? Thanks.

 

[ddrueding]

I have a program called PTGui that works quite well and quite quickly.

 

[mubs]

I have Photoshop Elements that'll do it; I'm just wondering if there's something better. Elements doesn't seem to want to use virtual memory. I couldn't stitch one large photo that was scanned because it kept borking with "There is not enough memory". I fiddled with Elements' settings, giving it 1.5GB RAM out of the 2GB physical the machine has. Elements will not allow me to specify more. I even did a clean boot after disabling programs that started up automatically. There's ~ 4GB of swap space defined on that machine.

My question about "4 sticks of ram" in the Computers forum was because of this problem. I don't otherwise need 4GB; 2 GB is plenty.

 

[Will Rickards]

Does paint.net do this?

 

[sechs]

FYI, on 32-bit Windows, most applications can't use more than 2GB of memory. It's a Windows limitation.

 

[mubs]

I checked Adobe; Even Photoshop CS3 is only "Certified" on 32-bit Windows. And Adobe programs can use only 2GB address space - Adobe "hasn't tested" with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE. So screw it. I don't think it's worth adding another 2 GB to my system. It's 2007 and we're still fighting RAM limitations.

 

[sechs]

All recent versions of Photoshop (not Elements) will support 3GB of memory. You just need to have the appropriate amount of RAM and flip the 3GB switch on 32-bit Windows. I've run Photoshop CS3 on Windows x64; it works and sees 3GB of memory for use.

For reasons simply unknown, Adobe won't test, let alone support, its software on Windows x64. I think it's stupid. Of course, the only Creative Suite product which does not seem to work totally as expected on x64 out of the box is Acrobat -- because there's no x64 PDF printer port driver.

 

[mubs]

So help me out.

Will 4GB physical RAM, Photoshop CS2, Windows XP 32-bit with the 3GB switch allow Photoshop to see & use 3GB? I've read though, that this will wreak havoc with the OS, especially the video driver, because there's only 1GB of address space for the OS (Page tables, page directories, bitmaps, video driver apertures). See The oft-misunderstood /3GB switch and then Kernel address space consequences of the /3GB switch.

My video card has 256MB. Did Photoshop and the OS run ok when you were using the /3GB switch? See also Memory Limits for Windows Releases

 

[sechs]

I have run Photoshop with the /3GB switch and know others who have done so regularly. No problems of which I am aware. I don't know what else you do with your machine, but you can aways setup a second option in your boot.ini without the switch.

Since 32-bit XP SP2 won't use the top addresses anyway, 4GB of RAM is pretty useless. As you see from that chart, on x64, there isn't the same address limits; and if you are going to be needing serious memory for Photoshop, that's a better path to go.

You might also be able to go with Win2k3. I haven't tested Photoshop on it, but I honestly can't imagine that it doesn't work.

 

[mubs]

If I understand you right, then, this combination should work?
4GB physical RAM, Photoshop CS2, Windows XP 64-bit with the 3GB switch, an 8GB page file will allow Photoshop to see & use 3GB, and the OS won't barf?

I'd be interested in Server 2003, but it's way too expensive ($600+). The money spent on XP-64 is a dead investment (now that Vista is out), but is worth considering. Thanks.

 

[sechs]

You don't need the switch with x64. All processes so programmed get the address space (it's on the page you referenced). I don't think that the size of the page file matters, as long as it is "sufficient."

I wouldn't call XP x64 "dead" so much as "stable." I'd think that someone here might be able to help you get a copy of one of these operating systems for a reasonable price.

 

[mubs]

Thanks for your patience, Sechs.

I'd think that someone here might be able to help you get a copy of one of these operating systems for a reasonable price.

That would be nice, wouldn't it ;-)

XP, 32-bit or 64-bit, is dead, isn't it? Whether it makes sense or not all further dev will happen for Vista. So maybe I should buy Vista 64-bit (the upgrade version and do the inplace install Fushigi alluded to in his post). I'll dual boot with the mainstream XP Pro install, using Vista only for the goofball situations like this one (I feel like throwing up just reading about Vista). I have to check if PS CS2 will work with Vista 64, though. If it doesn't, I'll have to fall back on XP-64.

 

[sechs]

As far as the operating system is concerned XP x64 is no deader than 2k3 x64, which, in turn, should be as alive and kicking as 32-bit Windows 2k3. I expect that there will be at least one more service pack on these products, and third-party driver work will certainly continue to the extent that it's portable to Vista.

Obviously, the focus has moved on, but, then again, people still run "dead" operating systems like Windows98 and Win2k.