I have several questions on this subject:
1) What are the optimum settings to scan old photos? Using the default
settings has produced some uneven results. Any suggestions on how to
logically proceed with the pixals and resolution to obtain the best copy
possible?
2) To make adjustmentss to the photos, such as removing red eye or color
enhancement are the tools on "Windows Picture Gallery" sufficient to the task
or would an investment in "Photo Shop" be worthwhile? I do not plan to "add"
things to the photos.
3) How many photos can one transfer onto a dvd? Please advise and breakdown
the number depending on resolution of the photos, and if one wants to add
music to the mix.-- Obviously, I realize no one can pinpoint the "exact"
number, but an average range would be terrific. Such as 450 photos with
music, 1000 photos wihout.
Looking forward to receiving your imput!
Irulan, North Carolina

Irulan wrote:
I have several questions on this subject:
1) What are the optimum settings to scan old photos? Using the default
settings has produced some uneven results. Any suggestions on how to
logically proceed with the pixals and resolution to obtain the best
copy possible?
===================================
If you could describe the "uneven results* it
would be easier to answer the question. In
many cases the variations in scans is due to
the size of the original picture and the focal
quality of the original picture.

Personally I find that 300 DPI is adequate for
scanning the old snapshot collection. In most
cases the scans look better than the originals...
especially after editing.

You may find the following site to be quite useful
for info on scanning:

A Few Scanning Tips
http://www.scantips.com/
====================================
2) To make adjustmentss to the photos, such as removing red eye or
color enhancement are the tools on "Windows Picture Gallery"
sufficient to the task or would an investment in "Photo Shop" be
worthwhile? I do not plan to "add" things to the photos.
=====================================
I would suggest that you have a good image
editor...PhotoShop would certainly be adequate.
The task of scanning and archiving a large
collection of family pictures can be a time
consuming job and it doesn't seem logical to
skimp on the software.

You will find damaged or otherwise less than
perfect pictures in your collection and a good
image editor can work magic.

As for a free program...I find Picasa to be quite
useful:

Picasa
http://picasa.google.com/
======================================
3) How many photos can one transfer onto a dvd? Please advise and
breakdown the number depending on resolution of the photos, and if
one wants to add music to the mix.-- Obviously, I realize no one can
pinpoint the "exact" number, but an average range would be terrific.
Such as 450 photos with music, 1000 photos wihout.
Looking forward to receiving your imput!
Irulan, North Carolina
=======================================
This is just simple math...you know the DVD has
4.7 GB of space and you just add up the file size
of your pictures and music and there is your limit.

Personally I save my scans in the .png format and
the average file size is 10 MB to 20 MB each. The
file sizes would be much less in the .jpg format but
for archival originals I prefer a lossless format.

--

John Inzer

Hi John:
Thank you for some very useful information. My definition of uneven results
is that when scanned on auto, the scanning program adds too much red to the
basic picture. Using the color tools on either the HP Program or the Picture
Gallery really do not let me fine tune the color to the degree I would like,
too much shift to the green or blue scale. Would the image editor add more
refinement to this process?
I will try the 300. Did experiment with the 600 and the 1200, but could find
no discernible improvement (to my eye) with the end product. Again, thanks
for time in answering my questions!
--
Irulan, North Carolina


"John Inzer" wrote:

Irulan wrote:
I have several questions on this subject:
1) What are the optimum settings to scan old photos? Using the default
settings has produced some uneven results. Any suggestions on how to
logically proceed with the pixals and resolution to obtain the best
copy possible?
===================================
If you could describe the "uneven results* it
would be easier to answer the question. In
many cases the variations in scans is due to
the size of the original picture and the focal
quality of the original picture.

Personally I find that 300 DPI is adequate for
scanning the old snapshot collection. In most
cases the scans look better than the originals...
especially after editing.

You may find the following site to be quite useful
for info on scanning:

A Few Scanning Tips
http://www.scantips.com/
====================================
2) To make adjustmentss to the photos, such as removing red eye or
color enhancement are the tools on "Windows Picture Gallery"
sufficient to the task or would an investment in "Photo Shop" be
worthwhile? I do not plan to "add" things to the photos.
=====================================
I would suggest that you have a good image
editor...PhotoShop would certainly be adequate.
The task of scanning and archiving a large
collection of family pictures can be a time
consuming job and it doesn't seem logical to
skimp on the software.

You will find damaged or otherwise less than
perfect pictures in your collection and a good
image editor can work magic.

As for a free program...I find Picasa to be quite
useful:

Picasa
http://picasa.google.com/
======================================
3) How many photos can one transfer onto a dvd? Please advise and
breakdown the number depending on resolution of the photos, and if
one wants to add music to the mix.-- Obviously, I realize no one can
pinpoint the "exact" number, but an average range would be terrific.
Such as 450 photos with music, 1000 photos wihout.
Looking forward to receiving your imput!
Irulan, North Carolina
=======================================
This is just simple math...you know the DVD has
4.7 GB of space and you just add up the file size
of your pictures and music and there is your limit.

Personally I save my scans in the .png format and
the average file size is 10 MB to 20 MB each. The
file sizes would be much less in the .jpg format but
for archival originals I prefer a lossless format.

--

John Inzer

Irulan wrote:
Hi John:
Thank you for some very useful information. My definition of uneven
results is that when scanned on auto, the scanning program adds too
much red to the basic picture.
==============================
Thanks for the additional info.

I never scan on Auto...one of the main
reasons is edge detection...especially
with images that are light colors at the
edges or the old snapshots that have
the white borders. Using the advanced
settings you can left click/drag a box
around the exact area you wish to scan.
(Even just part of a picture like someones
face)...Takes a little longer but I get better
more useful scans.

As for color...you may have a problem
with a color profile. I've found it best to
remove them all...maybe the following
article will help explain.

(939395) When you view an image in Windows
Photo Gallery on a Windows Vista-based computer,
the image is yellow
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/939395/en-us

One thing you might try is to print a couple
of your scans on photo paper and compare
the unedited scans to the prints...if the prints
look better than what you see on screen...you
might try adjusting your brightness and contrast
to try and achieve the same look.
==============================
Using the color tools on either the HP
Program or the Picture Gallery really do not let me fine tune the
color to the degree I would like, too much shift to the green or blue
scale. Would the image editor add more refinement to this process?
==============================
Yes, an advanced image editor would
provide much more latitude in your color
adjustments. And the basic quick fixes
would be better also.
==============================
I will try the 300. Did experiment with the 600 and the 1200, but
could find no discernible improvement (to my eye) with the end
product. Again, thanks for time in answering my questions!
==============================
600 DPI would not be unreasonable but
as I previously stated...300 DPI has been
adequate for me. If you were scanning
slides or negatives the 1200 DPI might be
something to consider but not for snapshots.
What it will do is produce extremely large
memory hogging files.

-

John Inzer

John: Thanks again, will try all of your suggestions. As I have over 35
albums to scan and burn, doing it with the optimum tools will be essential!
--
Irulan, North Carolina


"John Inzer" wrote:

Irulan wrote:
Hi John:
Thank you for some very useful information. My definition of uneven
results is that when scanned on auto, the scanning program adds too
much red to the basic picture.
==============================
Thanks for the additional info.

I never scan on Auto...one of the main
reasons is edge detection...especially
with images that are light colors at the
edges or the old snapshots that have
the white borders. Using the advanced
settings you can left click/drag a box
around the exact area you wish to scan.
(Even just part of a picture like someones
face)...Takes a little longer but I get better
more useful scans.

As for color...you may have a problem
with a color profile. I've found it best to
remove them all...maybe the following
article will help explain.

(939395) When you view an image in Windows
Photo Gallery on a Windows Vista-based computer,
the image is yellow
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/939395/en-us

One thing you might try is to print a couple
of your scans on photo paper and compare
the unedited scans to the prints...if the prints
look better than what you see on screen...you
might try adjusting your brightness and contrast
to try and achieve the same look.
==============================
Using the color tools on either the HP
Program or the Picture Gallery really do not let me fine tune the
color to the degree I would like, too much shift to the green or blue
scale. Would the image editor add more refinement to this process?
==============================
Yes, an advanced image editor would
provide much more latitude in your color
adjustments. And the basic quick fixes
would be better also.
==============================
I will try the 300. Did experiment with the 600 and the 1200, but
could find no discernible improvement (to my eye) with the end
product. Again, thanks for time in answering my questions!
==============================
600 DPI would not be unreasonable but
as I previously stated...300 DPI has been
adequate for me. If you were scanning
slides or negatives the 1200 DPI might be
something to consider but not for snapshots.
What it will do is produce extremely large
memory hogging files.

-

John Inzer

Irulan wrote:
John: Thanks again, will try all of your suggestions. As I have over
35 albums to scan and burn, doing it with the optimum tools will be
essential!
===============================
You're welcome.

This is a complex subject and I doubt that
you will find all the answers in a newsgroup
message but hopefully you are off to a good
start.

Let us know if you require further assistance.

--

John Inzer

Irulan;776546 Wrote:
John: Thanks again, will try all of your suggestions. As I have over 35
albums to scan and burn, doing it with the optimum tools will be
essential!
--
Irulan, North Carolina


"John Inzer" wrote:

Irulan wrote:
Hi John:
Thank you for some very useful information. My definition of uneven
results is that when scanned on auto, the scanning program adds too
much red to the basic picture.
==============================
Thanks for the additional info.

I never scan on Auto...one of the main
reasons is edge detection...especially
with images that are light colors at the
edges or the old snapshots that have
the white borders. Using the advanced
settings you can left click/drag a box
around the exact area you wish to scan.
(Even just part of a picture like someones
face)...Takes a little longer but I get better
more useful scans.

As for color...you may have a problem
with a color profile. I've found it best to
remove them all...maybe the following
article will help explain.

(939395) When you view an image in Windows
Photo Gallery on a Windows Vista-based computer,
the image is yellow
'When you view an image in Windows Photo Gallery on a Windows
Vista-based computer, the image is yellow'
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/939395/en-us)

One thing you might try is to print a couple
of your scans on photo paper and compare
the unedited scans to the prints...if the prints
look better than what you see on screen...you
might try adjusting your brightness and contrast
to try and achieve the same look.
==============================
==============================
Yes, an advanced image editor would
provide much more latitude in your color
adjustments. And the basic quick fixes
would be better also.
==============================
I will try the 300. Did experiment with the 600 and the 1200, but
could find no discernible improvement (to my eye) with the end
product. Again, thanks for time in answering my questions!
==============================
600 DPI would not be unreasonable but
as I previously stated...300 DPI has been
adequate for me. If you were scanning
slides or negatives the 1200 DPI might be
something to consider but not for snapshots.
What it will do is produce extremely large
memory hogging files.

-

John Inzer








Just back John up here.... 300dpi is a good norm especially if have no
intentions of printing large enlargments.

There are also some good websites that explain colour (or color)
management in Vista if you can be bothered reading a fair bit of the
excellent info about and some of the shortcoming of LCD monitors


--
Clevo

___________________________
Windows Vista Home Premium x64 + SP1
ASUS P5K MB
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.4GHz
4GB RAM (DDR2)
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GTS
Realtek HD onboard sound

Helpful links:
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...91033.mspx#EEE