Scanning Old Photos - 300, 600 or 1200 dpi?

[deedeeO]

Hi,
Getting ready to restore some of my mothers old photos found in her home and just finished scanning them at 600 dpi. Do I need to go higher to get more out of the restoration process or is 600 OK? Or are there other factors to consider.
Thanks for your input and help!

[Wendy]

Hi Denise ...

It really depends on the quality of the original photogrphs ... as a general guide for old B&W (1950's, 60's) snaps I use 300 as they tend to be low resolution but for old studio portraits I use 600 or even higher.

Its a balancing act as on low resolution photos scanning at a high resolution can make then look worse :)

Wendy

[Codebreaker]

Denise...

The question you need to ask your self is what you intend to do once you've scanned the images in.

If you intend to print them at 1:1 then scanning at 300dpi is fine. If you intend to print them at twice size then you need to scan at 600dpi and so on.

If you intend to just display them on a monitor or TV then you just need enough pixels to fill the screen.

Colin

[Teacher617]

When I scanned the hundreds of photos to create my Mom's 80th birthday present (http://web.mac.com/trrteach6/iWeb/Vicki/Vicki%27s%20Life%20in%20Pictures.html), I scanned in 300 dpi and was very happy with the results. Some of the photos were 100 years old.

Tricia

[Punkinsmom]

Colin gave very good advice, couldn't have said it better. I tend to use 300dpi, this usually gives the results I'm looking for.

[Wendy]

Hi ...

One of the problems with scanning in old photos and restoring them it that you only want to have to do it once

... so I really don't consider if I will be printing or just looking at them on screen. The trouble is that if you scan then in at a low resolution for viewing onscreen and then restore then ... well if at some later stage you want to print them out then you will have to start all over again with a higher resolution scan and all that restoration ...

So for restoration I scan at the best resolution to capture the pixels that are within the actual photos ... :)

Wendy

[Codebreaker]

Wendy...

That's sound advice but you can run into problems with files sizes if you overdo the resolution setting.

For example Photoshop will only handle images upto 10,000 pixels in one dimension. It can be easy to exceed this at times. I ran into problems scanning 2"x2" transparencies at 3200dpi when I had 4 up on the scanner - effectively scanning approx 2" x 12" which equates to 6400 x 38,400 pixels.

The maximum resolution I could have used would have been 833dpi which would not be enough for one transparency.

Again it's still planning out what you want to do....now and in the future:)

Colin

[babsny]

Great idea and beautiful execution! I looked at your website and it is fabulous!!! You must have spent weeks scanning in the photos.
Usually, I am not a huge scrapbooking fan, but your pages are absolutely beautiful.
You have done an amazing job. Thank you for sharing with us (and inspiring us).

[deedeeO]

Thanks everyone.... I looked through all the pics that I scanned at 600, and they appeared fine in editor. The intent is to creat a digital scrapebook (no bigger than 12x12) with these photos so that I can eventually distribute to family members. The oldest were in the late 1940's and in good shape...just a few scratches. some may be framed, but nothing bigger than a 12x12. I also find that the glossy prints scan much better than the matted prints of that time since the matted were so textured. I wouldn't think that scanning at a high res would compensate for any loss of pixels in these portraits...however, I won't be fighting these pictures and use the outcome size that looks best!! My gut feelings were right based on your suggestions. Thanks again.
BTW, I'm getting only one shot with these images because they need to go back to my sister and once there, they will lost in the mess of her house:)

[sharlmitch]

I have to agree with Colin and Wendy, it depends on the photo and what I am going to do with it.

Sometimes I scan them in at different sizes and do a quick print to see which one is best then delete what I don't want.

Looking forward to seeing your restorations!

Sharon

[deedeeO]

I just took my select favorites and scanned them at different resolutions. Time permitting, I'll post the differences. Again, thanks for the suggestions. Now off to get started on this long project...

[John L Gray]

Hi Denise,

I concur with Wendy's posting.

When scanning a specific photo that has some unusual aspects I keep a notebook of settings for future use. For example I scan 35mm slides between 2400 -3200 resolution, 24bit color, and any software adjustments made to the scan.

I generally try several scannings of a with different adjustments to an old photo to see which one produces the best scan to work with in the computer.

John

[deedeeO]

Here is a before and after of my grandmother and mom taken in 1950. Overall the quality of the original photo was in good condition. Got lucky I guess. So I made a challenge and got rid of the roadside pillars. My first successful clone job!!!!! Thanks again for all your advice. Now I have only 100 more to go!
http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1zv4Tgv2wP741ax03Nze0Q9JfbTyvk_thumb.jpg (http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1zv4Tgv2wP741ax03Nze0Q9JfbTyvk)

[Wendy]

Hi .,..

You did really well with that ... nice work !! :)

Wendy

[sharlmitch]

Beautiful! I love it!:)

Sharon