A collection of our old family cameras
In the past decade, I've found myself inheriting family photos by the hundreds. Many aren't marked. I've been using photo facial recognition software to try to identify people in the photos. I've also been looking through old boxes for negatives of our family's lost photos. I watched a Legacy Webinar,
"Got Old Negatives? Scan Them With Your Phone and These 5 (Mostly) Free Apps!" by Elizabeth Swanay O'Neal, on how to use phone apps to scan negatives. These apps produce positive images of your negatives so you can get digital copies of old photos. I've been meaning for years to try to restore the lost photos, using the negatives.
Scanning Photos
Scanning old photos has been very time-consuming. It's been especially time-consuming because I've rescanned photos more than once. I should have done more research before scanning the photos. According to several experts, it's best to scan photos at 300 DPI (dots per inch) and as TIFFs. The size of your scanned photos should be at least 1280 x 720 pixels. The one scanned below was too small to enlarge even on a computer screen. I'm rescanning everything not large enough, or that is scanned as a JPEG.
My laptop had to be restored to factory settings due to a virus. I haven't reinstalled my scanner software yet. I decided to use my phone to make copies of some photos. I noticed the phone actually saves my photos at a larger size. I used Google Photoscan app for some of the photos. Some of the scans didn't come out sharp enough. I then tried using my phone's camera, and the results were sometimes better.
You can see below that the photo on the right is sharper than the one on the left. The one on the right was taken using my phone camera, the one on the left was scanned with Google's phone app. I think generally, if you're using a phone, just using your camera generally produces the best results.
A problem using the phone goes back to the DPI (dots per inch) debate. My Google Pixel phone saves photos at 96 DPI. The DPI recommended to make prints is at least 300 DPI. I've set my scanner to 600 DPI. It does sound like DPI is important if you decide to make prints.
|
From Google AI |
I'm not planning on making prints at this time. I would like to save them at a good resolution to print in case family members would like prints. I plan on reloading my scanner software and using that instead of my phone.
I tried using a scanner at a library, but their scanner didn't automatically crop the photos like mine. When I cropped the photos myself, the DPI went below 300, down to 120 DPI.
I've been backing up the photos using Google Photos. I didn't realize they didn't automatically save photos at the original quality. Storage saver is the way they save the photos unless you choose original quality. The photos are compressed to save storage space. That might be fine, but if I've gone to the trouble of producing high-quality scans, I want high-quality backups.
Scanning Negatives
As I said, I watched the Legacy Webinar about scanning negatives using phone apps. I have not made a lightbox yet. A lightbox would produce the best quality prints. I've installed Kodak, Photomyne, and Filmbox negative scanning apps on my phone. I'm using Filmbox the most. That app seems to produce the best results for me.
|
Different size negatives I've found. The bottom 35mm negatives, on the bottom, are easiest to develop. |
Filmbox suggested using a laptop screen to scan your negatives. I have actually gotten better results using my iPad, which I can lay down flat.
This scan turned out well. The only thing I don't like is the graininess; otherwise, it's acceptable considering I no longer have the original. Better than nothing.
I took the negatives to Samy's Camera, in Pasadena, California, and had them scanned there. Most photo developing places don't scan or develop old Instamatic camera negatives. Below is the photo scan they produced.
The image produced by Leona at Samy's Camera isn't grainy and is lighter in color. The cost to scan these at Samy's Camera is $2.00 per digitized negative photo. That is the least expensive scan. The price goes up if you want them scanned larger. For that price, I received a CD with the scans, and I brought in a flash drive to also have them saved to.
Leona, at Samy's Camera, got a better scan than I did, the comparison below. My Filmbox scan is dark and grainy, on the left.
These party photos are from 1973. Some of the negative images may be deteriorating a little. Some of the photos were blurry to begin with, as you see in the photos below. The old Instamatic camera didn't take good photos of moving objects.
Without the original photos, it's hard to say whether the photos developed 50 years ago were any clearer or the colors more accurate?
In the case below, I'm not sure if this old Brownie Camera negative can produce a better image? This negative is over 60 years old, taken in May 1962. A wedding photo of my parents. I'll eventually have a professional scan it.
I love old family photos and want to make sure they are backed up and not lost so we can continue to relive happy family moments.
I bought a lightbox on amazon for only $22. It was really helpful to me in digitizing 2000 old negatives. The local digitizing service was going to charge me $3 each. I did it all with the lightbox, my phone and my laptop. Because they were negatives, there was an extra step i had to take with my phone...if you want the whole process let me know.
ReplyDelete