scanning old photos, would cry if it went wrong

[swedeheart]

I need to scan some old photos that are of great sentimental value to me. Once it's done I have to part from them so I want to make sure it's done in the best possible way. Don't have a scanner (and don't want to buy one); I'm planning to let an old-fashioned IRL photo shop do it for me. I'm thinking I'll ask them to copy the images to a CD and to a USB stick both.

Other than that, I'm not sure what instructions I should give. Somebody told me I should make sure the photos are scanned in such a manner that they will make nice paper copies as well, should I wish to make some, in future. He said I should ask that they be scanned in 300 dpi, a good compromise, as a higher number could make the images unreadable or unhandle-able (! sorry! but you see what I mean!) for certain computers or programs or whatever.

First question: Do you agree, should I ask for 300 dpi? Or more, or less? I do want to be able to make really nice-looking paper copies in future (well, as nice as my relatives look anyway ha ha ha!)

Second question: jpeg or what?

Third question: Anything else I should think about when I make the order at the photo shop?

I don't even have a camera and don't understand anything about computers so please explain as you would to your granny. Many thanks in advance � this is a very important matter to me and I'm grateful for any advice you can give to ensure I won't lose the images even though I as I said have to part with the original copies.

[dawndevil]

Jessops will scan them for you and put them on a disk

[betterman]

If you explain that you later plan to print them, a good photo shop will handle the rest.

[sn�gs]

Definitely 300dpi... and scanned to at least the same size as the original - if not larger, if you want to print from the files at a later date.

.jpeg format will be fine.

[swedeheart]

*googles Jessops and books airline ticket for the UK* - dawndevil I'm a Swede living in Stockholm you see, don't know how I ended up on this forum but I love it here... may have to pass on the Jessops option though ;-) but thanks anyway. Thanks also to betterman for providing the soothing reassurance which I need and thanks sn�gs for pointing out that the actual size (and not just the dpi value) to which the photos are scanned is also something which should be taken into consideration. Do you have to make compromises regarding the size as well, same way you with the dpi value? In other words, say that I wanted to scan some photos to a really big size, could that create problems for certain computer programs, or is it just the dpi value that will do that, or is it the combination of both?

[sn�gs]

You can get your original scanned to whatever size you like: just specify that at whatever size you decide on, it is scanned at a minimum of 300dpi. Saving it as a .jpeg will reduce the file size dramatically.

Whatever the final file size and dpi (resolution), it won't create any problems on your computer: whoever told you that it might is talking out of their harris ;-)

[swedeheart]

I'll pass that on to Mr Harris then... or not ;-)
Thanks sn�gs !

[Robinia]

hi sweedie....saw you pop up over there > I can hear your dictionary rustling....
lol at sn�gs 'talking out of their harris', I've not heard that in a while.....& you thought my Nottm-isms were bad :o)

[swedeheart]

LOL Robinia you are a psychic indeed...! I was googling for dear life, couldn't find that idiom but I sort of caught the general drift of it! It did make me think of your -isms!

[ACtheTROLL]

ah well ... in for a penny .... (in for a pound)

you haven't said how many photos ... so don't believe everything I say ... but if the aim is to put them on a CD or DVD ... size doesn't matter ... except - you want them as big as possible - you can always reduce the size if you want to e-mail them

jpg is a good format ... but it's lossy (each time you save - some of the information is lost.)

using tiff or bmp results in BIG BIG files ... but the quality is as good as it can be.

professionals always work with these formats ... and convert to jpg as the last process.

get advice from the shop you take them to - they know their equipment and what it's capable of

you could post the pictures anywhere in the world ... but ideally you want to walk in to the shop and hand them over.

[swedeheart]

Thanks ACtheTROLL that's good info. I guess I should just trust the shop, but... I know from experience I always get confused in those situations so in this case (sentimental value et cetera) I want to make sure beforehand that I understand the implications. So... I think I'll go for biggish pictures size-wise... but 300 dpi will still suffice, right? In your opinion? Also (final question, I promise!) if I choose between tiff and bmp, what would make me choose one or the other? Many thanks in advance, I appreciate this help a lot.

[ACtheTROLL]

300/600 - see what the prices are ...
within reason dots=clarity
so for a given size (A4) 300dpi will be less clear than 600

bigger size needs more dots to keep the clarity
but most people wouldn't use more than a4 paper ... so while 600 is clearer 300 is perfectly adequate

(pro printing (magazines etc) start at 2400dpi - but that's a bit excessive (and they could be making posters))

as for format
bmp is just picture info
tiff also allows for data "tags" (tagged image file format)(when where how the image was created - useful if it matters in catalogues - useless if it doesn't)
both are supported by most graphics progs ... so again see what the shop says
neither would have better quality

[swedeheart]

Thank you so much ACtheTROLL, this is invaluable information you've given me. Oh I know there's an internet out there... but it's too much info, too much redundance - would have taken me six months to pan for the facts you've just given. Thanks!

[tamborine]

Shops charge a fortune for this service. Plenty of free scanners on 'freecycle' (google for website).

HP 5510 printer has scan facility. Your library may have scanning facilities.

[dot.hawkes]

depending on how old these are, if they are the really old late 1800s early 1900s postcard type photo you really should have the reverse scanned for future reference, or if they have any phorographers info on the back, make sure that is recorded too. Some of the old pics i obrained scanned better in colour than B&W due to the tinting process original to the photo.

[swedeheart]

Don't really want to bring yet another object into the shoebox in which I reside, tamborine ;-) but that seems like a praiseworthy web site, I'll keep it in mind. At a quick glance it looks like they've even got a modest amount of activity here in Stockholm - I'll study it more closely tonight.

Oh yes the reverse side! I hadn't even thought of that! Thanks Dot, I'll (try to) bear it in mind. They're not really all that old but there may be things written on the back just the same so that's a good point :-)