|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
Old photo scanning issue
Soliciting ideas,
I have some "surface textured" photos. They appear clear in hand. But, when scanned, the surface picks up the light, resulting in severe contrast loss. Tried changing the scanner settings, but that just causes a general reduction in clarity. Any fixes? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I would recommend that you do not scan any photographs, because photographic surfaces are very sensitive and can get damaged during scanning. Instead, try taking pictures with a good digital camera set at a high resolution.
Hope this helps! Charles |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Is it possible that the reflection you're seeing in the scan is due to "silvering" in the photo rather than the surface texture? I ask because I've used several types of scanners over the years, and even with the non-CCD ones that seem to have trouble with anything with "depth" (like cards in PSA slabs) seem to handle textured photographs without the issue you're having.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Major libraries (Library of Congress for example) do scan both prints and negatives. Scanning and producing a hi-res digital file is the best way to preserve the image virtually forever. Last edited by bmarlowe1; 02-11-2012 at 10:34 AM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
As someone who has worked with photographs in museums before, I know that photographic surfaces (albumen prints, gelatin prints, dags, etc) are very sensitive and can be damaged when touching or rubbing against other surfaces, like the bed of a scanner.
I was referencing the potential to damage surfaces from the physical act of scanning, not from the light exposure involved. The best way to preserve images of sensitive material like photographs, or other fragile works on paper, it seems to me, is with a digital camera. This can do the same thing that a scanner can do without touching a sensitive surface. That is the way many major museums do it. Maybe my recommendation is overly cautious? Charles Last edited by Old Hoss; 02-13-2012 at 09:39 AM. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
The biggest problem with your suggestion is that one needs to be careful to keep the plane of the camera exactly parallel to that of the photo being recorded. Otherwise you end up with a spatially distorted image. Most people don't have the requisite equipment to make this easy (your museum probably does). It is quite difficult if you are just shooting from a tripod.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I've never quite been able to get a good set-up with my simple digital camera for photos, and the one time I tried and sort of got something set up, I had to take it down to use the camera elsewhere. It would be nice, and actually much quicker, to have a permanent set-up (preferably with a separate monitor so I could see the layout without using the camera's viewscreen), but generally speaking, I'm not dealing with enough sensitive materials to reasonably give up the space and hardware for that kind of permanent installation. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SOLD: 1952 Boston Braves Team Issue Photo - Ed Mathews HOF Rookie (BGS 2) | bcbgcbrcb | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 1 | 02-09-2012 02:44 PM |
SOLD: 1974 Boston Red Sox Team Issue Photo - Jim Rice HOF Rookie (BGS 7) | bcbgcbrcb | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 5 | 10-30-2011 05:44 PM |
1883 SUI (U. of Iowa) Baseball team Cabinet photo F/S | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 09-10-2007 03:36 PM |
Photo ID help - is this vintage? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 27 | 01-05-2007 09:32 PM |
ca.1939 Reds Team Issue (real photo) cards?? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-22-2006 08:44 PM |