Hallo all just a quick question, as subject Does scanning your old photo's 'bleach' them? Over time, photo's fade, especially if left in the Sun. I'm wondering if the intense light of the scanner has the same effect? Before I start scanning the photo's I have from 1915... Just wanna be careful with original material! any clues appreciated
Technically I imagine it could do, in that they're a fairly intense burst of light. It's crossed my mind, but I've never worried about it. Assuming the pic has been fixed well enough to last 50+ years then I reckon it's better to get one decent copy with that burst of light and put it back in it's nice dark album/box than keep exposing/handling it. Scanned a load of family slides recently. Maybe archivally the light was technically a bad thing, but they were degrading badly anyway and I've now got a batch of newly sharpened & colour corrected family treasures. (Though a neg/slide ought to be permanent & light-proof - chemical decomposition seemed a more pressing matter than any concern about light.) I might not do it if I had some real art-market type photographic treasures, but in balance I think the huge potential for saving the picture greatly outweighs the tiny risk. I wouldn't put an old family photo on the wall as the day-to-day light will most likely eventually harm it, but I can put pooter printed copies up, and replace 'em when the Ink/Paper manufacturer's 'archival' lies reveal themselves. . As a caveat - I don't scan anything that comes from an 'ancient' process; daguerreotype, ambrotype, tintype, whatever. They're from an age where I don't fully trust the original chemistry, so photographic copying is the way. If you're really concerned about scanner light - use a copy-stand or tripod to take a careful flash-free copy with no harsh light at all and a long exposure... but it's a pain in the arse, and I doubt your WW1 prints are on metal or glass?
VP is spot on. Some archives do worry about scanning and photocopying of their records, one reason being the light causing more fading. However, in the case of archives they are considering mutiple scanning of the same document over many years. But the bigger risk of both scanning and photocopying is the increased likelihood of damage to a document through rough handling, damage to the spine of books, pieces of paper floating across the room when the scanner/copier lid is pulled up, etc. One or two scans of old photographs will be fine, especially as you are perserving them by making a digital copy. Those photographs are continuing, hopefully slowly, fading and at some time in the future will be gone. At least a digital copy has the potential to still be around in 100, 200 years time plus multiple exact copies can be made of it. The main issue with scanning the photos is to make sure to get the best possible scan you can using the most practical resolution possible on a decent scanner. Lee
The photo restoration section was a good call Adam, some good sound advice now becoming available for the digital philistines amongst us.
Good advice above. It would be a good idea to do the scans at the highest resolution as you can manage, and store them twice in separate media. You don't need to ask how I found this out! As for the originals, if you want to keep your photos visible - on a wall frame, or whatever - do so, but there are a few precautions: - avoid sunlight, even a wall facing a window facing south is a bad idea; - keep them behind perspex, glass is fine but perspex is better at keeping UV rays out; - let the pics breath, that is, ensure you're frame allows for a bit of air circulation while avoiding dust, some perforations along the bottom will do. Speaking of storage, do we know about the durability of CD, or DVDs? An article I had read somewhere years ago quoted 10 years, but I have CDs much older than that and they hold fine.
Thanks all, very helpful. The images in question are of the West Ham Battalion and obviously they're intended for the book I'm working on (so nearly finished!!) As they're for publication, would you recco having them rephotographed by a professional (I imagine it's pricey?) or self scanning at a hi-res and swallow any degrading which may occur? As Adam says, the old processes were wide and varied and I have no idea which process was used Top Tips, all, thank you very much
Personally I don't believe you can do lasting damage to an image if you only scan it the once. If you scan it daily, every week for weeks then I am sure you will damage them just as you would if you left them on your windowsill facing the sun. There is argument that the images will deteriorate on their own anyway and scanning them at 600dpi and above prolongs their usability/survivability generally as the originals don't need to be consulted again. I scanned this collection below at 600dpi so that they can be widely used and seen by others. The originals are now locked away in acid-free folders, in darkness. Civil Service Rifles - a set on Flickr My feeling is you should scan the images and view it as a way to safeguard their survivability for future generations.
As far as regular photographs are concerned scanning is usually going to be more prefereable than re-photographing - as long as you have a half-decent scanner. The quality from a 100 quid Epson scanner is going to be half-decent. Thanks all, very helpful. The images in question are of the West Ham Battalion and obviously they're intended for the book I'm working on (so nearly finished!!) As they're for publication, would you recco having them rephotographed by a professional (I imagine it's pricey?) or self scanning at a hi-res and swallow any degrading which may occur? As Adam says, the old processes were wide and varied and I have no idea which process was used Top Tips, all, thank you very much
Good advice above. It would be a good idea to do the scans at the highest resolution as you can manage, and store them twice in separate media. You don't need to ask how I found this out! ... Yep, very good point about back-up. Being anal about it (which is a good thing when talking about data storage) you should have three back-ups of anything important and at least one of these stored at a separate location - in case of fire, theft, flooding, etc. Speaking of storage, do we know about the durability of CD, or DVDs? An article I had read somewhere years ago quoted 10 years, but I have CDs much older than that and they hold fine. Another good point! I've had CDs and DVDs oxidise after 5 years and become unreadable even though they were stored well. I was an early adopter of CD-burning and do have CDs from the early 1990's that are fine. A lot of the problem comes from poor manufacturing, it is the cheap CDs that have suffered most. Ideally for long-term storage gold CDs/DVDs should be used but these are still rather expensive. Online storage is a good way to go but I'd still keep at least one local back-up. (For local back-up I tend to use an external mirroring-raid hard drive). Lee
Great photo's Paul, thanks for sharing! You dont have any of 'my' mob by any chance, do you? Civil Service Rifles - a set on Flickr
Thanks for the advice, Lee. I don't really put much trust on magnetic media, as anything magnetic can be subject to accidents - I once did drop my 500Mb storage disk but it managed to recover iself after acting quirky for a couple of days - and as for online storage look at what happened to all the work so much people had put in Geocities to go poof!... I suppose the best option will be to use higher quality DVDs and convert when something even better will come up in the future as it will inevitably.
Great photo's Paul, thanks for sharing! You dont have any of 'my' mob by any chance, do you? It's 32/RF isn't it? I do have a lot of RF postcards but none specifically marked up to the 32nd. I do have a photo of one of their casualties, Hamilton Goodridge.
