Copying old photographs

Hi all;

I've read that it's best to take old photos that you want reproduced
to a shop that specializes in archival quality reproductions -- that
just taking it to your local Walmart or photo store may result in
damage to the picture. Can anybody comment on their experiences? If
I do need to find such an organization, can anyone recommend on in
the Ottawa, Ontario, Canada area? I'm looking to get copies made of
some older print-style photos, as well as some that have been
mounted/pasted onto cardboard matting.

Donna...

I scan mine and then work on them in PhotoShop Elements 4.0. I have
gotten very good results, the photo is not damaged, and I don't have
to remove the picture from the backing.

L Covey...

This, too, is not an answer to your question, merely a suggestion.

You might try taking photos of these treasured photos with your
digital camera, if you have one, without the flash but in good
light.

LC

L Covey

Thanks in advance, and best regards,
Jason

Robert Heiling...

It's not an answer to that question, but why not buy your own scanner
and do it yourself? That way the photos never leave your hands and you
aren't limited in the number you can do. You can buy scanners in the
~$50 range that come with the needed software and simply connect to the
USB port on your computer.

MoM...

That's what I did.

Christopher Jahn...

I agree; unless you're trying to get prints from some very old
and unusually sized negatives, a home scanner is the way to go.
Printers that produce photographic prints are relatively
inexpensive; my old HP 640 takes a photo cartridge so I can print
color photos up to 8-1/2" by 14".

Otherwise, look under "photography" in your phone book, and find
a firm that specializes in old photos. Your local historical
society may also have a recommendation.

ck183...

I'm not sure I understand why, unless it's a high concentration of
ultraviolet, because scanner bulbs don't appear to be that bright, but
I've read warnings about scanning old photos directly. If they are just
for web or e-mail use I shoot them with a 35mm camera (with macor lens)
and scan the resultant photo. This has the added advantage that if the
photo was on textured paper you can shift the lights to minimize the

Christopher Jahn...

You still need light to take a 35mm photograph, and the intensity
of a flash is much stronger than a flatbed scanner.

Charles Ellson...

A camera flash is of far shorter duration so the total energy to which
the material is exposed is much less than with a scanner.

ck183...

I don't use a flash because I ahve a copy stand. You can get the same
result by waiting for a cloudy day, when the light is very even outdoors.

Brendan

You get a much better result with a scanner than a camera. Of
course, this can change when you start talking about objects too
fragile to place on a scanner.

Christopher Jahn...

This is simply not true. A strobe flash is much more intense;
the equivalent of dozens of scans.

Charles Ellson...

Why would anyone use a strobe flash for a simple photograph of a
relatively small inanimate object at close range ?

Charles Ellson...

Any objection to scanning is possibly more relevant to photographs
held in archives where the real danger will lie with repeating the

Christopher Jahn...

Generally speaking, you only need to scan the image once.
Exceptions to scanning over photography are framed items too
fragile to be dis-assembled, daguerrotypes, and over-sized items.

process. In the case of personally-held material there is likely to be
no real danger where a once-only copy of something in good condition
is made if it means that the original is preserved safely and the
copy/copies suffer the later wear and tear instead; with some items in
poor condition it could be the last chance to preserve an image before
the original falls apart. What might need special consideration is
anything printed on unusual materials or produced by long-obsolete
photographic methods in case of e.g. increased sensitivity to UV light
(or even just the heat) which might be produced in (relatively)
significant quantities by some scanners' light sources.

Christopher Jahn...

Do a web search on the subject, and you will quickly discover
the truth of it.

search string:
scanning old photographs danger

reflections.

Hugh Watkins...

the professional archivist all use scanners in preference to photocopiers

a one off photograph is negligable

once you have the negative you keep making prints

scanning is so much cheaper I take the equivalent of afilm rol every day
sort them in Irfan View and post to

even a cell phone cam can make useable digital results

or scroll down

to

not yet completed
but third picture down is an experiment from a film viewer screen

the fifth down shows the illunmination and the handicam I used to
snap the conscript registers

and the bottom 4 from church books

Hugh W