[Techtalk] getting quality photo scans

[Almut Behrens]

On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 11:44:51PM +0000, Conor Daly wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 01:27:55PM -0800 or so it is rumoured hereabouts, 
> Carla Schroder thought:
> > Thanks everyone! That's a lot of very useful information to digest. I'm 
> > scanning prints, not negatives, since the negatives vanished long ago. If I 
> > still had them I'd send them to a photo lab and have a bunch of prints made.
> 
> If the photos are that valuable to you, would you consider having the
> prints photographed?  I believe you might get better results from that
> than from a scan.  

I'd second Conor's suggestion.  If you own a better digital camera [1]
(or can borrow one from a friend), you can even do it yourself. I've
had some pretty good results that way.

You might have to experiment a little with the lighting (to avoid
unwanted reflections with glossy prints, etc.), and if you have a
zoom lens, first try to find its optimum point with minimal geometric
(barrel/pincushion) distortion (no lens is perfect over the entire
range). But we're geeks, heh, so this shouldn't really pose a
problem... ;)
Also, as you'd probably be using a tripod anyway, you can easily go
for longer exposure times, in combination with small apertures and low
sensor sensitivity (ISO value). Sharpness and chromatic aberrations
typically get better with smaller apertures (i.e. numerically higher
values).

Cheers,
Almut

[1] as yet another amateur photographer (and my ex being a professional
photographer), I've tried quite a couple of digital cameras over the
last couple of years... and in the "prosumer" SLR quality range, I'm
particularly fond of Canon's current EOS 400D (the older 350D isn't bad
either).  Although their company policy is sometimes perceived
controversial, their CMOS sensors are just great.  They have some good
lenses as well, though the better ones aren't exactly cheap (btw, in
case you're looking for an excellent wide angle lens, I can really
recommend the EFS 10-22mm). But I digress... and no, I'm not working
for Canon.