# Scanning old photos Lightroom + questions



## CliveUK (Jul 8, 2020)

Hello. I am ready to go with scanning my photos. There are lots as I'm 62,  so i need to get it right at the start. I have tried to find it out myself but would really appreciate some real advice from people with experience. So: 
1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, or (I would find it easier - as it cuts out a step) to choose the folder in the scan software. That way they go straight into the chosen folder - then I synchronize in Lightroom to recognise the photos. NB I scan them as JPEGS.
2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder?
3.  So, I have several photos in a folder. I would like to change them all to one date but have the time _incremental_. I don't know the exact time but would like other programs like Google photos to show them in order during the day. I see the function on Lightroom under metadata/edit capture time/Adjust to a specified date and time. However, how do I get it to choose incremental time?
4. I'd like that date recognised by Google photos and elsewhere. Any tips?
5. I have worked out that the text you put in the 'caption' in the metada (e.g. to describe people)  is recognised by Google photos and in the photo's file properties / details. 
5. A question on resolution. My scanner allows me to scan at so many DPI. I am happy with scanning them at 600 dpi. I guess you will say it depends what i want them for. Well, I'm mainly doing it for my kids so they can view them on a PC screen either via google photos or on after downloading them onto their own PC/laptop.

OKAY, I'll stop there as I think those are the main questions I'm stuck with


----------



## Califdan (Jul 8, 2020)

Per point 3.  

The change capture date tool in LR/Classic is misleading.  When it says "Change them to a specific date/time" what they mean is that the first photo in the selection is changed to the specified date/time.  All the others are changed to the same offset from the first photo as there was between the original photos.  So, an original set of photos shots at   2:10, 2:15, 2:30, and 2:45 if you changed to a specific time of  10:00.  the first would be 10:00, then the others would be 10:05, 10:20 and  10:55.   So, if you scan the images in the correct order and set the first one to a day/time, the others will be set later times a few minutes later for each one based on the time it took between the scans.


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jul 9, 2020)

_1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, _
Yes- Set scan to 'save' the files into the 'Watched' folder. 
"Then Import"- No!  That is the function of Auto-Import. It Imports automatically to the catalog.

_2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder? _
No. They (the scanned files) automatically get moved to the 'Destination' folder in the catalog.
When you set up Auto-Import you can set the 'Destination' folder so it will be the final 'resting place' for all the scanned files.
And you can re-do the setup if you want a changed 'Destination' folder.
After you have developed and adjusted the scans in the Develop module, then you would only 'Export' if you want the adjusted copy. If the scans look good they may not need development and an export.

_4. I'd like that date recognised by Google photos and elsewhere. Any tips? _
Save the metadata to the files [Ctrl+S] .

_5. A question on resolution.  600ppi?_
Depends on the media you are scanning. 
eg. 35mm slides at 600ppi will give files ~600x900pixels  (may be better at 2400ppi)
eg. 5x7 prints at 600ppi will create files ~3000x4200pixels. (may be sufficient for your purpose)
For valuable historic photos- scan at highest res for best quality.


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 9, 2020)

Califdan said:


> Per point 3.
> 
> The change capture date tool in LR/Classic is misleading.  When it says "Change them to a specific date/time" what they mean is that the first photo in the selection is changed to the specified date/time.  All the others are changed to the same offset from the first photo as there was between the original photos.  So, an original set of photos shots at   2:10, 2:15, 2:30, and 2:45 if you changed to a specific time of  10:00.  the first would be 10:00, then the others would be 10:05, 10:20 and  10:55.   So, if you scan the images in the correct order and set the first one to a day/time, the others will be set later times a few minutes later for each one based on the time it took between the scans.


Thank you so much for that.


Califdan said:


> Per point 3.
> 
> Thank you very much. Most helpful. Because I didn't realise that I didn't scan in any particular order so the times were all mixed up.  Can I just clarify, is is the "Adjust to a specified date and time" option I use in the 'Edit Capture Time' dialogue box (after choosing Metadata/ Edit capture time' )?


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 9, 2020)

I-See-Light said:


> _1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, _
> Yes- Set scan to 'save' the files into the 'Watched' folder.
> "Then Import"- No!  That is the function of Auto-Import. It Imports automatically to the catalog.
> 
> ...



Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. I hope its ok to ask for a little clarification, as follows:

Answer 2. My aim is to have each set of photos in a suitably named folder. Are you saying that to get the scanned photos into the correct folder every time, name the folder in auto Import set up. I.e. change the destination folder each time?
I will probably edit a few, so then i can just export them to the same folder?

5. A bit confused between dpi and ppi. My scanner software (only) gives me to option of scanning at dpi. 
Also, again thank you for your suggested resolutions for various media. What about negatives (I think 600 dpi seemed to be ok, but 300 meant it was pixelated in LR develop module)?


----------



## Califdan (Jul 9, 2020)

CliveDavis said:


> Can I just clarify, is is the "Adjust to a specified date and time" option I use in the 'Edit Capture Time' dialogue box (after choosing Metadata/ Edit capture time' )?



That is Correct.  Very misleading name for that option.


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Jul 10, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Thank you so much. I really do appreciate it. I hope its ok to ask for a little clarification, as follows:
> 
> Answer 2. My aim is to have each set of photos in a suitably named folder. Are you saying that to get the scanned photos into the correct folder every time, name the folder in auto Import set up. I.e. change the destination folder each time?
> I will probably edit a few, so then i can just export them to the same folder?
> ...


Point#2-  The options I see will always require some type of manual folder setup or the moving of files to the individual "correct" folder. Changing the 'Destination' folder for each single scan (of 6 images) will be very cumbersome. My method (scanning negs) has been to scan ALL to one 'Destination' folder and then later moving files to multiple folders in the Lr folder panel, and this can be done relatively simply.
1) Select a group (6?) of images  in the scanner 'Destination' folder
2) [Right-Click] on a 'Parent' folder where you want to have all the "suitably named" sub-folders.
3) Choose [create folder inside ......parent]



4) Type a name for the new sub-folder and check the box to [include selected photos]



5) [Create] and this group of selected photos is moved to this new sub-folder.  Repeat for each group of images you want in a separate folder.

Point#5. Yes, DPI. The scanner is reading a number of 'Dots' per inch - Each 'dot' produces one pixel in the digital image. So you need to consider how many pixels you want to create in the scan file for each INCH of the scanned item.  
eg. a 6x4inch Print scanned at 300DPI  will allow you to PRINT the image on 6x4" paper at 300PPI.
a 35mm 'slide'  (is about 1x1.5inch) would need 2400DPI to allow a PRINT of 6x4" at 300PPI. (300DPI produces a 300x450pixel image! Very pixelated!!)

Successful scanning!


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 10, 2020)

I-See-Light said:


> For valuable historic photos- scan at highest res for best quality.


Agreed.  But there is an upper limit on printed materials.  Most posts and articles I have read scan in the range of 60PPI to 1200PPI.  I do not believe there is much gain in a print after 1200PPI.  And scan times will be slower and the files larger.  Transparencies and negatives are a whole different story and you need as much native resolution as you can get for them from most devices available to consumers.

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 10, 2020)

Califdan said:


> That is Correct.  Very misleading name for that option.


Thank you 


I-See-Light said:


> Point#2-  The options I see will always require some type of manual folder setup or the moving of files to the individual "correct" folder. Changing the 'Destination' folder for each single scan (of 6 images) will be very cumbersome. My method (scanning negs) has been to scan ALL to one 'Destination' folder and then later moving files to multiple folders in the Lr folder panel, and this can be done relatively simply.
> 1) Select a group (6?) of images  in the scanner 'Destination' folder
> 2) [Right-Click] on a 'Parent' folder where you want to have all the "suitably named" sub-folders.
> 3) Choose [create folder inside ......parent]
> ...


Thank you so much for your help with this


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 10, 2020)

Replytoken said:


> Agreed.  But there is an upper limit on printed materials.  Most posts and articles I have read scan in the range of 60PPI to 1200PPI.  I do not believe there is much gain in a print after 1200PPI.  And scan times will be slower and the files larger.  Transparencies and negatives are a whole different story and you need as much native resolution as you can get for them from most devices available to consumers.
> 
> --Ken


Hi Ken, thank you.  Most of the negatives I'll be scanning will be old photos for the kids to look at in the future. They will probably do that online and i may have back up on ext hard drive. What sort of ppi do you recommend?


----------



## Replytoken (Jul 11, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Hi Ken, thank you.  Most of the negatives I'll be scanning will be old photos for the kids to look at in the future. They will probably do that online and i may have back up on ext hard drive. What sort of ppi do you recommend?


If you can, I would still make high quality scans and then export them to the size that you think people will want/need.  As I mentioned, any printed material is not going to gain much after somewhere between 600-1200PPI.  I chose 600 because of time and file size, and I saved them as TIFF files.  Remember, the ideal standard for printing an image is around 300PPI.  At 600, you might be able  to enlarge the photo a bit if it was decent to start with.  And, monitor resolutions are getting better and better. 4K monitors are not as uncommon as they were a few years ago, so I would consider 600PPI as a minimum when scanning.  It also allows you to down sample if need be or desired.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Jul 11, 2020)

Keep in mind that ppi is not always a reliable way to measure the size and resolution of your scans. PPI resolution only has meaning when you also state what the physical size is. For a final image, 600 ppi is not a useful measure on a television, a smartphone, or a website because the physical size of that image on different screens varies across those different screen sizes; of course ppi does have meaning for a print because the size of a final print is always fixed on paper.

It is often more useful to think in terms of pixel dimensions — the width and height of the image in pixels. From that you can more easily evaluate whether there are enough pixels for how you expect your scans to be viewed.

For example, suppose you have a 6 x 4 inch original print, and you want it to look good on the family’s 4K TV. A 4K TV is named that way because it is roughly 4000 pixels across  — the 4K video standard is 3840 x 2160 pixels. How are we going to get that many pixels out of a 6 x 4 original print? We can do a little math:

3840 pixels of the required final width, divided by the 6 inches of the width of the original print, gives us 640 pixels per inch. So, scan the original at 640 ppi and it will give you enough pixels for a 4K TV or display. How about a print of that scan? If you require a 300 ppi print, then 3840/300 = 12.8 inches, so that same scan has enough pixels for a print almost 13 inches across at 300 ppi. And that’s something you should think about because if you want to be able to print larger than that at 300 ppi, then you should scan the original at more than 640 ppi.

But if it’s a frame of 35mm film, this changes things. That frame (36 x 24 mm) is only 1.42 inches wide x 0.9 inches tall. If you want to get 3840 pixels across from that, let’s see: 3840 / 1.42 = 2704.2 ppi. You would want to scan a tiny film frame at over 2700 ppi to get a 4K image. Because it’s such a small original, it needs to be enlarged more, so it needs a higher ppi value when scanned.

So just keep in mind that even if you  have a single width/height or ppi value that you want to settle on for the final images, the ppi at which you need to scan the originals will vary if the originals are different sizes. If you have good scanning software that lets you type in the pixel dimensions or ppi you want for the _final_ scan file, that's great, because you can let it do the math for the ppi value needed to scan the original.


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Jul 11, 2020)

Correct. Most scan software can be set to an *output ppi*, which is not necessarily the same as the *scanning resolution*. My scanner has an 4800 ppi scan resolution. To get a full resolution scan @ 300 ppi, I set the output to 300 ppi and *1600%* enlargement.


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 12, 2020)

Replytoken said:


> If you can, I would still make high quality scans and then export them to the size that you think people will want/need.  As I mentioned, any printed material is not going to gain much after somewhere between 600-1200PPI.  I chose 600 because of time and file size, and I saved them as TIFF files.  Remember, the ideal standard for printing an image is around 300PPI.  At 600, you might be able  to enlarge the photo a bit if it was decent to start with.  And, monitor resolutions are getting better and better. 4K monitors are not as uncommon as they were a few years ago, so I would consider 600PPI as a minimum when scanning.  It also allows you to down sample if need be or desired.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> --Ken


Thank you again. I really do appreciate your help


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 14, 2020)

Conrad Chavez said:


> Keep in mind that ppi is not always a reliable way to measure the size and resolution of your scans. PPI resolution only has meaning when you also state what the physical size is. For a final image, 600 ppi is not a useful measure on a television, a smartphone, or a website because the physical size of that image on different screens varies across those different screen sizes; of course ppi does have meaning for a print because the size of a final print is always fixed on paper.
> 
> It is often more useful to think in terms of pixel dimensions — the width and height of the image in pixels. From that you can more easily evaluate whether there are enough pixels for how you expect your scans to be viewed.
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for this really clear and helpful explanation


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 14, 2020)

Johan Elzenga said:


> Correct. Most scan software can be set to an *output ppi*, which is not necessarily the same as the *scanning resolution*. My scanner has an 4800 ppi scan resolution. To get a full resolution scan @ 300 ppi, I set the output to 300 ppi and *1600%* enlargement.


Thank you


----------



## CliveUK (Aug 29, 2020)

Califdan said:


> That is Correct.  Very misleading name for that option.


Just revisiting this. Hope its ok to ask you a further question. You say  ".... the others will be set later times a few minutes later for each one *based on the time it took between the scans"*. My scanner allows me to scan several negs or pics at the same time. So I'm wondering, how would Lightroom be able to differentiate or know which ones were in the right order?


----------



## Johan Elzenga (Aug 29, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Just revisiting this. Hope its ok to ask you a further question. You say  ".... the others will be set later times a few minutes later for each one *based on the time it took between the scans"*. My scanner allows me to scan several negs or pics at the same time. So I'm wondering, how would Lightroom be able to differentiate or know which ones were in the right order?


I have an Epson V850 Pro, which can also scan a frame of negatives or slides. The negatives and slides scans are still created one at a time however, so letting Lightroom rename them based on creation time works perfectly.


----------



## Califdan (Aug 29, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Just revisiting this. Hope its ok to ask you a further question. You say  ".... the others will be set later times a few minutes later for each one *based on the time it took between the scans"*. My scanner allows me to scan several negs or pics at the same time. So I'm wondering, how would Lightroom be able to differentiate or know which ones were in the right order?


Clive,  that is for the most part correct but it can go the other way as well.  What it does is take the date/time of the active (most selected) image as the base from which the others are calculated.  So, if the first (earliest) image is the active image when you run the tool, the others will be set to some amount of time later than the date/time you typed in.  However, if the last (latest) image is the active image, then the others will be set to some date/time earlier than what you type in.  And, as you would guess, if a middle image is the active one, ones captured earlier than that one will get earlier times than you type in and ones captured later than the active one will get later times.


----------



## CliveUK (Sep 3, 2020)

Thank you. Appreciate it


----------



## CliveUK (Sep 3, 2020)

Thank you


----------



## CliveUK (Sep 3, 2020)

I-See-Light said:


> Point#2-  The options I see will always require some type of manual folder setup or the moving of files to the individual "correct" folder. Changing the 'Destination' folder for each single scan (of 6 images) will be very cumbersome. My method (scanning negs) has been to scan ALL to one 'Destination' folder and then later moving files to multiple folders in the Lr folder panel, and this can be done relatively simply.
> 1) Select a group (6?) of images  in the scanner 'Destination' folder
> 2) [Right-Click] on a 'Parent' folder where you want to have all the "suitably named" sub-folders.
> 3) Choose [create folder inside ......parent]
> ...


Hello

Thank you again for this. Can I ask, when do you do your editing and adding metadata? Do you do it in the destination folder or after you have moved them into the sub folders.


----------



## GlynPowell-Evans (Sep 19, 2020)

Hi
Sorry only just seen this thread and want to chuck in a curve ball. I have digitised 1000's of photos (prints, negs, transparencies) this year and looked into a number of options for capture/scanning. I even purchased a new scanner but  it was very slow and cumbersome. I found using a full frame DSLR (Nikon D850) on a simple copy stand capturing direct to a watched folder produced by far the best results and was an order of magnitude faster than using a scanner. For negs and trannies used same setup with iPad as light source as it has a hight CRI value and gives good colour rendition although you need to put diffuser between media and light source. Capturing around 25 Meg RAW gave excellent results. Capturing in RAW gives much more flexibility for colour correction etc.


----------



## PabloPaulo (Sep 20, 2020)

GlynPowell-Evans said:


> Hi
> Sorry only just seen this thread and want to chuck in a curve ball. I have digitised 1000's of photos (prints, negs, transparencies) this year and looked into a number of options for capture/scanning. I even purchased a new scanner but  it was very slow and cumbersome. I found using a full frame DSLR (Nikon D850) on a simple copy stand capturing direct to a watched folder produced by far the best results and was an order of magnitude faster than using a scanner. For negs and trannies used same setup with iPad as light source as it has a hight CRI value and gives good colour rendition although you need to put diffuser between media and light source. Capturing around 25 Meg RAW gave excellent results. Capturing in RAW gives much more flexibility for colour correction etc.


I also just saw this thread (from Lightroom Queen's email),...100% agree with above statement! I'm "only" using a Nikon D810 to copy old photographs (4x6 to 8x10 or larger) and find it has sufficient resolution for my needs but the D850 would be awesome too. I tether the camera to Lightroom with USB cable and see the RAW file (or you could do JPEG) on my computer in a few seconds to check for quality/exposure (if needed, it usually is not once set up). I have literally "scanned" 400+ stereoviews (which have a slight curvature that doesn't do well in a flat-bed scanner), or postcards, newspaper clippings, scrapbooks, rare books, etc. this way in less than a day. Scanning with a flatbed would have taken days if not weeks. I can also quickly shoot the front and back (or add a note at the edge of the frame I'm shooting) when that's useful for capturing additional information. I found an old copy stand, mounted LED light panels on each side at 45 degrees, put on a polarizer filter and it works great for this. I have only copied a few slides and negs but that works well shooting against one of the LED (5000K color temp) panels, using Nikon's slide copier (I think mine is ES-1 but there's a new model out now). I have also copied hundreds of glass-plate negatives by putting a piece of translucent plexiglass over one of the LCD panels, directly under the copy stand camera, focus on the glass negative, fire away, reverse image in Lightroom via a preset upon import, and there's your neg now a positive scan in a few seconds. This method is well worth investigating further if you are getting depressed looking at many boxes of material you would like to have scanned.


----------



## GlynPowell-Evans (Sep 20, 2020)

PabloPaulo said:


> I also just saw this thread (from Lightroom Queen's email),...100% agree with above statement! I'm "only" using a Nikon D810 to copy old photographs (4x6 to 8x10 or larger) and find it has sufficient resolution for my needs but the D850 would be awesome too. I tether the camera to Lightroom with USB cable and see the RAW file (or you could do JPEG) on my computer in a few seconds to check for quality/exposure (if needed, it usually is not once set up). I have literally "scanned" 400+ stereoviews (which have a slight curvature that doesn't do well in a flat-bed scanner), or postcards, newspaper clippings, scrapbooks, rare books, etc. this way in less than a day. Scanning with a flatbed would have taken days if not weeks. I can also quickly shoot the front and back (or add a note at the edge of the frame I'm shooting) when that's useful for capturing additional information. I found an old copy stand, mounted LED light panels on each side at 45 degrees, put on a polarizer filter and it works great for this. I have only copied a few slides and negs but that works well shooting against one of the LED (5000K color temp) panels, using Nikon's slide copier (I think mine is ES-1 but there's a new model out now). I have also copied hundreds of glass-plate negatives by putting a piece of translucent plexiglass over one of the LCD panels, directly under the copy stand camera, focus on the glass negative, fire away, reverse image in Lightroom via a preset upon import, and there's your neg now a positive scan in a few seconds. This method is well worth investigating further if you are getting depressed looking at many boxes of material you would like to have scanned.


I would add a Nikon D810 is just right. I tried different RAW sizes on D850 and no value in capturing at over 25M unless you have high quality large format negs. For colour neg more difficult, the best I found for old 35mm slides was using unique (?) feature in D850 which creates positive JPEGs in camera.


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 8, 2020)

Hello. I am ready to go with scanning my photos. There are lots as I'm 62,  so i need to get it right at the start. I have tried to find it out myself but would really appreciate some real advice from people with experience. So: 
1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, or (I would find it easier - as it cuts out a step) to choose the folder in the scan software. That way they go straight into the chosen folder - then I synchronize in Lightroom to recognise the photos. NB I scan them as JPEGS.
2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder?
3.  So, I have several photos in a folder. I would like to change them all to one date but have the time _incremental_. I don't know the exact time but would like other programs like Google photos to show them in order during the day. I see the function on Lightroom under metadata/edit capture time/Adjust to a specified date and time. However, how do I get it to choose incremental time?
4. I'd like that date recognised by Google photos and elsewhere. Any tips?
5. I have worked out that the text you put in the 'caption' in the metada (e.g. to describe people)  is recognised by Google photos and in the photo's file properties / details. 
5. A question on resolution. My scanner allows me to scan at so many DPI. I am happy with scanning them at 600 dpi. I guess you will say it depends what i want them for. Well, I'm mainly doing it for my kids so they can view them on a PC screen either via google photos or on after downloading them onto their own PC/laptop.

OKAY, I'll stop there as I think those are the main questions I'm stuck with


----------



## Stephen G FJones (Sep 20, 2020)

Regarding scanning resolution:
Monitors resolutions vary a lot, but typically a "normal" monitor will provide about 100 dpi.  In this case, your 600 dpi scanned image will look sharp up to a width (on the monitor) of 8.5".  The image will pixelate if you magnify it.
In my view, it's always best to scan at the highest resolution possible - yes that means longer scanning times, but at least you'll be able to magnify the photo on-screen to see some smaller detail.
Good luck, Stephen





CliveUK said:


> Hello. I am ready to go with scanning my photos. There are lots as I'm 62,  so i need to get it right at the start. I have tried to find it out myself but would really appreciate some real advice from people with experience. So:
> 1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, or (I would find it easier - as it cuts out a step) to choose the folder in the scan software. That way they go straight into the chosen folder - then I synchronize in Lightroom to recognise the photos. NB I scan them as JPEGS.
> 2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder?
> 3.  So, I have several photos in a folder. I would like to change them all to one date but have the time _incremental_. I don't know the exact time but would like other programs like Google photos to show them in order during the day. I see the function on Lightroom under metadata/edit capture time/Adjust to a specified date and time. However, how do I get it to choose incremental time?
> ...





CliveUK said:


> Hello. I am ready to go with scanning my photos. There are lots as I'm 62,  so i need to get it right at the start. I have tried to find it out myself but would really appreciate some real advice from people with experience. So:
> 1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, or (I would find it easier - as it cuts out a step) to choose the folder in the scan software. That way they go straight into the chosen folder - then I synchronize in Lightroom to recognise the photos. NB I scan them as JPEGS.
> 2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder?
> 3.  So, I have several photos in a folder. I would like to change them all to one date but have the time _incremental_. I don't know the exact time but would like other programs like Google photos to show them in order during the day. I see the function on Lightroom under metadata/edit capture time/Adjust to a specified date and time. However, how do I get it to choose incremental time?
> ...


----------



## CliveUK (Nov 29, 2020)

Hello all again. Can I ask a question about one export setting I'm unsure about - "Image Sizing". Most advice depends on whether its for print or the web/social media. However, the photos I'm scanning are for my children, and I will have them on two places: external cloud drive (eg OneDrive) and Google photos (I may change it to some other given they are to charge from next year). Anyway, is there a 'default' image size that would cover both? I doubt if any of them will be printed, but I want to keep them at a the same quality.  The photos are from 'point and shoot' cameras, average size. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  I just don't want to do the export and then later find they're too small to view (I've reduced the quality) or on the other hand, they're massive megabytes for no point.


----------



## Replytoken (Nov 29, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Hello all again. Can I ask a question about one export setting I'm unsure about - "Image Sizing". Most advice depends on whether its for print or the web/social media. However, the photos I'm scanning are for my children, and I will have them on two places: external cloud drive (eg OneDrive) and Google photos (I may change it to some other given they are to charge from next year). Anyway, is there a 'default' image size that would cover both? I doubt if any of them will be printed, but I want to keep them at a the same quality.  The photos are from 'point and shoot' cameras, average size. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.  I just don't want to do the export and then later find they're too small to view (I've reduced the quality) or on the other hand, they're massive megabytes for no point.


I personally would export them with as much resolution as they have.  You do not really know how they might be used, and while it is quite easy to downsize a file, I cannot say the same for trying to re-create what you lost.  At what resolution did you scan the images?

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Nov 29, 2020)

Replytoken said:


> I personally would export them with as much resolution as they have.  You do not really know how they might be used, and while it is quite easy to downsize a file, I cannot say the same for trying to re-create what you lost.  At what resolution did you scan the images?
> 
> --Ken


Hello Ken
at 720 dpi - but that's only based on guess work really based on various advice

Are you suggesting I leave unchecked the 'Resize to fit' option (which seems to be for print?


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Nov 29, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> at 720 dpi - but that's only based on guess work really based on various advice


As I mentioned earlier in this thread, dpi or ppi alone can’t convey any specific image size, unless a physical dimension (inches, cm) is also supplied. Do you mean you scanned 35mm film at 720 ppi (which would be much lower than typical), scanned prints at 720 ppi (which could be much higher than typical), or that you set the ppi of the output image at 720 ppi at a certain number of inches? 720 ppi could mean three radically different image sizes depending on the context.

A much quicker way to answer that is to skip past all the ppi math and go directly to: What are the pixel dimensions of the scans, typically? For example, is the long side 1920 pixels, 4000 pixels, etc.? Pixel dimensions do tell us what the images could be used for.



CliveUK said:


> Are you suggesting I leave unchecked the 'Resize to fit' option (which seems to be for print?


I typically don’t reduce the size, but I’m storing my scans on a large hard drive. If you need to keep your archive under online storage limits, then you could limit most images to maybe 1920 pixels on the long side. That would be good enough for viewing on older HDTVs (“standard” 1080p HD is half of 4K resolution along one side), and also good enough for a 6 x 4 inch print at 300 ppi (which requires 1800 x 1200 pixels).

For the most highly treasured images, you could leave them at their original pixel dimensions so that they can be viewed at full detail on 4K TVs (or higher in the future), or so that they can be printed at 10 x 8 inches or larger. Using every pixel of a 4K TV requires 3840 x 2160 pixels, and an 10 x 8 inch print at 300 ppi requires 3000 x 2400 pixels, so if you do want some scans to be reproduced in those media, hopefully they approach or exceed those pixel dimensions.

Another observation to make is that the old distinctions between screen and print resolutions are quickly melting away. In that last paragraph, the pixel dimensions required for 4K displays and 10 x 8 inch prints are about the same. And the ppi resolution of displays is now tilting faster toward print resolutions, since a large number of new smartphones, tablets, and many Apple Retina and Windows HiDPI computer displays exceed 220 and even 300 ppi.


----------



## Replytoken (Nov 30, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Hello Ken
> at 720 dpi - but that's only based on guess work really based on various advice
> 
> Are you suggesting I leave unchecked the 'Resize to fit' option (which seems to be for print?


Conrad gave a very detailed reply.  The questions you need to consider are what you initially scanned (print vs slide/negative) and at what resolution?  720 PPI for a print is reasonable, but not for a slide/negative.  If the former, then leave it at that.  If you need to share, you can always resize to a smaller size later.  If you were scanning slides/negatives, I would suggest considering a higher resolution if possible.

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 2, 2020)

This is the scan setting with image size shown - although the original photos vary in size of course.


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 2, 2020)

The above image is for print by the way. I'm taking from what you're saying 720 is ok but is maybe making them larger than they need to be and I could reduce such prints to e.g. 300?   I do understand I'll need to increase the resolution for when i do negs and slides.

In terms of the export in Lr,  here's a shot of the relevant part of the export dialogue box. Again, from what you've said, I could set it at 1920 pixels on the long side - for most prints? And, keep resolution at 300 ppi?

Re your advice:  "For the most highly treasured images, you could leave them at their original pixel dimensions... " should I therefore uncheck the 'Resize the fit' box?





As you will detect, this is not coming easy to me and ideally and perhaps lazily,  I am after some simple guide to the settings from scan to export. E.g. for this size of print, this scan setting and this export setting. I don't know if that is possible or if it exists (I am imagining a flow chart with hopefully not too many branches!)

As ever Ken and Conrad, I am really grateful for your help and advice here and appreciate the time and careful way you are explaining it to me. Clive


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 2, 2020)

I can only give a short answer right now, but the most important thing to remember is GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.  In short, your first scan settings are among your most important, as that is what you will be working with further on down.  As to 720 vs ???, it is a preference call.  For printed material, 300 is generally considered the minimal amount needed.  Numbers usually go up from there to 600, 720, 1200 and even 2400.  There is probably little to gain above 1200 given that it is printed material, and some would even say that about 600 (or 720).  Assuming that you wanted to down sample later on, 1200 or 600 would still allow you to print at 300 without enlarging the image, and that is reasonable.

The export settings from LR will depend on how you want to use the image.  If you need something small then export accordingly knowing that you can always export again alter at a higher resolution.  If IQ is important, then export at the resolution you scanned.

One side note, I noticed that you are scanning at 24-bit.  If you plan on doing a lot of post processing, you should see if you have the ability to scan at 48-bit.

Sorry I cannot elaborate at the moment but I am on deadline on some other matters.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## Eric Bowles (Dec 4, 2020)

Probably the source of the 720 ppi setting is that 720 ppi is the resolution for highest quality prints using an Epson printer.  The native resolution is based on multiples of 360 ppi for Epson, while it's 300 ppi for Canon, HP, and most other printers.  To the extent your file size is different than a multiple of 360 ppi, the printer will interpolate the image data larger or smaller as needed.  

If you have a 6x4 printed image that is being scanned, you would normally scan at 600 ppi which is 3600 x 2400 pixels in the final image.  But if that is being printed on an Epson printer, the optimum output size without interpolation could be 12 x 8 inches on Canon,  but 10 x 6.7 inches on an Epson printer, so for a 12 x 8 print on Epson, the printer would upsize the image by 20%.  

In reality, the difference would be minor.   You have a limited amount of image data in your 6x4 print, and higher resolution for a larger size print would most likely result in fine detail of something blurry.  It's like using a lower quality lens on a high resolution camera - the lens would limit the effectiveness of the high resolution file regardless of how much resolution the camera has.


----------



## AlanHaynes.com (Dec 5, 2020)

The one thing you'll get from a high-quality dedicated film scanner (a Nikon Coolscan LS5000, in my case) that you won't get by using a camera is automatic dust removal. The infrared channel built into my scanner removes dust as part of the scan. With a camera, you'll have to manually remove the dust spots later. That could be a lot of work.


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 5, 2020)

Replytoken said:


> I can only give a short answer right now, but the most important thing to remember is GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.  In short, your first scan settings are among your most important, as that is what you will be working with further on down.  As to 720 vs ???, it is a preference call.  For printed material, 300 is generally considered the minimal amount needed.  Numbers usually go up from there to 600, 720, 1200 and even 2400.  There is probably little to gain above 1200 given that it is printed material, and some would even say that about 600 (or 720).  Assuming that you wanted to down sample later on, 1200 or 600 would still allow you to print at 300 without enlarging the image, and that is reasonable.
> 
> The export settings from LR will depend on how you want to use the image.  If you need something small then export accordingly knowing that you can always export again alter at a higher resolution.  If IQ is important, then export at the resolution you scanned.
> 
> ...


Thank you as ever.


AlanHaynes.com said:


> The one thing you'll get from a high-quality dedicated film scanner (a Nikon Coolscan LS5000, in my case) that you won't get by using a camera is automatic dust removal. The infrared channel built into my scanner removes dust as part of the scan. With a camera, you'll have to manually remove the dust spots later. That could be a lot of work.


Hi Alan. Gosh I wished I'd known that feature before I bought my Epson!


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 5, 2020)

Eric Bowles said:


> Probably the source of the 720 ppi setting is that 720 ppi is the resolution for highest quality prints using an Epson printer.  The native resolution is based on multiples of 360 ppi for Epson, while it's 300 ppi for Canon, HP, and most other printers.  To the extent your file size is different than a multiple of 360 ppi, the printer will interpolate the image data larger or smaller as needed.
> 
> If you have a 6x4 printed image that is being scanned, you would normally scan at 600 ppi which is 3600 x 2400 pixels in the final image.  But if that is being printed on an Epson printer, the optimum output size without interpolation could be 12 x 8 inches on Canon,  but 10 x 6.7 inches on an Epson printer, so for a 12 x 8 print on Epson, the printer would upsize the image by 20%.
> 
> In reality, the difference would be minor.   You have a limited amount of image data in your 6x4 print, and higher resolution for a larger size print would most likely result in fine detail of something blurry.  It's like using a lower quality lens on a high resolution camera - the lens would limit the effectiveness of the high resolution file regardless of how much resolution the camera has.


Thanks Eric


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 5, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Thank you as ever.
> 
> Hi Alan. Gosh I wished I'd known that feature before I bought my Epson!


Actually just looked and noticed Dust removal (I previously had read not to use that as it causes blur or softening?) but also notice Digital Ice Technology  but again read that's only for negs and transparencies?


----------



## AlanHaynes.com (Dec 5, 2020)

If you're scanning prints, I think you'll have to do some manual spot removal. Fun!


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 6, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Actually just looked and noticed Dust removal (I previously had read not to use that as it causes blur or softening?) but also notice Digital Ice Technology  but again read that's only for negs and transparencies?


A good anti-static brush should take care of a lot of this problem when scanning prints.  Make sure you dust the glass and then dust the print.  And try to keep your hands off of the glass as best you can.  I use a business card to "lift" my prints from the glass so as not to touch it.  You  may have an occasional bunny, but this should knock out the big ones.

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 6, 2020)

Thanks Alan and Ken.  What do you reckon to a hand held vacuum cleaner at least for the glass?


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 6, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Thanks Alan and Ken.  What do you reckon to a hand held vacuum cleaner at least for the glass?


I would just use an anti-static brush or cloth (and a flashlight so you can see the scanner glass in detail).  Small particles tend to cling to glass/print/negative/transparency surfaces due to static charge.  This is what we used in a film lab that I worked in years ago doing enlargements from negatives, and it is what I used when I had a darkroom at home.  I recently scanned a number of prints on a flatbed and used a brush with great success.  I cannot comment on a vacuum, but given that a brush is not expensive, it is worth consideration.  Kinetronics makes brushes that are not too expensive.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 6, 2020)

I-See-Light said:


> Point#2-  The options I see will always require some type of manual folder setup or the moving of files to the individual "correct" folder. Changing the 'Destination' folder for each single scan (of 6 images) will be very cumbersome. My method (scanning negs) has been to scan ALL to one 'Destination' folder and then later moving files to multiple folders in the Lr folder panel, and this can be done relatively simply.
> 1) Select a group (6?) of images  in the scanner 'Destination' folder
> 2) [Right-Click] on a 'Parent' folder where you want to have all the "suitably named" sub-folders.
> 3) Choose [create folder inside ......parent]
> ...


Again, thank you for your time in advising me on this. I've been scanning and editing in lightroom. I'm ok with the 'watched folder', where in (as you advised) I do any adjustments on those I think need it, in develop module and change their date & time with the exif plug in (remembering to 'read metadata from file'). *But then what to do?*  Do I have to export in order to 'bake in' those adjustments? Or is there another way?     Secondly, I understand you move the photos to named folders but do you leave ALL your 'original' scanned photos in the 'destination' folder?


----------



## Rob_Cullen (Dec 7, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> *But then what to do?*  Do I have to export in order to 'bake in' those adjustments? Or is there another way?     Secondly, I understand you move the photos to named folders but do you leave ALL your 'original' scanned photos in the 'destination' folder?


Do you "have to?" No, but you can  It is your decision.
My workflow is-
Move the 'original' scan files (with changed metadata-  capture date) from the Auto-Import  'destination' folder to their 'Dated' folders. This gives you a 'dated' folder structure both within the Catalog and on the hard-drive. eg. my film scans done in 2020 appear in a 1997 folder.
I do NOT export to a 'baked' file for all files. Why? Because I can export (a 'baked' version) from the 'original scans' at any time in the future for any needs or purposes, such as a commercial printer, or to give to family & friends. I only have one file (the original scan) on my hard-drive. I can use the developed originals for Books, slideshows, or to include in a Cloud Sync Collection, etc.


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Dec 8, 2020)

On the vacuum cleaner question…I have not thought of doing that, for the film I scan I still use an anti-static brush that I originally got for use in a darkroom, and/or a can of compressed air. But I have read that normal vacuum cleaners can be hazardous to computers because of the amount of static electricity they can generate, and with that in mind, does anyone know if vacuum cleaning a scanner would create a static electricity field that might attract dust instead of remove it?

Regarding exporting adjusted scans, in principle it should not be necessary until a retouched copy is needed for posting or sending. But if a scan needs a lot of work that I don’t want to ever redo like spot removal or major color correction, I might export the corrected version as a nice, clean, new original. One reason for this is that if someone needs to use these scans after I'm gone, and they were never exported, if they open the actual scans in another program all they will see is the uncorrected version. The corrected versions would only be visible in Lightroom Classic, if whatever version I was using will even run on a system 10 to 20 years from now. And, Lightroom Classic and the photo archive it manages are on separate volumes, so someone would have to know that all edits and metadata can be viewed only through a catalog that can be opened only in Lightroom Classic. There is something to be said for leaving behind a permanent archive of fully corrected master images.

I am thinking through what that means for both my TIFF film scans and raw digital camera files: In what form should the most important images be left behind so that the corrected version with full metadata can be viewed in whatever generic photo viewer they might be opened with in the future?


----------



## PhilBurton (Dec 9, 2020)

Conrad Chavez said:


> On the vacuum cleaner question…I have not thought of doing that, for the film I scan I still use an anti-static brush that I originally got for use in a darkroom,


Which brand and model of anti-static brush?


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 9, 2020)

PhilBurton said:


> Which brand and model of anti-static brush?





Replytoken said:


> Kinetronics makes brushes that are not too expensive.


--Ken


----------



## Conrad Chavez (Dec 9, 2020)

PhilBurton said:


> Which brand and model of anti-static brush?


Luckily, mine still has the label which is turning yellow since I’m sure I bought it at least 20 years ago…it says Kinetronics Static Wisk model SW-030.





I thought, why not enter that into Google, and lo and behold, they still sell them!
https://www.kinetronics.com/product/hand-held-anti-static-brush-1-25/
Another tip from the darkroom:
If the film has a fingerprint or other stain, you can clean it with a nasty chemical called Pec-12.


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 9, 2020)

Conrad Chavez said:


> Luckily, mine still has the label which is turning yellow since I’m sure I bought it at least 20 years ago…it says Kinetronics Static Wisk model SW-030.
> 
> View attachment 15699
> 
> ...


This is the same model brush I have, and I suspect mine is about the same age.  Since you mentioned Pec-12, would this be the time that I mention that nasty product that we used to temporarily treat scratches on negatives - "nose grease"? 

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Jul 8, 2020)

Hello. I am ready to go with scanning my photos. There are lots as I'm 62,  so i need to get it right at the start. I have tried to find it out myself but would really appreciate some real advice from people with experience. So: 
1. is there any reason to scan into a watched folder then import into LR, or (I would find it easier - as it cuts out a step) to choose the folder in the scan software. That way they go straight into the chosen folder - then I synchronize in Lightroom to recognise the photos. NB I scan them as JPEGS.
2. Is there any need then to export them to another folder?
3.  So, I have several photos in a folder. I would like to change them all to one date but have the time _incremental_. I don't know the exact time but would like other programs like Google photos to show them in order during the day. I see the function on Lightroom under metadata/edit capture time/Adjust to a specified date and time. However, how do I get it to choose incremental time?
4. I'd like that date recognised by Google photos and elsewhere. Any tips?
5. I have worked out that the text you put in the 'caption' in the metada (e.g. to describe people)  is recognised by Google photos and in the photo's file properties / details. 
5. A question on resolution. My scanner allows me to scan at so many DPI. I am happy with scanning them at 600 dpi. I guess you will say it depends what i want them for. Well, I'm mainly doing it for my kids so they can view them on a PC screen either via google photos or on after downloading them onto their own PC/laptop.

OKAY, I'll stop there as I think those are the main questions I'm stuck with


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 12, 2020)

Conrad Chavez said:


> Luckily, mine still has the label which is turning yellow since I’m sure I bought it at least 20 years ago…it says Kinetronics Static Wisk model SW-030.
> 
> View attachment 15699
> 
> ...


That's amazing. It's probably gained in value!


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 12, 2020)

I-See-Light said:


> Do you "have to?" No, but you can  It is your decision.
> My workflow is-
> Move the 'original' scan files (with changed metadata-  capture date) from the Auto-Import  'destination' folder to their 'Dated' folders. This gives you a 'dated' folder structure both within the Catalog and on the hard-drive. eg. my film scans done in 2020 appear in a 1997 folder.
> I do NOT export to a 'baked' file for all files. Why? Because I can export (a 'baked' version) from the 'original scans' at any time in the future for any needs or purposes, such as a commercial printer, or to give to family & friends. I only have one file (the original scan) on my hard-drive. I can use the developed originals for Books, slideshows, or to include in a Cloud Sync Collection, etc.


Thank you for that. Very useful. Because I like to make the photos accessible for my kids and others (on google photos) as i go, my workflow (if can call it a flow as its a bit interrupted by my day job!) is/will be then to export the  edited, keyworded, dated etc pics to correctly dated folders and then post to google photos - so i can share them. MY only question now is do I keep the original scanned photos? Of course I have then physically. Again from your good advice and others, I perhaps need to get more storage  so its not an issue.


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 12, 2020)

Conrad Chavez said:


> On the vacuum cleaner question…I have not thought of doing that, for the film I scan I still use an anti-static brush that I originally got for use in a darkroom, and/or a can of compressed air. But I have read that normal vacuum cleaners can be hazardous to computers because of the amount of static electricity they can generate, and with that in mind, does anyone know if vacuum cleaning a scanner would create a static electricity field that might attract dust instead of remove it?
> 
> Regarding exporting adjusted scans, in principle it should not be necessary until a retouched copy is needed for posting or sending. But if a scan needs a lot of work that I don’t want to ever redo like spot removal or major color correction, I might export the corrected version as a nice, clean, new original. One reason for this is that if someone needs to use these scans after I'm gone, and they were never exported, if they open the actual scans in another program all they will see is the uncorrected version. The corrected versions would only be visible in Lightroom Classic, if whatever version I was using will even run on a system 10 to 20 years from now. And, Lightroom Classic and the photo archive it manages are on separate volumes, so someone would have to know that all edits and metadata can be viewed only through a catalog that can be opened only in Lightroom Classic. There is something to be said for leaving behind a permanent archive of fully corrected master images.
> 
> I am thinking through what that means for both my TIFF film scans and raw digital camera files: In what form should the most important images be left behind so that the corrected version with full metadata can be viewed in whatever generic photo viewer they might be opened with in the future?


Great advice as usual. Like I've just said to 'I-see-light' I want to get the photos onto a shareable platform as i go - so i share them with eg. my kids. So I'll probably do what i normally do with my raws then export to other correctly named folders and then upload to google photos - as i go. I like to see their (usually) positive reactions, which makes it worthwhile. Again, like I also said, my question now is whether to keep the original scans on my PC, but the answer probably lies in buying more storage.  As for that, I also need to make decisions about adding a backup system - which is another whole issue and probably one for another thread. Finally, no-one seems to have answered definitely you question about vacuum cleaners so in the meantime I'm erring on the side of caution and will use cloth and brush and blower. Thank you again


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 15, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> Thank you for that. Very useful. Because I like to make the photos accessible for my kids and others (on google photos) as i go, my workflow (if can call it a flow as its a bit interrupted by my day job!) is/will be then to export the  edited, keyworded, dated etc pics to correctly dated folders and then post to google photos - so i can share them. MY only question now is do I keep the original scanned photos? Of course I have then physically. Again from your good advice and others, I perhaps need to get more storage  so its not an issue.


What do you think? Have i answered my own question?


----------



## Replytoken (Dec 15, 2020)

CliveUK said:


> What do you think? Have i answered my own question?


I would keep the original scanned photos.  Storage is cheap and your time, or somebody else's time to rescan has value.  And in addition to Google Photos, I would place the derivative files on a hard drive (labelled) as well.

--Ken


----------



## CliveUK (Dec 16, 2020)

Replytoken said:


> I would keep the original scanned photos.  Storage is cheap and your time, or somebody else's time to rescan has value.  And in addition to Google Photos, I would place the derivative files on a hard drive (labelled) as well.
> 
> --Ken


Great advice. Thank you.  You have been really helpful.


----------

