Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was looking at the flip pal scanner, though I think sharing might be similar on other scanners. I have cousins who live in other states, some less tech savvy. I know one has boxes of old photos, which they say are probably getting moldy in their basement. I was thinking I could send her the scanner, if she was willing but I am not sure about how to do the sharing. This scanner saves to a SD card, so then you can save it to your computer. I guess she could then share with her siblings by sending them the file.
I've never downloaded directly from an sd card and I don't know if it would work sending copies to a pc or a mac Could she be able then to send me the sd card with the images? She is not very interested in genealogy so I am trying to make it as easy as I can for her. She is the only family member with my grandparents pictures so I'd really like to get copies before they get ruined.
She may have a digital camera but it would be difficult to get the finer details in the larger pictures or document.
This is all new to me so any ideas for how to do this would be appreciated.
As long as the files are saved in a universal image format like JPG, it doesn't matter if it's a mac or pc. Ideally, I would recommend scanning them as lossless TIFF files (also universal) so they don't get compressed and lose data.
If your cousin is not tech savy, I would not send her a scanner and expect her to do it herself. I would recommend she take the photos to a place that will scan the pictures for them and give her the digital images on a disc. She could then send you the disc. Sending the files over the internet is not ideal, especially if they are large lossless files - you would need some kind of cloud to upload and download them from - like Drop Box or something.
I scan photos on my HP 4 in 1 printer. It has numerous resolution settings, 200 to 4,800 dpi. I edit in photoshop or one of the free editing programs, and simply save them as jpeg files on my computer. I think this printer cost about $130. It's a little slow, but I like the ability to look at each photo as I go and decide what size, resolution, etc. is appropriate for what I want to do with the photo.
My printer also has 2 card slots, so the computer recognizes the printer as just another drive (f: in my case). You just insert a SD card, as I do to download my camera photos, and transfer the photos to the computer. FWIW, I also use SD cards to back up my document and other important computer files on a regular basis. A simple separate usb card reader would cost about $20. You could also use flash or thumb drives to shuttle photos around. I agree that is superior to email.
You could do it if your cousins were willing to send you the photos.
Thank you both for explaining so much, I'm trying to wrap my brain around it since its all new to me. I had been debating about whether to get a dedicated scanner or a 4 in 1. We have a B/W laser printer because the toner lasts so much longer. So this would be for genealogy and maybe the convenience of copy and fax. I had looked at that model because its supposed to be easy to use and would be light enough to ship it to relatives so we could share old photos.
I doubt she would ship them to me, and I would feel horrible if they should get lost or damaged. No too sure if she would take them to be scanned or not. I really got the idea she doesn't want to go to too much trouble to help, so digital camera pics put on a disc or thumb drive would be better than not seeing the pictures at all. I was going to offer to investigate her paternal (not directly my ancestors) and funds as a trade. Makes me wish our families were all still in the neighborhood.
In my experience, scanning is a very time and labor-intensive method of copying photos. So I prefer using a camera. It's not the best method, but it's the easiest. Make sure it's set on the highest resolution, and be very careful with making sure it's focused. If they're photos in a box, sometimes they're curled. And something to hold them flat will probably be needed.
If you can't go and photograph them yourself, what about trying to find a student photographer at a local high school or college. Or, someone connected to a historical or genealogical society that might do it for a small fee.
In my experience, scanning is a very time and labor-intensive method of copying photos. So I prefer using a camera. It's not the best method, but it's the easiest. Make sure it's set on the highest resolution, and be very careful with making sure it's focused. If they're photos in a box, sometimes they're curled. And something to hold them flat will probably be needed.
If you can't go and photograph them yourself, what about trying to find a student photographer at a local high school or college. Or, someone connected to a historical or genealogical society that might do it for a small fee.
Sorry but the professional photographer in me is screaming "noooooooo!" If the intent of digitizing photographs is to print copies and archive/back them up, it should really be done properly, not with uneven lighting, uncontrolled focus, barrel distortion, and worst of all, random objects showing around the edges to hold the photo flat. If all the OP wants is to be able to see the images, I suppose that would work. But like I say, it's not suitable for printing copies and/or archiving them digitally. If not scanning, photography copy work requires a tripod, professional even lighting, a hand held light meter to assure even lighting, and the right lens/focal length (no distortion). To flatten photos, it would be best to use a piece of glass, like from a photo frame but then of course you have to watch the reflections from the lighting which is why it's best done by someone who knows how to properly light it.
I agree that finding a student photographer would work - a high school student probably won't know how to do copy work but at college level, they should. A historical or genealogical society would probably be more likely to have a scanner and therefore might be the easier option. Depending on the photos, if the society wants the collection, they might scan them for free in return for keeping copies of the scans. Alternatively, like I said before, there are photo processing stores which will scan for a fee or there are companies which you can mail the photos to and they will send them back with a disc of the scans: DigMyPics | How It Works
Of course it's not the best way to archivally preserve photographs. I didn't claim it was. But it is the best way to get a copy from someone who's reluctantly participating in their duplication, at the least expense, least fuss, and with the least amount of time involved.
My intent on digitizing photos is so that I have the image digitized to add to my genealogy databases, identified, and attached to the individual. Considering that much of what we have to work with are things like grainy newspaper photos ... a photographed copy is wonderful to have. And certainly better than nothing.
Of course it's not the best way to archivally preserve photographs. I didn't claim it was.
Well, the OP specifically said "She may have a digital camera but it would be difficult to get the finer details in the larger pictures or document." - so obviously she wants good copies with fine details. I just wanted to make it clear to her that if not done properly, photographing the pictures is not ideal for someone who wants to see the finer details.
Quote:
But it is the best way to get a copy from someone who's reluctantly participating in their duplication, at the least expense, least fuss, and with the least amount of time involved.
I don't agree it would be the easiest way - I think taking them somewhere to have them scanned would be a lot easier and a lot less fuss since the OP's cousin wouldn't have to do any of the actual scanning/photographing herself. Just drop them off, pick them up later, mail the disc. Furthermore, for someone who is not techy at all, who knows if she even has a digital camera, much less knows how to do something like burn them to a disc.
For someone who already has a digital camera, it would be cheaper - but the OP could always offer to reimburse her for the cost of having them scanned.
Quote:
My intent on digitizing photos is so that I have the image digitized to add to my genealogy databases, identified, and attached to the individual. Considering that much of what we have to work with are things like grainy newspaper photos ... a photographed copy is wonderful to have. And certainly better than nothing.
Most old photos, no matter how faded or worn, should be of better quality than newspaper simply because they are not printed on newspaper.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
