Top 5 Mistakes when making a video... 5. Having Music over dialog 4. Having Music over dialog 3. Having Music over dialog 2. Having Music over dialog and finally 1. Having Music over dialog
Why would you scan the photo at 300 dpi when you can scan it at 600 dpi and get a much greater level of detail and resolution at 600 dpi, who cares about the fact that it might take 1 minute long to scan at 600 dpi, these are photos we are talking about, and if we want to archive them it would be of a great benefit to have them at a higher resolution.
Sorry, no extra detail scanning higher than 300ppi from a print. Only on negs, slides. Only scan higher if you require a larger print. Test it yourself. He's right on this.
He is 100% correct. 300dpi is all you need, anything higher is not giving you any more detail. Unless you want to print all your scans 8x10, then make it higher.
Think Screens not just print! In all likelihood, you will in future view your scans on a screen at least 1920 pixels wide (that's just in 2019 - what will future screen resolutions be?) - any scan that gives you a screen image say of only 1000 pixels is disappointing so use a higher resolution for smaller photos. Also, you'll feel more comfortable about disposing of the originals (the main point of digitising for me) if you know you have a hi-res scan. A lot of old Polariods are only 3 inches wide so a 300 dpi scan will only give you 900 pixels - double it! Thoroughly recommend Lightroom CC for the organising (£9 per month in UK) and fixing colour balance/exposure and Lightroom's keyword tagging and facial recognition is insanely good. Also if scanning a group photo, all faces will be small so ramp up the resolution for these significantly. Bottom line - go for 1800+ pixels minimum for every image from the word 'go' and even higher for group shots.
You can go a long way using the Finder's List View on a Mac to organize image files, if you take the time to create meaningful file names. For example, start each file name with the date per the ISO 8601 standard. I stay away from using third party apps for organizing image files because it adds another level of dependency on software that is forever changing or disappearing.
Not sure if your 'top 5' is in any particular or correct order but I have to agree that these are common mistakes. One additional error/mistake I have encountered is the belief that once a photo is scanned it can be enlarged to any size desired and the quality of the original will be retained. This is simply not the case - if you scan a business card/passport size photo and want it to be enlarged to an A4 sized photo then the quality of the original will be very difficult to retain unless the dpi of the original is very high (1000+?). The error/mistake is partially touched upon in point 5 regarding resolution - and also in the Comments listed - but could (should?) have been more heavily and clearly emphasized. Otherwise this is quite a good video. Thumbs up.
I was surprised they showed the person thumbing through the photos handling them without cotton gloves (or at least by the edges). Important photos should not be handled like a deck of cards!. The oils from your fingers etch the surface of photos, especially glossy stock, over a period of time.
Photo Organizer: I found one called "IRIS Photo and Craft Storage Organizer" or "16,000 Photo Organizer" or IRIS Extra Large Photo Organizer...they are all the same item. Amazon, Michaels, and other places sell it. It holds 16,000 4"x6" photos - 100 in each of the 16 inner boxes. Sells anywhere from $19.99 - $29.99 USD . The one shown in the video looks like 20 inner boxes with photos that might be larger than 4"x6". Can't find that one...
Good info! Curious...I see a DSLR on a slide projector in the background. Something we've tried and not been happy with the quality. I wonder now with cameras that offer high bit depth "log" exposures if it's possible to get great quality now by this method.
I find photo organizing software to be more of a pain to use for looking at photos (as its usually more about bling and fancy presentation than actual practical use) than simply having the files right in front of me in appropriately labeled folders and using a simple photo viewer/editor like infraview or windows photo viewer. If I want to use fancy software at all it will be for editing
As a photographer, this is the world's worst how to video. Very outdated music....Its an 80s throw back commercial for a third party website... also, As many people stated where are the cotton gloves when handling vintage photographs. This is a must for film photography.... I was expecting something totally different from this video
A questão foi escrito com erro. A Epson vende o Scanner V330 no Brasil, mas todos os videos mostrados no TH-cam, conforme e-mail enviado pela própriaEpson, eles estão em Ingles. eu não domino o Ingles. o que fazer?? Tem tradução??
Great so iv'e got a load of Photo booth passport sized prints, If i scan them all at 300 DPI i can print high quality 10x8 prints? NO i cant because I should be scanning for the output in mind. This is the 1st mistake of scanning. Scanning at 300DPI does not grantee 10x8 prints especially when scanning small passport images. Bad advise im afraid. Small pass port images of 1.5 inches should be scanned at least at 1200 DPI!
In general the advice offered by both yourself and digitizemylife is good. However, it should be noted that digitizing passport sized prints at 300 dpi will only result in 300dpi quality reproductions for passport sized reproductions. Naturally the higher the dpi (600+) then the higher the quality of the reproduction. I have personally done most of my scanning at 300 dpi and found it to be satisfactory but I have a number of varied sized photos as well (including passport) and recognize that any attempt to enlarge the size of these photos, when originally scanned at 300 dpi, will produce only marginal results. If you want a top-quality result - especially for enlargements - then you have to scan at a top quality dpi. Good luck with your scanning.
I had exactly this problem yesterday. So I scanned a passport pic at 700dpi, tweaked it a bit in GIMP and it was all set for an Android identification app.
@@harshrajsingh8969 dpi is meaningless and deceptive unless you have a particular print size in mind. Scanning at 100 percent, ppi lets you know the resolution of your scan (analogous to sampling rate of digitizing audio (i.e., 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz).
UM NUMBER 4 THE OILS FROM ONES FINGER TIPS IS JUST AS HORRIBLE OR WORST! ATTEMPTING TO SCAN FINGER PRINTED PICTURES IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO GIVE YOU HEADACHES IF THE IMAGES ARE ANY GOOD BY THAT TIME. Fuck! forgive the CAPS!
When I scanned my old photos at 600 dpi, they have lots of specks on them. I spent 3 hours with a blemish remover tool to get the specks off one photo. I'm kind of a perfectionist. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
A few things to consider: First, scanning above the dpi present in a photo does not always produce better results that a solid upscaling plugin. Ref: blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2013/07/you-say-you-want-a-resolution-how-many-dpippi-is-too-much/ Second, if you have photoshop, you can do an unsharp mask and then dust & scratches removal filtering. When doing dust and scratches, round up the pixel size you used in your unsharp mask, start at the highest threshold and slowly drag it downward until the specks just start to disappear - many of them will disappear before you start losing detail in the rest of the image.
I've resigned myself to the reality that scanning prints always requires manual retouching (i.e., with Photoshop) that is very time consuming. There really isn't any filter that can take care of the dust particles that typically get in the scan, as far as I am concerned. Scanning film negatives or transparencies rather than prints is actually easier when it comes to retouching requirements.
Top 5 Mistakes when making a video...
5. Having Music over dialog
4. Having Music over dialog
3. Having Music over dialog
2. Having Music over dialog
and finally
1. Having Music over dialog
Why would you scan the photo at 300 dpi when you can scan it at 600 dpi and get a much greater level of detail and resolution at 600 dpi, who cares about the fact that it might take 1 minute long to scan at 600 dpi, these are photos we are talking about, and if we want to archive them it would be of a great benefit to have them at a higher resolution.
Sorry, no extra detail scanning higher than 300ppi from a print. Only on negs, slides. Only scan higher if you require a larger print. Test it yourself. He's right on this.
He is 100% correct. 300dpi is all you need, anything higher is not giving you any more detail. Unless you want to print all your scans 8x10, then make it higher.
Think Screens not just print! In all likelihood, you will in future view your scans on a screen at least 1920 pixels wide (that's just in 2019 - what will future screen resolutions be?) - any scan that gives you a screen image say of only 1000 pixels is disappointing so use a higher resolution for smaller photos. Also, you'll feel more comfortable about disposing of the originals (the main point of digitising for me) if you know you have a hi-res scan. A lot of old Polariods are only 3 inches wide so a 300 dpi scan will only give you 900 pixels - double it! Thoroughly recommend Lightroom CC for the organising (£9 per month in UK) and fixing colour balance/exposure and Lightroom's keyword tagging and facial recognition is insanely good. Also if scanning a group photo, all faces will be small so ramp up the resolution for these significantly. Bottom line - go for 1800+ pixels minimum for every image from the word 'go' and even higher for group shots.
where did you get your archive box been looking and cannot find it
You can go a long way using the Finder's List View on a Mac to organize image files, if you take the time to create meaningful file names. For example, start each file name with the date per the ISO 8601 standard. I stay away from using third party apps for organizing image files because it adds another level of dependency on software that is forever changing or disappearing.
Mac is better for retired lazy users, no need to confuse people over here..
Does the Epson FF680W use ICE Technology like the Epson v600, Epson v850, etc.?
Not sure if your 'top 5' is in any particular or correct order but I have to agree that these are common mistakes. One additional error/mistake I have encountered is the belief that once a photo is scanned it can be enlarged to any size desired and the quality of the original will be retained. This is simply not the case - if you scan a business card/passport size photo and want it to be enlarged to an A4 sized photo then the quality of the original will be very difficult to retain unless the dpi of the original is very high (1000+?). The error/mistake is partially touched upon in point 5 regarding resolution - and also in the Comments listed - but could (should?) have been more heavily and clearly emphasized. Otherwise this is quite a good video. Thumbs up.
I was surprised they showed the person thumbing through the photos handling them without cotton gloves (or at least by the edges). Important photos should not be handled like a deck of cards!. The oils from your fingers etch the surface of photos, especially glossy stock, over a period of time.
k0rc
Photo Organizer: I found one called "IRIS Photo and Craft Storage Organizer" or "16,000 Photo Organizer" or IRIS Extra Large Photo Organizer...they are all the same item. Amazon, Michaels, and other places sell it. It holds 16,000 4"x6" photos - 100 in each of the 16 inner boxes. Sells anywhere from $19.99 - $29.99 USD . The one shown in the video looks like 20 inner boxes with photos that might be larger than 4"x6". Can't find that one...
Good info! Curious...I see a DSLR on a slide projector in the background. Something we've tried and not been happy with the quality. I wonder now with cameras that offer high bit depth "log" exposures if it's possible to get great quality now by this method.
I find photo organizing software to be more of a pain to use for looking at photos (as its usually more about bling and fancy presentation than actual practical use) than simply having the files right in front of me in appropriately labeled folders and using a simple photo viewer/editor like infraview or windows photo viewer. If I want to use fancy software at all it will be for editing
As a photographer, this is the world's worst how to video. Very outdated music....Its an 80s throw back commercial for a third party website... also, As many people stated where are the cotton gloves when handling vintage photographs. This is a must for film photography.... I was expecting something totally different from this video
Plus it was shot in interlaced video.
Where to buy the photo archive box shown??
A questão foi escrito com erro. A Epson vende o Scanner V330 no Brasil, mas todos os videos mostrados no TH-cam, conforme e-mail enviado pela própriaEpson, eles estão em Ingles. eu não domino o Ingles. o que fazer?? Tem tradução??
Great so iv'e got a load of Photo booth passport sized prints, If i scan them all at 300 DPI i can print high quality 10x8 prints? NO i cant because I should be scanning for the output in mind. This is the 1st mistake of scanning. Scanning at 300DPI does not grantee 10x8 prints especially when scanning small passport images. Bad advise im afraid. Small pass port images of 1.5 inches should be scanned at least at 1200 DPI!
In general the advice offered by both yourself and digitizemylife is good. However, it should be noted that digitizing passport sized prints at 300 dpi will only result in 300dpi quality reproductions for passport sized reproductions. Naturally the higher the dpi (600+) then the higher the quality of the reproduction. I have personally done most of my scanning at 300 dpi and found it to be satisfactory but I have a number of varied sized photos as well (including passport) and recognize that any attempt to enlarge the size of these photos, when originally scanned at 300 dpi, will produce only marginal results. If you want a top-quality result - especially for enlargements - then you have to scan at a top quality dpi. Good luck with your scanning.
Neil Rhodes Ij
I had exactly this problem yesterday. So I scanned a passport pic at 700dpi, tweaked it a bit in GIMP and it was all set for an Android identification app.
300dpi... for prints yes, but not negatives. And its ppi, not dpi, duh!
dpi stands for dots per inch its correct.
@@harshrajsingh8969 dpi is meaningless and deceptive unless you have a particular print size in mind. Scanning at 100 percent, ppi lets you know the resolution of your scan (analogous to sampling rate of digitizing audio (i.e., 44.1 kHz, 48 kHz).
Lots of great information now to decide which way to do.
ok but 300 dpi for photos, and for diapositive??
Do you offer photo scan services?
Move on, nothing to see here.
Apesare aí o que fazer??? de aEpson vender este Scanner no Brasil, todos os videos de explicação estão em Ingles.
UM NUMBER 4 THE OILS FROM ONES FINGER TIPS IS JUST AS HORRIBLE OR WORST! ATTEMPTING TO SCAN FINGER PRINTED PICTURES IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO GIVE YOU HEADACHES IF THE IMAGES ARE ANY GOOD BY THAT TIME.
Fuck! forgive the CAPS!
Well we've been waiting for 2 years for you to edit the CAPS to upper/lower case, not just say "Fuck!" and then move on.
Please remove the freakin music!
So there's actually only 1 point here related to scanning.
This could use an update to reflect new technology
Get archival boxes from Archival Methods
Common mistake is to archive photos in the hot stove or bonfire.
When I scanned my old photos at 600 dpi, they have lots of specks on them. I spent 3 hours with a blemish remover tool to get the specks off one photo. I'm kind of a perfectionist. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
A few things to consider: First, scanning above the dpi present in a photo does not always produce better results that a solid upscaling plugin. Ref: blogs.loc.gov/digitalpreservation/2013/07/you-say-you-want-a-resolution-how-many-dpippi-is-too-much/ Second, if you have photoshop, you can do an unsharp mask and then dust & scratches removal filtering. When doing dust and scratches, round up the pixel size you used in your unsharp mask, start at the highest threshold and slowly drag it downward until the specks just start to disappear - many of them will disappear before you start losing detail in the rest of the image.
jag216
Get a canner with Infrared channel, and software taht then uses the "dust channel" to automatically do in seconds what took you hours...
I've resigned myself to the reality that scanning prints always requires manual retouching (i.e., with Photoshop) that is very time consuming. There really isn't any filter that can take care of the dust particles that typically get in the scan, as far as I am concerned. Scanning film negatives or transparencies rather than prints is actually easier when it comes to retouching requirements.
I'm citing this video in a paper as a terrible resource LMAO
Epson photo scanning settings
This was the exact moment when human's evangelism for technology peaked
Fantastic, thanks!
Great Vid...!
5, 3 and 1 are not actually mistakes. I think this is a sponsored video.
DPI makes no sense as a unit for scanning. You probably mean PPI.
Please explain the difference. Thank you.
4000 pixels on the longest side! so 1200 for small photos!!
He's got a really nice mouth! I could watch him talking for hours! Cool video too!
Gay music
not useful at all ....
LOOK IN THE CAMERA.
one was stupid
digitise
Iphoto is pretty awful
Yawn...zzz