Newbie help: How to scan/archive old/damaged photos ?

Hi all:

I don't know too much about photography. I own a
point and shoot digicam and that's about it.

I have a stack of old 35mm film photographs. Some
of them are faded and some of them are stuck to
each other (meaning the photos were stacked on
top of each other, stuffed in a envelope, and now
the photos are kind of stuck to each other).

These photos are quite precious. Yes, I was careless
back then.

I don't have any negatives. Just the printed/processsed
photos (on normal paper or whatever it was that
CVS/Rite-Aid/etc used to print negatives onto).

I would like to scan and archive all of these photos.
Money (to a reasonable limit) is no object -- I'm
willing to spend around $500-1000 if need be.

So 2 questions:
1) What is the best way to unstick the photos ? What
sort of solution/liquid would do the trick.
2) What is the best way to scan these photos ? I've
heard a drum-scanner is the way to go -- any good/trusted
places in Philadelphia or Manhattan ? [If they would
unstick the photos for me, that's even better]

Thanks and best regards,
--j

"java" <javadesigner@yahoo . com > wrote in message
news:fv09bb$9uhu$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Hi all:
>
> I don't know too much about photography. I own a
> point and shoot digicam and that's about it.
>
> I have a stack of old 35mm film photographs. Some
> of them are faded and some of them are stuck to
> each other (meaning the photos were stacked on
> top of each other, stuffed in a envelope, and now
> the photos are kind of stuck to each other).
>
> These photos are quite precious. Yes, I was careless
> back then.
>
> I don't have any negatives. Just the printed/processsed
> photos (on normal paper or whatever it was that
> CVS/Rite-Aid/etc used to print negatives onto).
>
> I would like to scan and archive all of these photos.
> Money (to a reasonable limit) is no object -- I'm
> willing to spend around $500-1000 if need be.
>
> So 2 questions:
> 1) What is the best way to unstick the photos ? What
> sort of solution/liquid would do the trick.
> 2) What is the best way to scan these photos ? I've
> heard a drum-scanner is the way to go -- any good/trusted
> places in Philadelphia or Manhattan ? [If they would
> unstick the photos for me, that's even better]
>
> Thanks and best regards,
> --j

First the drum scanner-- since you are dealing with prints, you should get
reasonable results from a good flatbed scanner. I like my Epson, but there
are many good models on the market at prices less than $100.

As for un-sticking them: We need to determine whether they are RC (resin
coated) paper, which is mor a plastic than a paper, or are they older photo
paper prints? If they are after the mid 1970's they are probably RC paper.
You could soak them in a tray of water with a little photo-flo added, and
they will fairly easily come apart. Rinse them a couple minutes and lay them
face up on cloth towels to dry. If they are the older paper, the job will be
more difficult.

Since you are in a metro area, it may be a good idea to take them to a
professional photo lab to get some recommendations. If they won't tackle
them (liability issues), they may suggest someone who will try. You could
also try the conservator at a museum. Or check with Kodak, either their
website or in Rochester.

If you can determine that there are some stuck prints that aren't quite so
precious, use them to experiment.

In article <ukPQj.209$Yo2.32@trndny01>,
"Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon . net > wrote:

> "java" <javadesigner@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> news:fv09bb$9uhu$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > Hi all:
> >
> > I don't know too much about photography. I own a
> > point and shoot digicam and that's about it.
> >
> > I have a stack of old 35mm film photographs. Some
> > of them are faded and some of them are stuck to
> > each other (meaning the photos were stacked on
> > top of each other, stuffed in a envelope, and now
> > the photos are kind of stuck to each other).
> >
> > These photos are quite precious. Yes, I was careless
> > back then.
> >
> > I don't have any negatives. Just the printed/processsed
> > photos (on normal paper or whatever it was that
> > CVS/Rite-Aid/etc used to print negatives onto).
> >
> > I would like to scan and archive all of these photos.
> > Money (to a reasonable limit) is no object -- I'm
> > willing to spend around $500-1000 if need be.
> >
> > So 2 questions:
> > 1) What is the best way to unstick the photos ? What
> > sort of solution/liquid would do the trick.
> > 2) What is the best way to scan these photos ? I've
> > heard a drum-scanner is the way to go -- any good/trusted
> > places in Philadelphia or Manhattan ? [If they would
> > unstick the photos for me, that's even better]
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> > --j
>
> First the drum scanner-- since you are dealing with prints, you should get
> reasonable results from a good flatbed scanner. I like my Epson, but there
> are many good models on the market at prices less than $100.
>
> As for un-sticking them: We need to determine whether they are RC (resin
> coated) paper, which is mor a plastic than a paper, or are they older photo
> paper prints? If they are after the mid 1970's they are probably RC paper.
> You could soak them in a tray of water with a little photo-flo added, and
> they will fairly easily come apart. Rinse them a couple minutes and lay them
> face up on cloth towels to dry. If they are the older paper, the job will be
> more difficult.
>
> Since you are in a metro area, it may be a good idea to take them to a
> professional photo lab to get some recommendations. If they won't tackle
> them (liability issues), they may suggest someone who will try. You could
> also try the conservator at a museum. Or check with Kodak, either their
> website or in Rochester.
>
> If you can determine that there are some stuck prints that aren't quite so
> precious, use them to experiment.

In addition to the above try scanning at the maximum ppi/dpi your PC can
handle. If you intend them to only be viewed on screen or in a digital
frame, the 150-200 is perfect. Scan at 300 if you plan to print full
size or perhaps from to 50% bigger. 600 if you're aiming at 2x or 3x
magnification. Don't bother with anything more than 800 - you'll create
HUGE files and it'll take forever. Save your scans as TIFFs or
Photoshop's PSD - I'd recommend Elements 5 if your budget doesn't run to
Photoshop itself. Post scanning work depends on if the photos are
creased, faded etc or just blemished from being stuck together.
Remember, many older cameras had poorer lenses, what looks good at 2x2
inches may look bad at 6x6.

In article <anyone4tennis-74ADA9.16364027042008@newssv.kcn.ne.jp>,
Stewy <anyone4tennis@hotmail . com > wrote:

> In article <ukPQj.209$Yo2.32@trndny01>,
> "Ken Hart" <kwhart1@verizon . net > wrote:
>
> > "java" <javadesigner@yahoo . com > wrote in message
> > news:fv09bb$9uhu$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> > > Hi all:
> > >
> > > I don't know too much about photography. I own a
> > > point and shoot digicam and that's about it.
> > >
<snipped for brevity>
> >

> In addition to the above try scanning at the maximum ppi/dpi your PC can
> handle. If you intend them to only be viewed on screen or in a digital
> frame, the 150-200 is perfect. Scan at 300 if you plan to print full
> size or perhaps from to 50% bigger. 600 if you're aiming at 2x or 3x
> magnification. Don't bother with anything more than 800 - you'll create
> HUGE files and it'll take forever. Save your scans as TIFFs or
> Photoshop's PSD - I'd recommend Elements 5 if your budget doesn't run to
> Photoshop itself. Post scanning work depends on if the photos are
> creased, faded etc or just blemished from being stuck together.
> Remember, many older cameras had poorer lenses, what looks good at 2x2
> inches may look bad at 6x6.

Badly wrinkled photos and other problems with flatness will often cause
shadowing on flatbed scanners. The secret here in multiple scans while
rotating the print by 90 degrees. Drag these extra scans onto new layers
and then carefully erase the problems on each layer.

I also agree with the previous post - never scan above 800dpi or so.
It's a pity these scanner makers don't realise that 3000-4000 dpi is
useless (I sometimes scan stamps at 800-1000) and making an A3 or B4
scanner (or larger) is what many people want.

"java" wrote: (clip) I own a
> point and shoot digicam and that's about it. (clip) 2) What is the best
> way to scan these photos ? (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This may sound like heresy, but I suggest you try rephotographing these
prints with your little point-and-shoot camera. You will need to work in
very even, shadowless light, using macro mode and a tripod. If your camera
is fairly new, it probably has enough megapixels to more than preserve the
detail in the average snapshot.

If you have, or can develop, a little skill with Photoshop (I use Elements)
you can fix tears, stains, bad contrast and wrinkles. Should you have a
mishap in trying to separate any of the prints, you may even be able to fix
the damage. A lot of family snapshots, while they are precious memories,
are crooked and poorly composed. You will probably be able to do some
fixing in that area as well.

Take your time. Do a few of the easy ones first. You will learn as you
go--by the time you reach the end, you may decide to go back and redo some
of the early ones. It sounds like a project that will be greatly
appreciated by your family.