Scanning old photos Lightroom + questions

[CliveUK]

Lightroom Version Number

Classic version 9.3

Operating System

1. Windows 10

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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)?

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]

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]

That is Correct. Very misleading name for that option.

Thank you

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]
View attachment 14955
4) Type a name for the new sub-folder and check the box to [include selected photos]
View attachment 14956
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!

Thank you so much for your help with this

 

[CliveUK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Thank you very much for this really clear and helpful explanation

 

[CliveUK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thank you. Appreciate it

 

[CliveUK]

Thank you

 

[CliveUK]

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]
View attachment 14955
4) Type a name for the new sub-folder and check the box to [include selected photos]
View attachment 14956
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.

Successful scanning!

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]

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]

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]

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.