<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Now What? Expert Answers to your Genealogy questions - computers</title>
    <link>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/</link>
    <description />
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>F+W Media</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:56:23 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 2.3.9074.18820</generator>
    <managingEditor>allison.stacy@fwpubs.com</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>allison.stacy@fwpubs.com</webMaster>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/Trackback.aspx?guid=022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/PermaLink,guid,022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator>Allison</dc:creator>
      <wfw:comment>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/CommentView,guid,022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <div>
          <font size="4">
            <b>
              <font color="#a52a2a">Q</font>
            </b>
          </font> I’m in the process
of digitizing my family photos, and I have to wonder: Does the type of scanner or
software really matter? I am not correcting any of them; they’re going in “as is”
because 98 percent are in excellent shape.<br /><br /><font color="#a52a2a"><font size="4"><b>A</b></font></font> Of course, the companies
manufacturing such gizmos like to play up the benefits of their products’ features—and
it’s true that a $500 scanner can do things a $100 scanner can’t. But for genealogists,
it’s kind of like choosing between a Ford or a Rolls Royce: Although the Rolls offers
lots of bells and whistles, you'd probably opt for the cheaper Ford if all you really
care about is getting from point A to point B.<br /><br />
We recommend family historians scan photographic prints at 300 to 600 dpi for archival
purposes. (If you plan to enlarge any far beyond their original size, however, you’ll
probably need to scan those at a higher resolution.) Today, flatbed scanners in the
$80 to $100 range offer 1,200-dpi or higher optical resolution—more than enough for
the type of scanning you’re doing. 
<br /><br />
If you have a lot of photos to scan, you might want to pay a little extra to get a
model with a document feeder or other convenience features. Old photos, which often
have cardboard backings, won't work with feeders, though. So you'd have to skip the
feeder anyway if you're working with heritage photos.<br /><br />
(Note that slides and negatives require a scanner built for that purpose—rather than
a regular flatbed—to get the best results. Such models have high resolutions and correspondingly
high price tags.)<br /><br />
Likewise, you’ll probably find that the photo-editing and -organizing software that
came with your scanner or computer will work fine for your needs. Once you’ve had
an opportunity to get familiar with the program’s setup, you might decide you want
to “step up” to another program that has additional features or an interface better-suited
to your working style. Adobe’s $100 <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/">Photoshop
Elements</a> is one popular choice—but you certainly don’t need to shell out $650
for the <a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/index.html">professional
Photoshop</a> program, which is loaded with fancy features you’ll probably never need.<br /><br /><p></p></div>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/aggbug.ashx?id=022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd" />
      </body>
      <title>The Skinny on Scanners</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/PermaLink,guid,022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/2007/12/18/TheSkinnyOnScanners.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:56:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;div&gt;&lt;font size="4"&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color="#a52a2a"&gt;Q&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt; I’m in the process
of digitizing my family photos, and I have to wonder: Does the type of scanner or
software really matter? I am not correcting any of them; they’re going in “as is”
because 98 percent are in excellent shape.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;font color="#a52a2a"&gt;&lt;font size="4"&gt;&lt;b&gt;A&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/font&gt; Of course, the companies
manufacturing such gizmos like to play up the benefits of their products’ features—and
it’s true that a $500 scanner can do things a $100 scanner can’t. But for genealogists,
it’s kind of like choosing between a Ford or a Rolls Royce: Although the Rolls offers
lots of bells and whistles, you'd probably opt for the cheaper Ford if all you really
care about is getting from point A to point B.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
We recommend family historians scan photographic prints at 300 to 600 dpi for archival
purposes. (If you plan to enlarge any far beyond their original size, however, you’ll
probably need to scan those at a higher resolution.) Today, flatbed scanners in the
$80 to $100 range offer 1,200-dpi or higher optical resolution—more than enough for
the type of scanning you’re doing. 
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
If you have a lot of photos to scan, you might want to pay a little extra to get a
model with a document feeder or other convenience features. Old photos, which often
have cardboard backings, won't work with feeders, though. So you'd have to skip the
feeder anyway if you're working with heritage photos.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
(Note that slides and negatives require a scanner built for that purpose—rather than
a regular flatbed—to get the best results. Such models have high resolutions and correspondingly
high price tags.)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Likewise, you’ll probably find that the photo-editing and -organizing software that
came with your scanner or computer will work fine for your needs. Once you’ve had
an opportunity to get familiar with the program’s setup, you might decide you want
to “step up” to another program that has additional features or an interface better-suited
to your working style. Adobe’s $100 &lt;a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopelwin/"&gt;Photoshop
Elements&lt;/a&gt; is one popular choice—but you certainly don’t need to shell out $650
for the &lt;a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/index.html"&gt;professional
Photoshop&lt;/a&gt; program, which is loaded with fancy features you’ll probably never need.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/aggbug.ashx?id=022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://blog.familytreemagazine.com/nowwhat/CommentView,guid,022fb4c2-2511-44e9-867a-407bce2399fd.aspx</comments>
      <category>Preserving Heirlooms and Photos</category>
      <category>computers</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>