I've started the immense project of digitizing a literal century's worth of family photos. I'm noticing something interesting: scans of the newer photos, from maybe the 1990s & later, are *awful*: the color is off & the contrast is a nightmare. They all scan dark & garish, requiring some adjustment before saving.
I do note that paper surface is different for all of them, depending on what photo tech was available at the time the images were taken, & how they were developed. Some are on matte paper, some have a gloss finish, for instance.
& I know from having grown up since the 70s that different cameras produced different quality results - & then there's variables like the photographer, & who developed the images - stuff like, did the photographer know about things like shutter speed & exposure? Did the developer over- or underdevelop the original negative?
Speaking of, the negatives are gone, I have no idea where they went.
I know that before they moved out of their house in the city my parents did a massive purge of slides & negatives - I have no idea what they got rid of. I still have literally thousands of photos to scan, yet I also wonder what's missing.
The major contributor of photo quality is the film. And the development process it was designed for. There was a major shift in the early 70's. In both, Film and development.
This is mostly due to so called "rapid printing". Remember the 4 hour photo ads?
The only way to do this was with the new films and development techniques.
One thing that might help, is to sort all the photos by year, before scanning. That way your scanner settings won't have to change as frequently.
@corlin @corlin I wondered if it had something to do with development processes of the times. Good call re: sorting by year - best I can probably do is by decade, as the majority of the images aren't marked with the date. I'm going by clues a lot of the time: age of people in the image, paper texture, size of the print, etc...
@corlin It's a minor archaeological project, as much as a genealogical one!
@corlin One advantage I do have is that I know almost all of the people in the photos (even some of the really old ones), and I know what kinds of cameras & film we used over time in our family. Like my mom had a Kodak Brownie in the 1950s, & dad got a Pentax SLR in the 1970s. I know what kind of film at least some folks used & when.
@Impious_Jade
yes.
Thats a great help!
Note.
Please add this information to the photo EXIF data, when you can. This will help greatly when editing the photos for color, white balance, and saturation. If you are using a modern photo editing app. you can then sort on this data and batch apply the changes. This will save days of time.
@corlin Where'd you get your expertise on this?
35 years in pre-press printing.
And years as. A hobby photographer. Film only I gave it up in the digital era.
See
https://world.hey.com/corlin/a-tale-of-obsolete-technology-f73eae44
@corlin Sweet!
BFA in Visual Communications here. Covered a bit of everything, ended up a graphic designer for about 10 years before burning out. Couldn't really focus on 1 thing bc I loved the technical processes for *everything*.
@Impious_Jade
A pity about losing the negatives. Scanning prints is always the secondary option and invariably leads to inferior renditions.
@Hisabah Yeah I'm very disappointed. I wish they'd given me the negatives but they were dead set on destroying them as useless. Philistines, I tellya.
But the older photos, from the 1970s & earlier, scan beautifully. Details are picked up clearly, the color is pretty good, lighting & contrast need little if any adjustment. The black & whites are exceptionally crisp.
Same scanner, same settings. I'm not sure what the difference is.