My Frau Aunt Destroyed Vintage Family Photos to Make a Scrapbook.

take pics of them?

Gasp!

you will have to test this first to make sure it doesn't harm the photo. do it outside. use lighter fluid. squirt it on the edges to try and get it on the back and while lifting squirt it on the back keep..... away from flame... leave outside for fluid to evaporate. test first on one that you are not worried about losing. I know this works on stickers attached to a paper background

There are different solvents to use depending on the glue used...acetone, Bestine (for rubber cement). Lift one edge and use a dampened q-tip between the photo and the paper to peel off.

Meanwhile, slap your aunt.

My mom and her homemaker friends had this thing for a very brief period of time in the late 70s with photos. One of them saw some TV show where a woman took the family photographs and cut the people out of them and made a collage of cutouts. The problem with that was there was no context to when you looked at the collage, all you saw was three-year-old Cindy and next to her cousin Lucy who was pasted in front of Tia Mary. So they all did it.

And like OP's story, the original photos were ruined and nobody had negatives.

You need to borrow the scrapbook, detach all of the pages from the spine, scan them and then return it.

It's the only way to remove the pictures. DO NOT USE SOLVENTS.

Er, preserve the images.

All old photos should be scanned into digital files. It's not hard or that expensive if you do it yourself, but sure it can be quite time-consuming. I've been meaning to do that for years for my family's old pics but when there are hundreds and hundreds of them the job seems too big to even start. So far I've digitized only the photos I've used in the photo albums I've made for my relatives.

[quote]use lighter fluid. squirt it on the edges to try and get it on the back and while lifting squirt it on the back keep

NO. NO. NO.

Detach pages and scan the individual images.

Then you colour correct and have them reprinted if you really need to.

Pref with something like an Epson Stylus Pro or a printer of greater quality. None of that wet-lab shite.

I had an uncle do that. It was a sign of mental decline. Your aunt needs a mental health check up. I'm not kidding. It's anti-social, and she both knew and didn't know what she was destroying.

[quote]And I can't just try to slowly and carefully peel out the uncut photos either. She used a very strong glue. I am so annoyed at her right now.

Mary !!!

If you don't already have one, but a printer/scanner for $250 from Best Buy or any other electronics and scan the pix without trying to peel them away from the pages.

Then, buy some paper premium photo paper and reprint the scans. If you want to get fancy, download one of several photo correcting programs and do minor corrections to the picture quality.

Ummm...camera pics are easier than hours of scanning for files too big anyway.

I peel you fain, op. My grandmother had a photo of me when I was about 4 sitting under one of the old trees on my great-grandparents farm, now under I64. I finally found it after she died, she had cut the face out to put in one of those standing family tree thingies.

[quote]Ummm...camera pics are easier than hours of scanning for files too big anyway.

LOL - you do understand the connection between the file size and picture quality?

The quality of camera pix will be lower. Additionally, controlling light and reflections will be significantly more difficult. Finally, few people would be able to hold a camera steady and perfectly parallel to the surface of the original picture, introducing distortion into the image.

Especially old people. There are apps for that btw.

[quote]Especially old people. There are apps for that btw.

True. And if time were an issue, it might make sense to use one, especially since many have photo editing features built-in.

But, using a scanner will still generally produce higher quality results - obviously, depending on the quality of the scanner itself.

[quote]Ummm...camera pics are easier than hours of scanning for files too big anyway.

No, you scan these images. You aren't scanning film. You're scanning reflective media. The DPI output of whatever produced these images isn't that great, esp. if they're vintage. You can safely scan at 360 ppi or even less in some instances and still produce the same result. Thinking that this will take hours is nonsense.

You take a picture with a camera? you have to correct for the curvature of the lens, the lighting, the camera (colour) and myriad other things. Scanning is your best option. Taking a picture with a camera will take FAR LONGER for someone to correct the images.

Finally a thread where I can provide real input.

[quote]Taking a picture with a camera will take FAR LONGER for someone to correct the images.

No, whoever said there are apps for this is correct. There are several solid Android and ios apps that will work quickly and efficiently that also have very decent editing functionality. The app will adjust for much, but not all, of the vagaries that might be introduced.

I do agree that scanning may result in higher quality pix.

Without knowing what kind of camera/phone or scanner is involved, we can't say for certain which will ultimately result in higher quality. And we have no idea to what degree time/efficiency matters to OP.

[quote]we can't say for certain which will ultimately result in higher quality.

A scanner's productions are ultimately of higher quality than that of a camera.

[quote]No, whoever said there are apps for this is correct. There are several solid Android and ios apps that will work quickly and efficiently that also have very decent editing functionality. The app will adjust for much, but not all, of the vagaries that might be introduced.

And an "app" (mobile) will not adjust for shit unless you know the make and model of the camera and lens. You also need to know about the lighting when you are taking the pictures which is probably of the utmost importance when taking the picture. Manual editing is best.

I also need to mention that OP probably doesn't have a studio setup with controlled lighting, so a scanner that has it's own controlled lighting setup (cover it with a black t-shirt or something) will be more consistent and far easier for OP to work with.

Or, you know, he could pay someone who knows what they're doing already to do it. Using a camera when you have flat reflective media that easily fits on a flatbed scanner is lunacy. These aren't posters or giant pieces of artwork that he's trying to reproduce.

[quote]And an "app" (mobile) will not adjust for shit unless you know the make and model of the camera and lens. You also need to know about the lighting when you are taking the pictures which is probably of the utmost importance when taking the picture. Manual editing is best.

Are you stating this from experience or just guessing? Reviews of the most popular apps laud both the quality of final images, speed, and availability of editing tools. It is not the same as simply snapping a picture of the picture with a camera.

I'm not sure how the make and model of the camera and lens would make any difference in this instance since we're talking about apps on a phone.

Second, if he's using a very high quality Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus with the top rated camera vs. a piece of crap scanner, who can say which one might produce better results for a novice (as OP is likely to be since he was trying to pry the pix off their mountings to save them, rather than immediately considering optical options).

Realistically, point and click may result in better quality than a novice trying to figure out how to adjust for various scanner settings. Manual editing is best only if you know what you're doing. Seemingly, OP does not.

[quote]Realistically, point and click may result in better quality than a novice trying to figure out how to adjust for various scanner settings

No.

Flatbed scanning offers more consistency and better quality. There is no "adjusting" the camera. The camera is fixed,

Also, scanning "apps" (programs) already do more than what a camera "app" can do in terms of producing a high quality result. A camera relies FAR more heavily on manual editing and the skill of the user than a scanner. A scanner preset will probably be fine for vintage photos. OP won't have to dick around too much.

AGAIN, we are scanning reflective media, not transparent media (film).

And when I say manual editing is best, I me ant that it is of course BEST because the eye of the editor knows what the original media looks like and can best reproduce that through manual editing when not in a completely controlled environment.

OP. SCAN it.

Oh, and when I say camera, I mean a REAL CAMERA, like a Canon. Not a "fake" camera, like that on a phone.

I can't believe that a "phone camera" even came up in this conversation.

Not acceptable.

Hands shake. Scanners do not shake.

Are you going to have OP mount all of these on the wall and have the camera on a tripod and take a long exposure shot? Probably not.

Even then a scanner would blow the quality of the camera shot out of the water.

flatbed scanner, no rolling roller shit as well.

That shit is for barcodes.

[quote]Are you stating this from experience or just guessing?

From having to do this for years while also having to repair any damage to the photo after the fact. Real work experience.

Are YOU just guessing?

Jesus fuck.

[quote]Second, if he's using a very high quality Samsung Galaxy S10 Plus with the top rated camera vs. a piece of crap scanner,

"Piece of crap" scanner will still produce a better result than a CELL PHONE.

[quote]From having to do this for years while also having to repair any damage to the photo after the fact. Real work experience.

Sorry, I should have asked whether you've had poor results from using the scanning apps. Of course, they're not going to produce results as good as a professional with professional equipment who knows what he's doing.

My original suggestion was that OP use a scanner. However, if he doesn't have a "real camera" or doesn't want to spend the money on a scanner, both of which are possible, an app is a viable alternative. If OP does not know how to use a scanner or photo editing software to optimize results, it will not a priori produce higher quality results.

Something like PhotoScan by Google will do its own cropping, rotation and color correction of an old photo. It will adjust for glare, as well as recognize the corners of the photo.

Without knowing more about OP, he may simply not have the wherewithal to scan and edit photos.

[quote]"Piece of crap" scanner will still produce a better result than a CELL PHONE.

Not if he doesn't have any idea what he's doing.

Honestly, I was not trying to suggest you didn't know what you're doing. I was suggesting that OP may not know or have the skill to produce high quality results and would do better using simpler tools. Apologies if it seemed otherwise.

Ask a professional photographer to recommend someone who can do a quality job restoring these photographs. It may be expensive, but if the photos are priceless to you, it is worth it. Plus you can give your grandmother the new photos for a holiday you celebrate.

NP, R41.

R42: vintage photography is of lower quality when it comes to scanning, ESP if they're black and white images. OP shouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for this. If the photos are sufficiently old, a printer scanner combo will be able to handle it.

Accept that you are all going to die and that none of this really matters. It seems to be the cheapest and easiest solution.

I was also going to add. Nowadays, the workflow offered in modern scanning applications should be able to compensate for any lack of skill. The only issue for OP is going to be dust & scratches.

If you want to be frugal and effective, OP. You want to hire a photography student to handle it. Professional photographer will be $$$.

FFS. Find a photo conservator, who will remove and repair the photos as is possible; they can then make copies with or without extensive digital restoration. You can find one near you at the American Institute for Conservation website. Let them know your budget, they'll work with you.

Show the scrapbooked photos to a boy or girl with a photographic memory. Then wait for the technology that lets human download their brain images to a printer. It won't be long, now.

R47 = Expensive.

These are vintage photographs, R47 JEEZ. Not hard to scan on your own, ESP if black and white.

And use a local service if you can, OP. Not some service like that at R47 that is paying for overhead for executives and "business types".

Such bullshit at R47. That's for something more high-end. Vintage photos are /not/ high-end. The original quality of the photos doesn't warrant that much work to preserve. They're the easiest of the easy.

What if my grandmother was Aline Johnson de Menocal and the vintage photos are important testimony to our life in pre-revolutionary Cuba? WHAT IF MY GRANDMOTHER WAS A LADY IN HAVANA?! Literal erasure!

Someone is mad that an app can do in a few seconds something that took him all day.

Jesús, what a bunch of cunts in this thread. Have you all never heard of the Google PhotoScan app? Open it, hover your camera over the picture and it scans. It corrects for glare. I scanned hundreds of my grandmother's photos in about an hour.

My aunt went through a phase where she was tearing up photos and making collages. She would tear little bits of the photo around whatever she thought was important in the picture, leaving tattered edges. I was in high school at the time and couldn't believe she was, in my mind, destroying the old pictures.

I've been planning on scanning in some old media and came across this product that might be useful in your situation. It's a small scanner with glass on not only the scanning side, but also on the back, so you can lay the scanner on individual photos in a scrapbook page and see through to exactly what is being scanned. It stores images on a memory card, so you don't have to have a computer nearby to operate it For larger images, you can overlap scans and the software will paste them together.

[quote]Jesús, what a bunch of cunts in this thread. Have you all never heard of the Google PhotoScan app? Open it, hover your camera over the picture and it scans. It corrects for glare. I scanned hundreds of my grandmother's photos in about an hour.

No, tell us more. What is this app thing of which you speak. Who is Google?

From r41: "Something like PhotoScan by Google will do its own cropping, rotation and color correction of an old photo. It will adjust for glare, as well as recognize the corners of the photo."

Take the scrapbook to a camera shop. They will have a high-quality scanner and can scan everything for you, plus they can fix any tears or splotches in the scanned images.

Scrapbooking is the ultimate frau hobby. Do you know that they actually had at one point, scrapbooking CRUISES?!? If I were the husband of said frau, I’d live in the bar the entire voyage.

My sister did this when she got into scrapbooking.

One day I come home from work and my mother tells me my sister came over and took all the old photo albums home with her.

By the time I had reached her house she had already cut up a couple dozen old pictures, including the only picture my parents had from the day they got married.

Of course all her scrap books are now in boxes in the garage long forgotten.

Dumb bitch.

It's beyond dumb. It is seriously anti-social personality acting out.