RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: gnorman on Tuesday 29 June 21 12:55 BST (UK)
-
I know this seems a stupid question but I have a fair few original documents in bad condition and I'm worried about them surviving to be passed down to other generations - is lamination a mortal sin or is there a better way to save them for the future???
Many thanks, Luke
-
Yes it's a mortal sin! :o I'm sure someone will be able to advise you on the best way to preserve them.
-
Hi Luke,
You can buy acid free plastic pockets to help preserve them.
Pinetree
-
Thank you, I've just been online and ordered some Archival Acid Free Wallets.
Luke
-
I would also suggest placing them individually in acid free tissue paper first then in the acid free wallets.
That's the method that was recommended to me by a records office.
-
In addition to the thoughts above I would suggest you keep a digital copy of your documents as a backup.
:)
-
Definitely keep scanned copies, I would suggest scanning the originals at the highest resolution you can and keep two or three scans of each.
I've just remembered that the records office also suggested storing the documents (when in their individual wallets and tissue paper) in the dark and dry so that there can't be any further light or damp degradation of the documents. One of my documents, an early 1800s apprenticeship agreement, has a tea mug ring stain on the back which could cause further damage if it got even slightly damp; luckily it's on a very thick legal parchment.
-
It’s not a stupid question unless you’re thinking of using Sellotape to repair them! As for scanning, don’t bother going higher than 300 DPI (unless you’re intending to print them at a larger size) you’ll simply end up with a bigger file and no increase in quality. Also, if you want to be picky, avoid using the JPEG file format to save them.
-
Also, if you want to be picky, avoid using the JPEG file format to save them.
May I ask, Ray, why you suggest avoiding JPEG? What would you suggest as an alternative?
Thanks!
-
I should have explained that using the highest resolution would enable you to tweak the scans at some time in the future if you needed to to compensate for deterioration in the originals or to clarify difficult to read handwriting.
I save scans in JPEG format and with the highest resolution have been able to enlarge old photos and eliminate aging defects plus adjust contrast/lightness/colour/sharpness etc. Useful when dealing with old text documents too.
I use JPEGs as the graphics programme I use for photos and documents works best with those; it has reasonably good photo editing facilities built in, sufficient for my needs. I don't know which file format is best for photo editing programmes as I have no experience of using them.
-
Resolution - it’s universally accepted, in photographic circles, that it’s impossible to appreciate an increase in quality when comparing scans at 300 DPI with those at higher figures.
For most purposes, you’re unlikely to see any difference over 250 DPI and that’s for photographic quality. If you’re talking about graphic images - certificates etc. - you’ll get away perfectly well with 150 DPI and if you’re only ever going to look at them on a monitor 75 DPI will probably do.
I’m talking here of 1:1 scans; i.e. assuming you’re reproducing the original at life size. If you want to reproduce something at, say, twice the size, simply double the scanning resolution from 300 to 600 DPI.
JPEGs - the JPEG (or .jpg) format is known as a “lossy” format. It is widely used to reduce the file size of an original - for downloading, uploading to sites like Rootschat, or sending to somebody in an email. The original scanned image is compressed by effectively throwing away information contained in the image thereby producing a file of more modest size.
There are several ways of doing this and for the purposes of this board these are irrelevant but the problem is that, once the information is lost, you can’t get it back. You can apply various levels of compression and, for most purposes, you’ll not notice but in an over compressed image, things tend to break up and look ragged - known as jpg artifacts.
The real problem comes if you take a JPEG image, do some work on it and save it again as a JPEG image. You will effectively be more than doubling the problem so, if it’s pure quality you're looking for avoid JPEGs.
What’s the solution? Simple, use something like TIFF and, if you need a smaller file, make a JPEG from that but keep the original. Most professionals use Photoshop and that has it’s own industry standard file format PSD. Serious photographers save their originals as RAW image files and work on them at home. Cameras that only produce JPEG files take the RAW image and decide for themselves what is best for the image.
-
Thank you everyone, I really struggled with this because, though I have scans of everything the originals are so precious and its down to me to ensure the survive as long as possible.
Thanks, Luke
-
Resolution - it’s universally accepted, in photographic circles, that it’s impossible to appreciate an increase in quality when comparing scans at 300 DPI with those at higher figures.
For most purposes, you’re unlikely to see any difference over 250 DPI and that’s for photographic quality. If you’re talking about graphic images - certificates etc. - you’ll get away perfectly well with 150 DPI and if you’re only ever going to look at them on a monitor 75 DPI will probably do.
I’m talking here of 1:1 scans; i.e. assuming you’re reproducing the original at life size. If you want to reproduce something at, say, twice the size, simply double the scanning resolution from 300 to 600 DPI.
JPEGs - the JPEG (or .jpg) format is known as a “lossy” format. It is widely used to reduce the file size of an original - for downloading, uploading to sites like Rootschat, or sending to somebody in an email. The original scanned image is compressed by effectively throwing away information contained in the image thereby producing a file of more modest size.
There are several ways of doing this and for the purposes of this board these are irrelevant but the problem is that, once the information is lost, you can’t get it back. You can apply various levels of compression and, for most purposes, you’ll not notice but in an over compressed image, things tend to break up and look ragged - known as jpg artifacts.
The real problem comes if you take a JPEG image, do some work on it and save it again as a JPEG image. You will effectively be more than doubling the problem so, if it’s pure quality you're looking for avoid JPEGs.
What’s the solution? Simple, use something like TIFF and, if you need a smaller file, make a JPEG from that but keep the original. Most professionals use Photoshop and that has it’s own industry standard file format PSD. Serious photographers save their originals as RAW image files and work on them at home. Cameras that only produce JPEG files take the RAW image and decide for themselves what is best for the image.
"my middle name is "Youjustmissedit".
Yesterday I noticed I had several duplicate images in my genealogy folders and decided to keep the jpegs and delete the TIFFS !!! :-\ :'( :-X :-[