PhotoScanClub.com ~ anybody ever hear of it?

[usports2]

I use a Ceiva digital frame to send photos to my parents out of state & they are advertising a site www.photoscanclub.com

I'm STILL dealing with the pesky wedding photos from the 80s...would love to have them professionally scanned ~ this place offers a great price of #39.95 for up to 75 scans.

Also, the photos can be scanned at either 300 or 600 dpi...any recommendations there? The original photos are very shadowy; very grainy.

Thanks for your help!

[beachin]

I have a professional scanning service. My prices for 300dpi are as follows....

1-99 .39 each
100-499 .29 each
500+ .19 each.

For 600 dpi add .05 per scan. For 1200dpi .10 add per scan
These prices are for photos sized 3x3 up to 8.5 x 11.5.

For photos smaller, larger, or scrapbook pages, contact me for special pricing.

All photos will also be uploaded to a password protected account so that you may share with family and friends.

If you would like to have them burned to a disk, the cost per disk is $5.

These prices do not include shipping & handling. For s&h, I charge only what is charged to me by the UPS store.

If you have any questions, you can contact me at www.PagesofaLifetime.com

[Janet]

It depends on the size of the photo - if you're working with the negatives, 300 or 600 ppi won't be enough.

You need to figure what you want to use them for. In scrapping, for instance, if you wan to scrap 12x12 at 300 ppi and want the option of having a photo fill it at 300 ppi, then you'll need to make sure the shortest side ends up with 3600 pixels along that side.

I do scanning based on output size - it makes the files about the same size no matter the original image size (so a 2"x2" photo will be as workable as an 8x10 photo. I find that more convenient overall.

However, I'm not taking on many jobs at this point (I've even taken down the scanning info pages from my site for now) and do charge more than beachin does. My advice is to get some samples done wherever you go - price isn't the only consideration, but in the end go with whatever works best for you. :)

Make sure that with those 'pesky wedding photos' that you have the permission from the photographer to scan them (I contacted our wedding photographer in hopes she still had the negatives, which she didn't - but we did work out an agreement so with an extra payment, I got the legal permission to scan, scrap and use the images we do have as I'd like). In the U.S. the photographer holds the copyright to the images unless your contract with that photographer was a work for hire one, which isn't the norm.

[beachin]

I completely agree with getting permission for your professional photos. I have all of my clients sign a form to release me from any liability of copywrite infringement.

[Janet]

Actually, this issue is one reason I've backed off from scanning - Walmart did this type of liability as well, but now they won't scan without a printing release as they lost the court case against them. That case set precedence in this aspect of copyright law.

[beachin]

That is why I have everyone sign a paper. It protects me.

A few years ago, none of those companies checked, now even Walmart is watching out for copywrite infringement cases.

As a "former" photographer, I appreciate this and completely understand it.

[usports2]

I'm in luck! My photos were not professionally taken (my one regret) so I don't need to worry about this issue. I think the non-professional photo is the reason these are so pesky!

[usports2]

It depends on the size of the photo - if you're working with the negatives, 300 or 600 ppi won't be enough.

You need to figure what you want to use them for. In scrapping, for instance, if you wan to scrap 12x12 at 300 ppi and want the option of having a photo fill it at 300 ppi, then you'll need to make sure the shortest side ends up with 3600 pixels along that side.

I do scanning based on output size - it makes the files about the same size no matter the original image size (so a 2"x2" photo will be as workable as an 8x10 photo. I find that more convenient overall.

However, I'm not taking on many jobs at this point (I've even taken down the scanning info pages from my site for now) and do charge more than beachin does. My advice is to get some samples done wherever you go - price isn't the only consideration, but in the end go with whatever works best for you. :)

Make sure that with those 'pesky wedding photos' that you have the permission from the photographer to scan them (I contacted our wedding photographer in hopes she still had the negatives, which she didn't - but we did work out an agreement so with an extra payment, I got the legal permission to scan, scrap and use the images we do have as I'd like). In the U.S. the photographer holds the copyright to the images unless your contract with that photographer was a work for hire one, which isn't the norm.
Janet,
Since you've been helping me all day with my download issues, I thought I'd get tap your expertise for just one more thing:

My pesky wedding photos are 4x6 (non-professional; shadowy; old). I create 12x12 LOs. So, what is your recommendation for how I have these things scanned?

Thanking you in advance!

[Janet]

Ok, I think you're using 300 ppi, right? so 12" x 300 ppi =3600 pixels. So, you can get 3600 pixels along the 6" side or 3600 pixels along the 4" side to really make sure it'll work.

If you go for the 4" side, you take 3600 divided by 4 = 900ppi that you need. Or if you're going for the 6" side, you take 3600 divided by 6 = 600 ppi.

Does that make sense? I know figuring the ppi is something that takes a bit to get your mind around, but once you it clicks, it makes SO much sense. :)

[Janet]

I'm in luck! My photos were not professionally taken (my one regret) so I don't need to worry about this issue. I think the non-professional photo is the reason these are so pesky!

It doesn't matter. Even the photos you take in the US, belong to you. You own the copyright from the moment you release the shutter. Enforcing that copyright is a whole other issue and based on law and previous infringement cases similar. So, whoever took the photos really owns the copyright - but if it was a friend, you might have had an agreement of sorts. Sounds like you did. :)