My blog has been changed to make it more appealing for those who have New England ancestors and want to see the area through photos. Things I’ll include are typical white New England churches, libraries showing their genealogical collection, historical societies, cemeteries, war memorials, in general, anything to do with history.

For four years I’ve blogged mostly about my personal genealogy in New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire), New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and the Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. I still will, can’t forget my own roots.

Please check out the labels on the right side for articles. The header tabs at the top are a work in progress.

Monday, December 27, 2010

Scan or Photo?



What is better, a photo or a xeroxed picture, then scanned?  For years I've been xeroxing articles and pictures from genealogy books and just saving them, especially if there were photos I wanted to save. Many years ago, I saved them in my genealogy software, Family Tree Maker, until it slowed down my program when I backed up. Recently, I came across some photos taken with an inexpensive digital camera I carry at all times. These were of the same as those I had xeroxed a year ago.


The thought went through my mind, which of the two is better? I'll leave it up to you to decide. But, without a doubt, the photo was cheaper, because the xerox at the New England Historic and Genealogical Library (NEHGS) costs 25 cents. I played it safe with the camera and took four shots, natural light. Another options to capture an image is the popular Flip-Pal, written about by Susan Peterson in her post Lost Lost Relatives (parts 1 and 2). Please see my Note below.

Above was xeroxed, then scanned.
Above is the photo.

I think Phebe Bishop Jenkins and her husband, Charles Weston Jenkins look sharper in the photo.

Phebe was my 1st cousin 4 times removed. 


Generation No. 1

1.  CHARLES WESTON JENKINS  (WESTON) was born July 31, 1805 in Falmouth, Barnstable Co., Massachusetts, and died October 26, 1862.  He married PHEBE BISHOP April 14, 1835 in Brooklyn, Windham Co., Connecticut, daughter of URIAH BISHOP and LEVIA NEWELL.  She was born March 26, 1812 in Brooklyn, Windham Co., Connecticut, and died September 14, 1875 in Portland, Cumberland Co., Maine.
     
Children of CHARLES JENKINS and PHEBE BISHOP were:
                   i.    EMILY HART JENKINS, b. February 23, 1836, Falmouth, Barnstable Co., Massachusetts; d. April 04, 1879, Portland, Cumberland Co., Maine; m. WILLIAM WENTWORTH BROWN, February 06, 1861, Bangor, Maine; b. April 09, 1821, Clinton, Maine; d. 1914, Portland, Cumberland Co., Maine.
                  ii.    ELIZA BISHOP JENKINS, b. June 04, 1839, Maine; d. August 05, 1856, Williamstown, Berkshire Co., Massachusetts.
                 iii.    NEWELL SILL JENKINS, b. December 29, 1840, Bangor, Penobscot Co., Maine; d. September 25, 1919, Havre, France; m. CLARA ELIZABETH UPTON, June 08, 1865, Bucksport, Hancock Co., Maine; b. April 21, 1844, Bucksport, Hancock Co., Maine; d. February 15, 1932, Dresden, Saxony, Germany.
                 iv.    HERBERT NORTON JENKINS, b. November 30, 1842; d. June 22, 1844.
                  v.    HARRIET FRANCIS JENKINS, b. October 06, 1845; d. August 25, 1846.
                 vi.    CHARLES WESTON JENKINS, b. September 18, 1852; d. February 19, 1853.


Note: After this was prepared, I happened to look at James Tanner's Genealogy's Star blog. A quick glance to his favorite posts and I saw that he wrote a superior post on this same topic. Please see his Scanners vs. Digital Cameras written in August. Much more technical and in-depth.

12 comments:

Life Goes On said...

They look close to me but I agree a little clear with camera and you are saving 25 cents each picture. I true winner to me.

Carol said...

I prefer the photo. And, if my image is from a newspaper, the photo is really superior, in my opnion.

Heather Rojo said...

James Tanner's posts are always very informative, but he rarely includes any photography or scans or any images at all. In my opinion, a picture speakes a thousand words, and one look at your two images is all I need. Thank you for including the images in your post today. As for saving money, I agree completely. I used a digital camera at the Hawaii State Archives and filled up two memory cards. Imagine what that would have cost at 25 cents each on the Xerox machine!

Barbara Poole said...

Thank you all for your comments. Heather, James takes a lot of photos for his Arizona Walking blog, and the link I gave to his site shows comparisons, like mine...he explains things better than me.

Susan Petersen said...

I thought both versions were totally acceptable, but I also lean a bit more toward the photograph. Thanks for showing the examples of both.

Apple said...

I prefer to take photos because of both the cost and they are less work (no scanning when you get home.) I will note though that if you want to print the page later that the photo will cost just a little more to print (but less than 25 cents!)

Greta Koehl said...

I also like the idea of avoiding xeroxing, both for the fees and the results. My plan is to use a combination of wand scanner, Flip-Pal, and camera.

Michelle Goodrum said...

I agree with everyone else - the photo is a little more clear. That makes sense since the scanned image of the zerox is second generation while the photo is first generation. So there's been less distortion.

Plus I think the camera captures the shades and colors better than a zerox ever could.

dee-burris said...

I save the photocopy machine as the last resort. Of course there are some places - the Arkansas History Commission comes to mind - that will not let you bring a camera in.

I'm anxious to see what they say about my Flip-Pal...

Nolichucky Roots said...

Great post! Thanks for laying it out so clearly.

Nancy said...

My experiences with xeroxing then scanning vs. photographing have not been as great as yours. Years ago when I first thought about family history, I borrowed photographs and made color photocopies of them. Some I enlarged and they came out great. Now that I don't have the photos any longer and can't get them again, I've tried scanning them and end up with wavy lines across them. So very disappointing. I resorted to photographing the photocopies. I've had some success but I have trouble keeping the camera still enough to get good photos.

Perhaps I will have more success if I photograph black and white pages instead of color copies.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with scans and photos.

Barbara Poole said...

Nancy, thanks for taking the time to comment. I am an aim and shoot type, and don't understand a whole lot abt. cameras. Maybe if you went to a semi-professional place like Fed-Ex, where they have great equipment, maybe they could help you. Shouldn't cost too much either.
BTW, I love your picture.