Descanso Gardens are ridiculously photogenic at any time, but on a slightly overcast spring day?

My cousin sent me a box of old photos that she had inherited from her mother. It turns out that my mother and her mother would send photo albums to one another throughout the late 1960s and into the early 1980s.

Many of these pictures are interesting to me, and I’d like to digitize them. The average online service wants between $0.65 and $1.25 to scan a print without doing touchup. I’ve used services to scan negatives in the past, but I have an old phot scanner and I have digital cameras that I could use to take photos of the prints.

The prints are degraded to various degrees and many are not really flat, so my first thought was to put them under glass and photograph them. I set up a rig to do that, but it was pretty finicky. Lighting to prevent reflections isn’t easy (I’m space-constrained by boxes of old junk in my office). The prints are many different sizes, and positioning each one took a lot longer than I wanted to spend on it. I don’t really need these in 12 or 24 megapixel detail, plus my macro lens is old and introduces some distortion.

So I decided to use my old Epson Perfection Photo 3170 from … ulp … 20 years ago. It’s USB-A and my current M1 MacBook only has USB-C ports, but I have plenty of USB-A to USB-C adapters for this kind of situation. I plugged the scanner into my M1 MacBook, but it was not recognized. I downloaded a new driver from Epson, but it wouldn’t install, giving me the helpful message “You can’t open the application “EPSON Scan Installer” because this application is not supported on this Mac.” Is that because it’s Intel code and I can’t run drivers in emulation? I have no clue.

I tried downloading VueScan, which is widely recommended for scanners where the driver is no longer provided, but it couldn’t see the scanner either. Mysterious. I’m beginning to think it’s something to do with the hardware itself. It used to work. Had the scanner died from sitting neglected?

I dug through one of those aforementioned space-constraining boxes of junk, and got out my Intel-based MacBook Pro from 2011. I powered it up, plugged the scanner in, and Image Capture immediately recognized it. So I’m scanning on the old machine.

Image Capture under old Mac OS is a little annoying, but I can scan 4 photos at a go into 32-bit TIFF files. I’m only scanning at 600dpi, so I’m getting roughly 6 megapixel scans of these photos. I considered scanning at a higher resolution, but the time and effort and storage involved didn’t seem to be worthwhile. I may regret this someday.

Anyway, here’s a birthday cake I decorated for my best friend Charlie back in March of 1978.

This guy was a great model. The hummer who’s claimed the front garden as his territory this year is not as happy in front of a camera.

From my desk, I could see the the waxing gibbous moon rising. The geometry was such that the moon filled the gap between the open venetian blinds almost exactly. I took a picture with a 300mm lens, focused on the moon.

I was a little surprised how much the venetian blinds in the foreground blurred out over the moon when I did that. When looking through the viewfinder, the image seemed to match what my eye saw: the moon filling the gap between two horizontal lines.

Thinking about it, it made sense. I had the aperture at f/8, so the limits to the depth of field would cause the much closer objects to blur.

I took a few steps closer to the window, so there would be more of a gap between the blinds, and took another picture.

Although to my eye, the moon was only about 75% of the gap between the venetian blinds, the depth-of-field problem continued to obscure it. So I went even closer.

Even though the moon was taking up half the gap (to my eye), the venetian blinds still obscure it. So I went right up to the window, where the view through the lens made it seem like there was no obstruction whatsoever, just a moon floating there.

Well, even at this point, the venetian blinds intruded upon the image. Thinking about it more, I realize that the diameter of the lens is bigger than the gap between the venetian blinds. The lens gathers light from all across its diameter, so there’s no way it can see “between” the slats — the light is blocked. Also, as I got closer to the blinds, I was asking the lens for more depth of field (which it could not give me). The slats went further out of the focus and are relatively more blurred. In all likelihood, I didn’t see the effect through the viewfinder because I wasn’t paying sufficient attention.

Back in the day, I probably could have found the right equations to explain this phenomenon. Today, I’m content to notice it and say “Hm. Interesting.”

I have tens of thousands of photos I’ve taken over the years.

I think some of these photos are pretty good, but most are languishing unseen on random hard drives.

To share them, I’ve been a member of Flickr, I’ve posted on the late lamented Twitter, and I post some onto Mastodon. I’ve also created numerous gallery applications/server scripts/web sites (e.g., Statgal), but they’ve generally been clumsy or take too much work to maintain. So I’ve been working on a dumb PHP/JavaScript slideshow thing that will scan directories, cache the details, etc.

Here’s introducing PhotoSpinner. It’s a quick’n’dirty script to provide photos. It’s very simple and allows me to publish categories of pictures without a lot of effort. Source code’s at Codeberg.