6 ms·

1000memories (YC S10) Is About To Fill Facebook With Gen X’s Embarrassing Photos

33 points by michaelfairley 15y ago

pmcjones 15y ago
I highly recommend an inexpensive desktop photo-oriented scanner, such as the Epson Perfection V600 Photo Scanner. With a list price of $200, it can handle prints, negatives, and transparencies (slides) at resolutions high enough to capture a lot of detail. Its driver software does a good job correcting color of faded prints and negatives, and it works with Windows or Mac. I've scanned about 12,000 negatives this year with one. (I'm a baby boomer who took a lot of pictures, as did my parents, in-laws, and grandparents.)
matdwyer 15y ago
Disclosure - My company (PhotoScanning.ca) scans photos in bulk in Canada I have run extensive tests with DSLR cameras, trying to approach the level of quality that you'd get from an entry level scanner. My research project in uni was on this topic. It just isn't there yet, even with these prosumer cameras and high quality lenses. The concept is good, and it works for a $30,000 hasselblad, but this will produce brutal copies from an iPhone 4S. I'd love it if this was possible in any reasonable form as I'd abandon scanning and go to this method. In a millisecond. Trying to justify that it is OK based on a 550 DPI is ridiculous as well - sure, the photo is large enough, but the optics inside the camera are not. Do your own tests and see, but this is gimmicky to the extreme
- michaelfairley 15y ago
  http://assets.1000memories.com/blog_posts/iphone4s_1.JPG http://assets.1000memories.com/blog_posts/iphone4s_1.JPG was taken with our app. Not a gimmick. Almost all of the photos we (1000memories employees) upload to our site are through the iPhone app, and we're more than pleased with the results.
  - matdwyer 15y ago
    Well, again being a bit biased, I'd say that I couldn't give that to a customer. It looks like there is significant flash reflection (or another light source) on the mid right and left. (Also, to note, my company focuses value over quality, so we're doing "consumer" level scans) Don't get me wrong - I WANT this to work. I've spent hours trying to get the quality to an acceptable level. I love the concept and am 100% convinced that it will replace scanning in the near future. I guess I should rephrase to explain that this is likely good enough to send a quick email to my mom, or post on my wall, but using this method as a substitute for a higher quality method is leaving a lot on the table.
    - suking 15y ago
      You sound like the photo version of a wine snob.
      - matdwyer 15y ago
        LOL - Again, I don't even focus on quality - our scans are 7¢ each, done in auto-feed scanners. I'm not talking technical at all, if it looks good, if it is a reasonable duplication of the original, then I'm good with it. I'm saying that from my tests, doing the same photos with DSLR, point and shoot, auto feed, and high quality (epson 10000xl, creo, etc) then viewing on monitor, reprinted, ipad, etc. that there is a significant jump between the scans and the pictures. It is very noticeable, and 9/10 people that I talked to weren't happy with it (after seeing better options as well) I'm sorry if I'm offending people here - I'm a gadget nerd first and I think it is cool. I've said that like three times. I just don't like how it is positioned as replacement of scans - if a user is expecting something that is better then what the service is able to deliver, they will be disappointed. Maybe I'm in the minority on that thinking
    - brlewis 15y ago
      Quick is the key here. Less inertia needs to be overcome for someone to use this app than for someone to send their photos off to a scanning service.
  - 15y ago
- MichaelGlass 15y ago
  Scanners are great. Who has a scanner these days? I appreciate that there might be a better solution, but this seems pretty pragmatic. And looking at the results, it also is pretty damn good.
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    Actually I know lots of people with scanners. Somewhat counter-intuitively, these people tend to be the least technical of those that I know. Most of the tech-heavy people I know have pretty much abandoned personal printers, but the non-techies still have and use them, and most of them are using multifunction devices that scan/copy/print. In my purely anecdotal world, this app is then a good solution for the techies who have a smartphone but no scanner. On the flip side, those techies tend not be the type to collect tons of sentimental photos, so I'm not sure how large the market would be.
  - slouch 15y ago
    I scanned some photos last night, actually. I thought for a few moments about how many years I've had the scanner and how nothing has replaced it yet.
- deltaqueue 15y ago
  You're absolutely right, but I think you overestimate the general public's preferences with regards to quality. From low bitrate mp3's, video clips (movies or otherwise), laptop speakers, car speakers, computer monitors, etc. there has always been a multitude of products / services people just want to work, and could care less about whether they're high quality (within reason, of course). I would never use this service, but I would be willing to wager there are a lot of people who could care less about the quality of preservation (again, within reasonable range).
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
finnw 15y ago
Many of us with embarrassing photos from the 90s have already had them all transferred to CD (at the print shop, at the time they were developed.) In fact I have more photos on CD than I have in print, because being a geek I have been more careful to preserve my digital media than anything printed.
- michaelfairley 15y ago
  Be careful with storing stuff only on CDs. CDs (especially consumer CD-Rs) don't last forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot
brlewis 15y ago
What happens to the date you put in? How hard is it to get a JPEG with backdated EXIF?
- Bretthuneycutt 15y ago
  Currently, we prompt users to date their photos and we store this info as meta-data without changing the EXIF.

I highly recommend an inexpensive desktop photo-oriented scanner, such as the Epson Perfection V600 Photo Scanner. With a list price of $200, it can handle prints, negatives, and transparencies (slides) at resolutions high enough to capture a lot of detail. Its driver software does a good job correcting color of faded prints and negatives, and it works with Windows or Mac. I've scanned about 12,000 negatives this year with one. (I'm a baby boomer who took a lot of pictures, as did my parents, in-laws, and grandparents.)

matdwyer 15y ago

Disclosure - My company (PhotoScanning.ca) scans photos in bulk in Canada I have run extensive tests with DSLR cameras, trying to approach the level of quality that you'd get from an entry level scanner. My research project in uni was on this topic. It just isn't there yet, even with these prosumer cameras and high quality lenses. The concept is good, and it works for a $30,000 hasselblad, but this will produce brutal copies from an iPhone 4S. I'd love it if this was possible in any reasonable form as I'd abandon scanning and go to this method. In a millisecond. Trying to justify that it is OK based on a 550 DPI is ridiculous as well - sure, the photo is large enough, but the optics inside the camera are not. Do your own tests and see, but this is gimmicky to the extreme

michaelfairley 15y ago
http://assets.1000memories.com/blog_posts/iphone4s_1.JPG http://assets.1000memories.com/blog_posts/iphone4s_1.JPG was taken with our app. Not a gimmick. Almost all of the photos we (1000memories employees) upload to our site are through the iPhone app, and we're more than pleased with the results.
- matdwyer 15y ago
  Well, again being a bit biased, I'd say that I couldn't give that to a customer. It looks like there is significant flash reflection (or another light source) on the mid right and left. (Also, to note, my company focuses value over quality, so we're doing "consumer" level scans) Don't get me wrong - I WANT this to work. I've spent hours trying to get the quality to an acceptable level. I love the concept and am 100% convinced that it will replace scanning in the near future. I guess I should rephrase to explain that this is likely good enough to send a quick email to my mom, or post on my wall, but using this method as a substitute for a higher quality method is leaving a lot on the table.
  - suking 15y ago
    You sound like the photo version of a wine snob.
    - matdwyer 15y ago
      LOL - Again, I don't even focus on quality - our scans are 7¢ each, done in auto-feed scanners. I'm not talking technical at all, if it looks good, if it is a reasonable duplication of the original, then I'm good with it. I'm saying that from my tests, doing the same photos with DSLR, point and shoot, auto feed, and high quality (epson 10000xl, creo, etc) then viewing on monitor, reprinted, ipad, etc. that there is a significant jump between the scans and the pictures. It is very noticeable, and 9/10 people that I talked to weren't happy with it (after seeing better options as well) I'm sorry if I'm offending people here - I'm a gadget nerd first and I think it is cool. I've said that like three times. I just don't like how it is positioned as replacement of scans - if a user is expecting something that is better then what the service is able to deliver, they will be disappointed. Maybe I'm in the minority on that thinking
  - brlewis 15y ago
    Quick is the key here. Less inertia needs to be overcome for someone to use this app than for someone to send their photos off to a scanning service.
- 15y ago
MichaelGlass 15y ago
Scanners are great. Who has a scanner these days? I appreciate that there might be a better solution, but this seems pretty pragmatic. And looking at the results, it also is pretty damn good.
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  Actually I know lots of people with scanners. Somewhat counter-intuitively, these people tend to be the least technical of those that I know. Most of the tech-heavy people I know have pretty much abandoned personal printers, but the non-techies still have and use them, and most of them are using multifunction devices that scan/copy/print. In my purely anecdotal world, this app is then a good solution for the techies who have a smartphone but no scanner. On the flip side, those techies tend not be the type to collect tons of sentimental photos, so I'm not sure how large the market would be.
- slouch 15y ago
  I scanned some photos last night, actually. I thought for a few moments about how many years I've had the scanner and how nothing has replaced it yet.
deltaqueue 15y ago
You're absolutely right, but I think you overestimate the general public's preferences with regards to quality. From low bitrate mp3's, video clips (movies or otherwise), laptop speakers, car speakers, computer monitors, etc. there has always been a multitude of products / services people just want to work, and could care less about whether they're high quality (within reason, of course). I would never use this service, but I would be willing to wager there are a lot of people who could care less about the quality of preservation (again, within reasonable range).

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

finnw 15y ago

Many of us with embarrassing photos from the 90s have already had them all transferred to CD (at the print shop, at the time they were developed.) In fact I have more photos on CD than I have in print, because being a geek I have been more careful to preserve my digital media than anything printed.

michaelfairley 15y ago
Be careful with storing stuff only on CDs. CDs (especially consumer CD-Rs) don't last forever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disc_rot

brlewis 15y ago

What happens to the date you put in? How hard is it to get a JPEG with backdated EXIF?

Bretthuneycutt 15y ago
Currently, we prompt users to date their photos and we store this info as meta-data without changing the EXIF.