Hi
Does anyone have a recommendation for a fairly high speed photo scanner to digitize a lot of analog photos?
I’ve seen this one by Epson for $500.
Thanks
1 Like
I’ve used a Fujitsu ScanSnap for many years. Super reliable. Originally recommended by David in his paperless workflow ebook.
Primarily as a document scanner, but works fine as a batch photo scanner.
For important photos, I’ve always used a flatbed, so YMMV, but I would never feed important photos through a feeder. They are too old and fragile or different shapes so batch feeding is not really an option for me.
3 Likes
I own this one and I have been very happy with it.
I’ve used my ScanSnap in a pinch, but it is risky as it will frequently mangle the photo. So only use it if you don’t care if the photo survives.
Normally I just use the flat bed scanner part of my Brother “All In One” printer.
I’ve been happily using an Epson Perfection 3200 Photo for years.
It is no longer in production and no longer supported. I use VueScan as the driver. I’ve a Keyboard Maestro macro that launches VueScan when I turn on the scanner.
This seems to be the closest equivalent in the Epson line, Epson Perfection V600.
I too echo the cautions of using a sheet feed scanner with images, and recommend a flat bed instead. That said, using a flatbed will be slower than using a feeder. Perhaps using a scanning service is an option to investigate? Especially if you do not otherwise intend to use the scanner all that often.
2 Likes
The Epson @MevetS mentions is a CCD scanner (as opposed to CIS), which supposedly are better for photographs. Not that I have any experience, but had researched this a while ago. CCD scanners tend to be more expensive, which is why I never bought one, but that V600 is a decent price.
Epson V600 owner here. It is a bag of hurt. The device itself is a fine piece of kit. The software is a whole different ballgame. My honest advice if you want to use one is get a Windows PC. Part of the problem with macOS is the V600, despite still being sold in many places, is a very old device, so Epson don’t really care about it any more, and neither do Apple.
I’m assuming from your link that you have prints. If you have many hundreds, then something with an automatic feeder is a must. Even scanning 8 negatives at a time on the V600 is a slow chore.
My pile of photos to scan are almost all negatives and I’ve tried all the ways with flatbed scanners. They all suck for Mac users. I now use a DSLR-based method of capturing the negatives and I wish I had discovered it years ago.
2 Likes
Thanks for all the suggestions and perspective. Most of the photos are in decent condition so I think I could get away with a feed scanner (vs flatbed) I do have a flatbed scanner in my color printer so if there are any fragile photos I can use that as needed. For now, the thing I’m looking for is something that I can rapidly feed photos into and that works fast, as the volume of photos is not small.
This is the solution. For my archive of thousands of negatives and slides I’m using a DLSR system. For actual photos I’d still set up a copy scanner using a good camera system before resorting to any automatic feed system. If get it set up correctly you can set up, take a photo/scan and save really fast even with hand moving the pictures to the scanning/photo capture system.
volume of photos is not small.
Define not small, personally I don’t think it matters until you get to the 30-40K pictures range then you may need something more automated.
I know all the modern day film shooters do it this way, but I am curious, how much does that system cost? Assuming you have a good camera already, is the stand/lighting setup expensive? I always assumed getting the lighting right would be the hardest part (even lighting, without glare).
20+ years ago I scanned thousands of slides using a Nikon scanner and a Windows computer. It worked great but the scanner was expensive and the process slow. If I were to do it over again I’d just go with a commercial service.
I’ve still got that scanner in a box. It even came with an early copy of Photoshop.
I have the same Epson scanner. It worked great scanning in thousands of photos using my Mac.
Have you considered using a vendor for this? We have some here in L.A. The one I’ve used for scans is $0.49 for 300 dpi and $0.69 for 600 dpi photos (up to 8x10, more for larger ones).
You can certainly spend a lot more on a dedicated photo scanner. I wouldn’t necessarily call it cheap, but I think I spent what amounts to a couple of hundred, in USD terms, on extra gear over and above the DSLR and suitably proportioned macro lens that I already had.
You’re right that lighting can be a challenge. I tried it with an iPad mini and it did work, but you soon realise the limited brightness of such devices! There are dedicated photo products that solve this.
I wrote up my setup (and why I went this way) here.
4 Likes
Absolutely terrific write-up.Thank you
Using a service is definitely an option
I used the Epson FastFoto FF-680W to scan thousands upon thousands of family photos. No complaints. If you want to efficiently tackle a sizable project like this, it’s probably your best option.
I use both a ScanSnap and an A3 Brother flatbed scanner.
The ScanSnap worked well for scanning huge numbers of 6"x4" glossy paper/card photos from the 1960s to 1990s. I had no damage to any of them and could process albums of prints very quickly. An occasional problem was if dust on any prints stuck on the scanner optics as it could cause a line across the digital image. This was not usually a problem as the prints had been protected by a transparent film in the album. Being careful to clean the scanner optics is important and the ScanSnap indicates when that is needed.
For older and more delicate prints, or obscure sizes and materials dating back to the early 1900s, I used the Brother flatbed. The Brother also has a feeder that can be used with prints, but is much slower than the ScanSnap.
I used a Plustek scanner and VueScan software for around 2000 35mm slides from the 1970s and 1980s. That was a very slow process and spread over three or four years when I had free time.
I use either the built in Photos tools or Affinity Photo to restore any images that have faded with time, or have damage.
VueScan can do many of the corrections during 35mm scanning. It can also be used to scan negatives and convert them to positives.