# Photo Scanners



## l84toff

Hey, I've come into a significant amount of family slides that I would like to digitize. We also do have quite a few photos that we've been wanting to get scanned. 

My wife has it narrowed down to the Epson Perfection V700 which seems like an expensive option although seems to get excellent reviews. Could sell it later and take a small hit - which would essentially cover the cost of a cheaper scanner anyway. Seems like a good option. 

What are you guys using to scan photos and slides?


----------



## mrjimmy

Epson Perfection V600. 

Love it! Just as capable and considerably cheaper than the 700.


----------



## iMatt

As part of your comparison shopping, look into having them done by a lab instead of buying a scanner. It can be fun to sift through the old photos, but it's also pretty laborious. However, I'm not outright saying "don't buy a scanner" -- just suggesting you explore all options.


----------



## Macfury

I use an Epson 4490--an older model that still works well. However, I second iMatt's recommendation. Scanning slides is a tedious process, so make sure you figure in many, many hours of labour to do it yourself.


----------



## kps

I agree with some others and use a lab for the slides as it can get incredibly tedious. I have an Epson Perfection but only use it sparingly for slides, mostly for old prints and negatives.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pm-r

+1 for the lab suggestions.

I did about 100+ old photo scans just a few years ago and it took ages.

Then our local Costco store had a special on for slides, photos as well as camera film conversion for a very reasonable price, that also included printed copies.

Just the photo paper and inkjet ink, if prints were needed, would have cost more than their total cost. And no time or extra equipment needed nor wasted. 

Or, I guess one could be like a local Mac user that got a high end slide scanner to scan shoe boxes of old family slides and photos several years ago, and he still hasn't finished!!


----------



## l84toff

Thanks I'll check out having it done also but between the slides and photos, there are a few thousand I'm guessing.


----------



## fjnmusic

I'm cheap, so I take pictures of the old pictures with my iPhone. I figure the resolution can't be any worse than the source material. I put some of them up on Facebook in minutes and the comments start coming very quickly.


----------



## kps

fjnmusic said:


> I'm cheap, so I take pictures of the old pictures with my iPhone. I figure the resolution can't be any worse than the source material. I put some of them up on Facebook in minutes and the comments start coming very quickly.


That's blasphemy in a photo tread. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## iMatt

Snapping a photo of an old snapshot is ok for Facebook, but pointless for archiving old family photos if you have a slide or neg...

To the OP, if you have thousands you want to do, IMO that's all the more reason to farm out the work.

If you want to whittle it down to a few hundred but don't have a projector, old carousel projectors and empty carousels can often be had for peanuts from thrift shops (just check for a working bulb before buying). Sometimes you also see those table-top backlit magnifiers (I'm sure I'm forgetting a proper term) but with the ones I've seen you have to load one slide at a time... More tedium.


----------



## eMacMan

iMatt said:


> Snapping a photo of an old snapshot is ok for Facebook, but pointless for archiving old family photos if you have a slide or neg...
> ....
> Sometimes you also see those table-top backlit magnifiers (I'm sure I'm forgetting a proper term) but with the ones I've seen you have to load one slide at a time... More tedium.


The one I have, I think it's a Sawyer handles bout a box of slides at a time. Will be going through Mom's slides in a few weeks. I am sure that only 10-15% will need to be scanned.

FWIW I have found my older Epson perfection does a better job working with negs than slides. Feels like with negs the scanner really captures around 1200+ dpi, where as with slides it feels more like the capture is at around 600 dpi and the rest is interpolation. May simply have something to do with the slides having thicker emulsion layers. Completely subjective observation on my part but it really seems like it is hard to get a slide scan that will print much bigger than about 4x6. OTOH I can get scans from 35 mm negs to print nicely at 8x10. 

Another disclaimer, my Perfection scanner is over 10 years old, it is quite possible that newer versions do a better job. 

Depending on the version of Epson scanner; simultaneous scans of 4 slides, or up to 12 negs are possible.


----------



## WCraig

l84toff said:


> Thanks I'll check out having it done also but between the slides and photos, there are a few thousand I'm guessing.


I recently went through my parents slides from the 50's to recent--maybe 2,000. I chose just over 100 to scan. There were lots of photos from trips and vacations that were very nice but generally only hold sentimental value for those who went on the trip. There were a lot of frames that simply didn't turn out well (bad light, bad focus, blurred, ...). There were a lot of duplicates so I'd choose the best of the bunch. I spent a couple of days with a hand-held viewer for this step.

All the slides had accumulated dirt and grime--the older ones a huge amount. I worked out a washing routine with rubbing alcohol on cue-tips and dustless wipes. Could not get right into the corners on all the old slides. I'm not at all sure that this was the best process. I know I damaged one irreplaceable slide from my parent's wedding because the emulsion seemed to soften while cleaning. (Yes, I tested beforehand on slides that didn't matter. I think the film from the wedding was a different brand.)

I used an Epson Perfection V500 for the scanning with Epson's software. I found the software very frustrating. The "Color restoration" and "Backlight correction" checkbox don't stay selected from batch to batch. I also had weird results where UNLESS I selected Color restoration--washed out, muddy scans. The built-in help doesn't. This could be operator error. I saved the originals as approximately 3kX2k TIFF files (~20MB each). The cleaning and scanning took another couple of days.

I then shanghaied my Mom to go through the scans with me and identify all the people. This took a good afternoon.

I still need to enter all the people's names in the IPTC metadata. I also need to do some minor editing on a number of them. Let's just say that the camera wasn't always held level!  Finally, I need to convert to jpeg and send copies to my siblings. 

When I get all that done, I've got 20+ years of my own negatives I'd like to go through. And from a couple of quick tests, negs are a much bigger pain to handle.

Craig


----------



## fjnmusic

kps said:


> That's blasphemy in a photo tread. LOL
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It may be blasphemy, but how exactly do you expect to increase the resolution of your original photo? A scanner is a photocopier.


----------



## iMatt

fjnmusic said:


> It may be blasphemy, but how exactly do you expect to increase the resolution of your original photo? A scanner is a photocopier.


You won't increase it, but a proper scan will capture most if not all of the available detail, with little or no visible degradation. Enlargement is usually possible. An iPhone shot, from experience, will introduce softness, and usually a lot of it. But sure, it's fine for online sharing of prints that were of low technical quality to begin with.

In any case, it's moot because the OP is talking about slides. Unless you're suggesting projecting them and photographing that? That also sounds like a recipe for poor quality. Comparable to digitizing an LP by recording your stereo's output with a handheld recorder.


----------



## screature

iMatt said:


> You won't increase it, *but a proper scan will capture most if not all of the available detail, with little or no visible degradation*. Enlargement is usually possible. An iPhone shot, from experience, will introduce softness, and usually a lot of it. But sure, it's fine for online sharing of prints that were of low technical quality to begin with.
> 
> In any case, it's moot because the OP is talking about slides. Unless you're suggesting projecting them and photographing that? That also sounds like a recipe for poor quality. Comparable to digitizing an LP by recording your stereo's output with a handheld recorder.


Not to mention far superior density range with a proper scan (depending on the scanner of course).


----------



## kps

^^^what iMatt said 

. Do what works for you if the results are acceptable to you. I know they wouldn't be to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lawrence

Wish I was rich, I'd buy a Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED Slide & Film Scanner from ebay




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## iMatt

For the information of anyone looking to drive an older scanner, or who just doesn't like the software bundled with theirs, I was always happy with VueScan (VueScan Scanner Software for Windows 8, Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), Linux, iPhone, iPad, iPod, Android). It will run just about anything, and can usually open up advanced options not supported by the bundled driver. Haven't used it in a while, but I see it supports OS X 10.8, so assume it's as good as ever.

This thread almost makes me want to dig out the old Minolta and pick up where I left off last time I scanned old negatives, but the noise... oh, the noise... damn thing sounds like a garbage truck, but it really does a good job for its age.


----------



## Lawrence

iMatt said:


> For the information of anyone looking to drive an older scanner, or who just doesn't like the software bundled with theirs, I was always happy with VueScan (VueScan Scanner Software for Windows 8, Mac OS X 10.8 (Mountain Lion), Linux, iPhone, iPad, iPod, Android). It will run just about anything, and can usually open up advanced options not supported by the bundled driver. Haven't used it in a while, but I see it supports OS X 10.8, so assume it's as good as ever.
> 
> This thread almost makes me want to dig out the old Minolta and pick up where I left off last time I scanned old negatives, but the noise... oh, the noise... damn thing sounds like a garbage truck, but it really does a good job for its age.


Yeah, That's another great scanner, Shame that Minolta stopped making them,
Well, I guess with Konica buying Minolta and Sony buying Konica, We end up being the losers.

Oh well, At least there is the used market, But it's supply and demand driven unfortunately.


----------



## l84toff

iMatt said:


> Snapping a photo of an old snapshot is ok for Facebook


What about using a DSLR? I imagine it would be significantly faster with slides, maybe not so with prints. I mean I'm not expecting 4K quality from old prints and slides, just want to preserve the content in digital format.

Great point about not all images needing to be scanned (if they are poor quality for instance). We're picking up a used projector off kijiji later today, at the very least to go through the slides but we can also do some tests with the DSLR.


----------



## iMatt

Wow, never occurred to me that my old Minolta scanner still had real resale value -- still worth $200-300 it seems. And it's around 12 years old, bought in 2001; most computers of that vintage are now worth nothing. 

Despite the age of my scanner, I stand by my original comment: the old Minolta runs slowly and I/O (USB 1) must be a bottleneck, but I spent most of my time choosing, sorting, post-processing... even my poky old scanner could spit out full-res scans faster than I could deal with them.


----------



## Lawrence

l84toff said:


> What about using a DSLR? I imagine it would be significantly faster with slides, maybe not so with prints. I mean I'm not expecting 4K quality from old prints and slides, just want to preserve the content in digital format.
> 
> Great point about not all images needing to be scanned (if they are poor quality for instance). We're picking up a used projector off kijiji later today, at the very least to go through the slides but we can also do some tests with the DSLR.


There are adapters that you can buy to fit a DSLR lens,
But you need a good light source.

I looked into them before, But couldn't decide on the best system for back lighting,
LED panels from an art supplier are a bit pricey, But still cheaper than an old Nikon negative scanner.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMatt said:


> You won't increase it, but a proper scan will capture most if not all of the available detail, with little or no visible degradation. Enlargement is usually possible. An iPhone shot, from experience, will introduce softness, and usually a lot of it. But sure, it's fine for online sharing of prints that were of low technical quality to begin with.
> 
> In any case, it's moot because the OP is talking about slides. Unless you're suggesting projecting them and photographing that? That also sounds like a recipe for poor quality. Comparable to digitizing an LP by recording your stereo's output with a handheld recorder.


Not totally moot. With slides, you just reverse the colors of the image in, oh, say the iPhoto app, and you'd be surprised what you can get away with for a much smaller and less time-intensive cost. But as you say, it all depends what you want to do. Most of our old photos sit in boxes or albums that no one ever looks at. At least some of these images now find new life on FB or Apple TV screensavers.


----------



## Lawrence

Scanning thousands of slides? Try a digital camera

Scroll down to the bottom of the web page in the above link
to find out about more information about colour negative scanning


----------



## fjnmusic

iMatt said:


> You won't increase it, but a proper scan will capture most if not all of the available detail, with little or no visible degradation. Enlargement is usually possible. An iPhone shot, from experience, will introduce softness, and usually a lot of it. But sure, it's fine for online sharing of prints that were of low technical quality to begin with.
> 
> In any case, it's moot because the OP is talking about slides. Unless you're suggesting projecting them and photographing that? That also sounds like a recipe for poor quality. Comparable to digitizing an LP by recording your stereo's output with a handheld recorder.


Not totally moot. With slides, you just reverse the colors of the image in, oh, say the iPhoto app, and you'd be surprised what you can get away with for a much smaller and less time-intensive cost. But as you say, it all depends what you want to do. Most of our old photos sit in boxes or albums that no one ever looks at. At least some of these images now find new life on FB or Apple TV screensavers.


----------



## fjnmusic

Lawrence said:


> Scanning thousands of slides? Try a digital camera
> 
> Scroll down to the bottom of the web page in the above link
> to find out about more information about colour negative scanning


Not a bad solution, but you could also simply use an old projector and screen and simply take a picture of what you see on the screen. Use a tripod if necessary, but today's phone cameras can easily capture the resolution of those old slides and pics, and you can fix them in post-edit with the tools in iPhoto. The big difference between using scanners and using digital cameras is that in one case, the job gets done before you die. Scanning means you may very well die of boredom first.


----------



## iMatt

Given careful setup and short projection distance you might be able to get something usable that way (though I'm not entirely convinced), but is proper setup and capture going to be any less tedious and time-consuming than using a scanner? Again, I'm not convinced. 

The SLR solution is also intriguing, but again is it really going to cut into the effort, or is it more of a way to make use of gear you already have rather than buying yet another device that needs to be hosted by a computer?


----------



## l84toff

Lawrence said:


> Scanning thousands of slides? Try a digital camera
> 
> Scroll down to the bottom of the web page in the above link
> to find out about more information about colour negative scanning


Good read, thanks. I have to agree with fjnmusic with regards to quality, I'm really not going to do anything with them other than share them with family. At the moment they are simply sitting in a huge chest where no one can enjoy them. Not that I'm averse to good quality but there is definitely a balance between work load/cost/quality. 

I realize that farming out the work will probably produce the best quality and no work on my part but I would like to get this done without spending a small fortune. My wife and I were thinking that instead of taking a hit for $100-200 on the scanner when we sell, we could get a decent macro lens that we'd get to keep and get other use out of it.

We're going to go through some of the slides tonight and do some sorting. Maybe we'll even climb into the attic and put on some old clothes first...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## iMatt

l84toff said:


> Good read, thanks. I have to agree with fjnmusic with regards to quality, I'm really not going to do anything with them other than share them with family. At the moment they are simply sitting in a huge chest where no one can enjoy them. Not that I'm averse to good quality *but there is definitely a balance between work load/cost/quality*.


I would be wary of situations where you cut corners because "quality isn't all that important" and yet wind up spending just as much time and/or money as you would on a high-quality job. To me, the "set up a projector and photograph the screen with a camera on a tripod" approach would fall squarely in that category. Don't know about the macro lens -- as you say, you'll still have it for other uses.

The main argument for choosing quality from the outset should be obvious: you now have a good long-term backup of your irreplaceable slides should you ever decide you want to print anything.

In a few years you might find that the source material has degraded and all you have left is whatever you decided to do today.

Maybe consider a middle approach? Select a top 10 (or whatever) for professional, high-quality scanning and printing.

Then select another X (100? 200? ...?) for your "Facebook-quality" copies, and do those on the quick-and-dirty. 

I knew a guy in the 80s who copied his whole record collection to cassette tapes, then sold all the LPs. I wonder how happy he would be now to be reminded of that decision.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMatt said:


> I knew a guy in the 80s who copied his whole record collection to cassette tapes, then sold all the LPs. I wonder how happy he would be now to be reminded of that decision.


Especially when, in theory, you could import all those inferior copies into iTunes today and use iTunes Match to have them replaced by digital 256K versions.


----------



## iMatt

In theory maybe, but in practice? I have a few LP rips and Match did a terrible, terrible job of matching them. Just an abysmal match rate, maybe one or two cuts per album, all the rest had to be uploaded. Slight variations in turntable speed, track markers just a fraction of a second off... forget it. And those were recorded to digital, not stored on stretched, noisy, partially demagnetized 30-year-old tape.

IMHO it would be a complete waste of time to convert old cassettes to digital, except for truly irreplaceable material.


----------



## pm-r

I'm sure not heavy into photography and I've never digitized a slide, but I do know how long it can take to scan old photos.

But the slide projection/camera capture method seemed like a good solution, so I did a search on the suggestion: 'set up a projector and photograph the screen with a camera on a tripod' and came up with several suggestions.

Some examples:
How to turn 35mm film slides into digital image files

4 Ways to Digitally Scan 35mm Slides - wikiHow

Test your digital camera compatibility for copy scan convert slides negatives photographs
How to copy scan convert slides negatives photographs with a digital camera

From the various suggestions, the camera capture method sure seems that it would work well and fairly fast low costs with good results - *if done properly.*


----------



## Macfury

iMatt said:


> I knew a guy in the 80s who copied his whole record collection to cassette tapes, then sold all the LPs. I wonder how happy he would be now to be reminded of that decision.


I remember a guy transferring all of his video tapes to SuperBeta and tossing the originals. Not just run-of-the-mill recordings but wild collector stuff.


----------



## fjnmusic

iMatt said:


> In theory maybe, but in practice? I have a few LP rips and Match did a terrible, terrible job of matching them. Just an abysmal match rate, maybe one or two cuts per album, all the rest had to be uploaded. Slight variations in turntable speed, track markers just a fraction of a second off... forget it. And those were recorded to digital, not stored on stretched, noisy, partially demagnetized 30-year-old tape.
> 
> IMHO it would be a complete waste of time to convert old cassettes to digital, except for truly irreplaceable material.


Agreed. Sometimes you just have to let go of the past. I convert some of my old stuff, but one track at a time and with proper EQ/compression and only if they're worth spending the time and effort on. For other people's music it's just so much easier to cough up the 99 cents. And you're done in like 30 seconds.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> I remember a guy transferring all of his video tapes to SuperBeta and tossing the originals. Not just run-of-the-mill recordings but wild collector stuff.


To paraphrase Obi-Wan: "SuperBeta...now there's a word I've not heard in a long time... a long time."


----------



## Lawrence

fjnmusic said:


> To paraphrase Obi-Wan: "SuperBeta...now there's a word I've not heard in a long time... a long time."


I thought it was BetaMax


----------



## Macfury

Lawrence said:


> I thought it was BetaMax


SuperBeta was a later improvement, like SuperVHS.


----------



## pm-r

Macfury said:


> SuperBeta was a later improvement, like SuperVHS.


Along with various other BetaMax formats.

And even our local TV stations used various BetaMax 3/4" tape for years after the general public Beta stuff and its demise.

They did so for better broadcast quality and well as saving wear and tear with their equipment, and far superior at the time compared to VHS stuff.

Blame RCA if you like to force the consumer into their VHS format with all its faults.

Some info at: Betamax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## screature

pm-r said:


> Along with various other BetaMax formats.
> 
> And even our local TV stations used various BetaMax 3/4" tape for years after the general public Beta stuff and its demise.
> 
> They did so for better broadcast quality and well as saving wear and tear with their equipment, and far superior at the time compared to VHS stuff.
> 
> Blame RCA if you like to force the consumer into their VHS format with all its faults.
> 
> Some info at: Betamax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Beta was the standard for broadcast quality video right up until HD and digital video.


----------



## Nelson33

I am using Banq scanner for scanning the photos officially for my business use because i am a professional photographer and doing photography and also making photographs of my clients so this is good scanner for me to scan the photos and make good photographs .............





photography gold coast


----------

