Best photo scanner

  • Thread starter Thread starter JB
  • Start date Start date
J

JB

I want to scan a large number of print photos, which scanner would work best
for this? What tips do you have for scanning these?

- JB
 
Of course, it all depends on what you want to do with your prints. I am
having fabulous luck with the new Epson 2580 (US model, about $150
street, probably less). It offers print, slide and negative scanning, a
nice set of software tools, and very clean results that I am able to use
for semi-pro purposes. As for scanning tips, go to Google and type in
'scanning tips' and you'll hit a goldmine. I happen to like Wayne
Fulton's extremely helpful ideas -- concise and easy to read.

Oh, if you should buy the Epson be sure to read the setup manual very
carefully. Setup is a breeze but there are some rules.....
 
JB said:
I want to scan a large number of print photos, which scanner would work best
for this? What tips do you have for scanning these?

- JB
Click to expand...

For Paper photos and other flat stuff, the Maximum resolution you will ever
need is 300-600 Dpi.

Any flatbed scanner you buy today will easily have that resolution.

For tips:
http://www.scantips.com
 
CSM1 said:
For Paper photos and other flat stuff, the Maximum resolution you will ever
need is 300-600 Dpi.

Any flatbed scanner you buy today will easily have that resolution.

For tips:
http://www.scantips.com
Click to expand...

Good Advice!
For scanning Photos, almost any flatbed scanner will give excellent
results. Also don't get carried away trying to scan at the highest
resolution the scanner offers. As CSM1 suggested, 300 dpi is about all
you need because a print rarely has more information than that. If you
want a warm fuzzy feeling you can try 600 ppi, but I doubt VERY
seriously that you will notice ANY difference in image quality between
the two, but the 600 dpi scan will contain 4X as many MB to store and
manipulate in a photo editor.
Bob Williams
 
Bob said:
Good Advice!
For scanning Photos, almost any flatbed scanner will give excellent
results. Also don't get carried away trying to scan at the highest
resolution the scanner offers. As CSM1 suggested, 300 dpi is about all
you need because a print rarely has more information than that. If you
want a warm fuzzy feeling you can try 600 ppi, but I doubt VERY
seriously that you will notice ANY difference in image quality between
the two, but the 600 dpi scan will contain 4X as many MB to store and
manipulate in a photo editor.
Bob Williams
Click to expand...


Hi Bob...

I reply to you; but in reality to all of my peers and betters.

I'd like to suggest a re-think of this, and invite any/all
interested to experiment a bit. I've done it repeatedly, and
am certain it's worth it.

If - and that's a big if - you're certain that for now and
for ever you only want to look at the pics on a monitor, or
print them at the original size, then I'll (almost) agree
with you. 300 dpi is going to get almost, if not all, of
the info available.

But - suppose you're scanning something now for posterity.
Something like those school photos that we all carried in
our wallets while the kids were growing. We don't know
how future generations will feel about them - one day they
may trigger memories or feelings that may want an 8 x 10
or better. Right?

Well, I've proven over and over that scanning it at 2400,
then de-noising/cleaning/etc (be prepared to spend lots of
time) and saving that means 8 x 10's or larger will be
availabe if ever they're wanted. Without ANY of the
pixelation of upsampling!! Try it; it's true.

Next, if you wish, you can downsample that image to
say 800 600 for viewing, and after a bit of unsharp it
will be much much sharper than scanning at 300 in the
first place. Much!

Save both - pass on both for future generations to do with
as they will. I save mine on cd/dvd's as two subs under
a descriptive name - ie:

c:\wallet (.txt describing what the pics are)
c:\wallet\view (800 * 600 fine quality jpeg's )
c:\wallet\print (huge ones's - tiff)
c:\wallet\text (800 *600 fine quality scans of backs, if not

blank)


Just one old guy's opinion. I invite others.

Ken
 
CSM1 said:
For Paper photos and other flat stuff, the Maximum resolution you will ever
need is 300-600 Dpi.

Any flatbed scanner you buy today will easily have that resolution.
Click to expand...

Another consideration, though, is color fidelity. My trusty pair of E3s
(for which I paid $5 total) produce sufficiently muddied colors and
insufficiently resolved shadows that they're virtually useless for
scanning photos to any sort of archival quality, though they're fine for
the black/white stuff I normally use them for (and for an occasional
photo-to-webpage use).

Are current scanners pretty much equally good as far as color fidelity
goes?

- Brooks
 
Ken Weitzel said:
Hi Bob...

I reply to you; but in reality to all of my peers and betters.

I'd like to suggest a re-think of this, and invite any/all
interested to experiment a bit. I've done it repeatedly, and
am certain it's worth it.

If - and that's a big if - you're certain that for now and
for ever you only want to look at the pics on a monitor, or
print them at the original size, then I'll (almost) agree
with you. 300 dpi is going to get almost, if not all, of
the info available.

But - suppose you're scanning something now for posterity.
Something like those school photos that we all carried in
our wallets while the kids were growing. We don't know
how future generations will feel about them - one day they
may trigger memories or feelings that may want an 8 x 10
or better. Right?

Well, I've proven over and over that scanning it at 2400,
then de-noising/cleaning/etc (be prepared to spend lots of
time) and saving that means 8 x 10's or larger will be
availabe if ever they're wanted. Without ANY of the
pixelation of upsampling!! Try it; it's true.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely, Ken, and you saved me a lot of typing.
The assumption with only scanning at 300 dpi is that all you want to do is
duplicate the same size print, or view on-screen. I've made tons of
enlargements from old black & white photos, and can say without hesitation
that higher resolution images allow for FAR better enlargements. You just
can't stretch 300DPI to a 4x enlargement, etc. without producing seriously
bad effects.

I agree that you should try and predict the intended use of the
image...which is to say that you CAN'T really predict this! For that
reason, I tend to scan larger than I currently want, just so that there is
easy wiggle room. Starting with a big scan is far better than up-sampling a
crummy 300dpi original.
 
Ken Weitzel said:
Hi Bob...

I reply to you; but in reality to all of my peers and betters.

I'd like to suggest a re-think of this, and invite any/all
interested to experiment a bit. I've done it repeatedly, and
am certain it's worth it.

If - and that's a big if - you're certain that for now and
for ever you only want to look at the pics on a monitor, or
print them at the original size, then I'll (almost) agree
with you. 300 dpi is going to get almost, if not all, of
the info available.

But - suppose you're scanning something now for posterity.
Something like those school photos that we all carried in
our wallets while the kids were growing. We don't know
how future generations will feel about them - one day they
may trigger memories or feelings that may want an 8 x 10
or better. Right?

Well, I've proven over and over that scanning it at 2400,
then de-noising/cleaning/etc (be prepared to spend lots of
time) and saving that means 8 x 10's or larger will be
availabe if ever they're wanted. Without ANY of the
pixelation of upsampling!! Try it; it's true.

Next, if you wish, you can downsample that image to
say 800 600 for viewing, and after a bit of unsharp it
will be much much sharper than scanning at 300 in the
first place. Much!

Save both - pass on both for future generations to do with
as they will. I save mine on cd/dvd's as two subs under
a descriptive name - ie:

c:\wallet (.txt describing what the pics are)
c:\wallet\view (800 * 600 fine quality jpeg's )
c:\wallet\print (huge ones's - tiff)
c:\wallet\text (800 *600 fine quality scans of backs, if not

blank)


Just one old guy's opinion. I invite others.

Ken
Click to expand...
I agree with Ken in the case of wallet size photos, you could scan at a
higher resolution in order to get a larger image from the small image of a
wallet.

A wallet size is 2 x 3 inches, so if you want to blow up the image to an 8
x10, you would have to increase the size of the image by 4 times.

Assume, 300 dpi for the most information the wallet photo contains, then to
get a 4X enlargement, you scan at 1200 dpi.
The cost of scanning at 1200 dpi is a large file size, the image will not
contain any more information, it will just be bigger.

Since, an 2 x 3 inch is not the same ratio as 8 x 10, you will crop some to
the image to fit 8 x 10. A 2 x 3 is a 1:1.5 ratio, 8 x 10 is 1:1.25 ratio.

The only time you need more than 300-600 dpi is when you want to enlarge a
small photo. The photo still only contains about 300 dpi of information.

There are exceptions to the rule.
I have scanned documents at 600 dpi because the document contained fine
lines that were missed at 300 dpi. Electronic schematics have fine lines
running vertically and horizontally which are missed at 300 dpi.

Wayne Fulton covers that on his Scantips.com.
http://www.scantips.com/basics02.html page 1
http://www.scantips.com/basics2c.html page 2

Again, just about any scanner you buy today will have that much resolution.
 
I'm not an expert at this, but about 6 or 8 years ago I compared a
number of scans made on my cheap Memorex (really Visioneer) 6136
scanner to the same photos scanned on a more expensive HP scanner.

What I found was that, although the HP did a better job overall, each
scanner had different strengths and weaknesses in color reproduction.
Each had some group of photos that it reproduced well and others not so
well - though they were different groups. The HP was more or less
acceptable on everything I scanned, and good on some things. The
Memorex was good on some things and poor at others - requiring
considerable after the fact color correction.

In the best of all worlds, we'd want to see 10 different photos of all
types scanned on all the different scanners and posted to the web where
we could compare them (is there such a site?) But even then, it's
possible that an uncalibrated monitor would give misleading views of
the strengths and weaknesses of each scanner.

I'm hoping that the modern scanners are more consistently good.
Alan
 
Alan Meyer said:
I'm not an expert at this, but about 6 or 8 years ago I compared a
number of scans made on my cheap Memorex (really Visioneer) 6136
scanner to the same photos scanned on a more expensive HP scanner.

What I found was that, although the HP did a better job overall, each
scanner had different strengths and weaknesses in color reproduction.
Each had some group of photos that it reproduced well and others not so
well - though they were different groups. The HP was more or less
acceptable on everything I scanned, and good on some things. The
Memorex was good on some things and poor at others - requiring
considerable after the fact color correction.

In the best of all worlds, we'd want to see 10 different photos of all
types scanned on all the different scanners and posted to the web where
we could compare them (is there such a site?) But even then, it's
possible that an uncalibrated monitor would give misleading views of
the strengths and weaknesses of each scanner.

I'm hoping that the modern scanners are more consistently good.
Alan
Click to expand...

Here you can find photos by many cameras and most scanners that you can
think of.
http://www.photosig.com/go/photos
 
Ron said:
Of course, it all depends on what you want to do with your prints. I am
having fabulous luck with the new Epson 2580 (US model, about $150
Click to expand...
I should have said, I care much more about speed (and preservation) than
quality. I'm envisioning a scanner with a tray where I could insert say 100
4 x 6 photos and scan them all one after the other. Is there anything like
this?
 
JB said:
I should have said, I care much more about speed (and preservation) than
quality. I'm envisioning a scanner with a tray where I could insert say 100
4 x 6 photos and scan them all one after the other. Is there anything like
this?
Click to expand...
Yes, there is.
It is called Automatic Document Feeder.

Some Hp, Epson and Microtek scanners have them.

HP:
http://www.hp.com/united-states/consumer/gateway/fax_copiers_scanners.html
Click Scanners for Home and Office, then Midrange Scanners. Two scanners,
the 5550 and 5590.

Epson ADF for 2480 and 2580:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductQuickSpec.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=48059604&category=

Epson ADF for 3170 and 4180:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductQuickSpec.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=36478894&category=

Microtek, the 5950 is about $150.
http://www.microtekusa.com/di.html
 
CSM1 said:
Epson ADF for 2480 and 2580:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductQuickSpec.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=48059604&category=
Click to expand...

This looks like the best one. That HP is pretty old I think.

Okay, so what are some other tips for scanning photos really quick? Is there
a program that works better with this scanner than others?

The basic question is; I have four or five photo albums of 4 x 6 photos, how
do I get them into the computer as fast as possible?

Oh, and are there any photo service companies that can do this for me?

Thanks for your help,

- JB
 
CSM1 said:
Epson ADF for 2480 and 2580:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductQuickSpec.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=48059604&category=
Click to expand...

Looks like the 2480 scans 4 x 6 in 35 seconds, but they don't say at whiat
DPI at:
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/...infoType=Specs&oid=48302407&category=Products

Also, scan speed is only one factor, the scanner can take 24 print photos at
a time. The Microtek doesn't say how many photos you can stack into the tray
at a time.
Microtek, the 5950 is about $150.
http://www.microtekusa.com/di.html
Click to expand...
It looks like the scan time for this one is 18 second on 300 DPI, and 30
seconds for 600.
 
JB said:
Okay, so what are some other tips for scanning photos really quick? Is there a program
that works better with this scanner than others?

The basic question is; I have four or five photo albums of 4 x 6 photos, how do I get
them into the computer as fast as possible?

Oh, and are there any photo service companies that can do this for me?
Click to expand...

Yes there are service companies. Search Google or Froogle for
photo scanning and you'll find some. Prices are probably going to
be upward of 50 cents each photo, maybe quite a bit higher.

Here are two more ideas:

1. With a scanner that doesn't have a feeder, put two, three, or
four prints on the plate at a time - whatever fits. Some scanners
come with software that recognizes the edges automatically (don't
know how well the work), or you can just leave them that way and
only cut out individual images some time in the future when you
find you need one.

2. Get a child to do your scanning. If a 12 year old takes one
minute for each scan (could be 3 or 4 images per scan), and
you pay her 10 to 15 cents a scan, she's making $6-9 an hour.
You may have a a responsible child of your own, or a neighbor
may have one who would love the opportunity to do this. It will
cost a lot less than going to a service bureau, will allow you to
supervise the technique used, and you won't have commit
your family photos to the mail.

I wouldn't think this violates any labor laws, but I'm no expert
on that.

Alan
 
JB said:
I want to scan a large number of print photos, which scanner would work best
for this? What tips do you have for scanning these?
Click to expand...

Whatever you buy, don't buy one with a florescent bulb. Get one with a
RGB LED, which has far better color fidelity and lasts longer.

Uni
 
Back
Top