Scanner recommendations for digitising prints?

[Gerry]

Hi all,

I have recently gotten my hands on a large archive of old family photos, which I'm looking to scan so that copies can be made available to everyone in the family.

I realise it will take a long time to get through all the prints, so I'm keen to do this once and do it right. I already own a CanoScan LiDE 200 scanner which is a fairly cheap and cheerful beastie, and could use that, but I'm assuming I'll get better results with a higher-end scanner?

Can anyone recommend a good scanner for this purpose? I'm happy to send a few hundred dollars on a good scanner, but with a young family funds are limited so I can't go crazy.

I live in New Zealand so buying second hand from the likes of eBay can be a challenge with shipping costs etc.

Cheers..

Gerry.

 

[JonAustin]

Hi Gerry,

I do a lot of print and slide scanning, and own both a Canon LiDE 110 and a CanoScan 8800F.

I think you'll find that, in most cases, the resolution of your scanner will be more than high enough for the effective resolution of those old prints.

Before you spend any money on new hardware, try scanning a few representative prints on your current scanner, and experiment to find the best settings.

I typically scan prints at 300 dpi (my lowly LiDE 110 will scan up to 1200 dpi), with Unsharp Mask turned on. (If it's a newspaper or magazine clipping, I will turn off Unsharp Mask and turn Descreen on.) I save the results in TIFF/ZIP format, and then do the rest of the processing in Photoshop (noise reduction, color correction, touch-ups, etc.).

Since the scanning process is relatively slow, I'll place as many prints on the glass to scan in one pass as possible, then use the Crop tool and Save to split them into individual files. (Then Undo back to the scan import step, to crop the next image, etc.).

Hope this helps,

Jon

 

[drummstikk]

Higher end scanning hardware pays off for scanning film originals (slides, negatives), but for prints, you are likely to get very good to excellent results with about any consumer level flatbed scanner. About any scanner can scan at a minimum of 600dpi. JonAustin in his post chose to italicize "effective resolution," and that is a key term to remember in scanning photographic print originals. Once you scan a print at higher than, say, 400 dpi, 600 at the most, all you are getting is a more and more finely detailed representation of the paper surface texture, the grain of the image, and any dirt and dust clinging to the print. Higher resolutions do NOT pull any additional detail out of the actual image. Extremely close examination of a print will usually reveal it is not as sharp as you think it is from normal arms-length viewing, so super-high resolution scans usually don't do you any favors.

I've invested in some fairly decent quality scanning equipment (Microtek i800 scanners) which are good for film scanning, but for prints, these scanners aren't that noticeably better than the old late-90's-vintage Epson all-in-one I had before.

 

[Gerry]

Thanks for the replies guys, much appreciated

I'll do some experimenting with my existing scanner and see what the results look like and if there's any discernible different in effective resolution between the various scanning resolutions.

I was planning to scan as many prints as I can fit on the bed at one time, and then use Lightroom to create virtual copies with different crops etc to split the scans up into individual prints, and also to tweak contrast, brightness, colours, sharpening etc to taste.

Any hints you could offer on the best settings for scanning different types of media (B&W prints vs colour prints vs newspaper clippings vs book pages etc) would be much appreciated. I'll do some experimenting of my own, but some advice to point me in the right direction might save some time. I'd be especially interested in the reasoning behind the various settings. I will do some Googling, but there's no substitute for (your) experience.

Cheers..

Gerry.

 

[nonac]

Something I have done in the past is to just take a picture of the picture. Much faster than scanning and the results can be very good if you are using a good camera. Try a few and see what the results are. You need good quality consistent illumination. If you have bunches of photos like you do, look for an old copy stand that you can mount your camera to. These can be found very cheap sometimes because they don't get used that much anymore.

 

[JonAustin]

Any hints you could offer on the best settings for scanning different types of media (B&W prints vs colour prints vs newspaper clippings vs book pages etc) would be much appreciated. I'll do some experimenting of my own, but some advice to point me in the right direction might save some time. I'd be especially interested in the reasoning behind the various settings. I will do some Googling, but there's no substitute for (your) experience.

Gerry,

Re-read my post above for my recommendations for scanner settings.

As for B&W vs color prints, I usually scan everything in color, just because it's quicker and easier than constantly fiddling with settings between scans. You can easily remove the color information in post, but sometimes, you will want to add color (sepia or other tint, for example).

And again, for offset printing (newsprint, books, etc.) use the Descreen option (it's in the software for both of my Canon printers, so I assume it's in yours, as well.)

Let us know how it goes.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Any decent photo scanner will do for prints. As far as photographing them, reflections can be a issue unless you have some very good lighting, there will be differences in brightness across the print, depending on how large it is. A scanner is very fast and easy.

 

[CanonOregon]

Not sure if you've done your shopping yet or not but I'd recommend the Canon 8800-9000 scanners. They have an auto mode (finds each print if you keep them enough apart so it can do three 4x6 at a time) and then I have them dumped into PS where I set up shortcuts to save them once I've touched them up. I just did these 57 4x6 prints at 400dpi in about 20 minutes- I've done over one hundred in an hour at 300dpi for customers. Unless they're badly faded or have other unique faults there's no need to use the controls in the scanner software to apply corrects before hand. The newest 9000 MkII is well under $200 US and can do slides and negs as well but that is SLOW no matter what scanner you have, well unless you own a photolab with a Noritsu or Fuji film scanner, which I used to have but that's up in the 'many thousands' of dollars and only a few are 'stand-alone' scanners, otherwise over a hundred thousand new, thousands used. Really no need to go over 400dpi unless you're going to do a poster- and then it better be a REALLY good print. And prints done in the last ten-fifteen years were mostly done digitally meaning there's a pattern there that can should up at high res.
My Canon 8800F scans at 400dpi- https://www.flickr.com/photos/rushhourphoto/sets/72157647070698139/

 

[Kaorin]

I'm in a similar boat where I'd like to digitise all my childhood photos before they get lost to the passage of time.

I never would've thought of scanning multiple photos at once and cropping them, so cheers for that idea.

Does anyone have any experience of using scanners with auto sheet feeders? As a teacher, I'm also looking for something that I could use to archive students' work (exam scripts etc.). The thought of being able to dump 24 or 36 exposures in a tray and have the scanner do its thing while I have a cup of tea is quite appealing.

Any thoughts?

 

[Orangutan]

The main advantage of a different (presumably more expensive) scanner would be speed. The LiDE models tend to be very slow.

 

[dcm]

You didn't say whether the prints were loose or mounted in albums, and how old they are. A camera and macro lens may be more appropriate depending on the situation.

I've dealt with both going back over a hundred years. It's easy to damage old photos when removing them from an album or mount that interferes with scanning so in those cases I chose to shoot in place with my 6D/100L using a tripod as my copy stand, a few lights (low angle and diffuser) to illuminate them with no reflections, and a mirror to align everything. The workflow is pretty easy once you work out the lighting. You can also try scanning the entire album pages removed from the album, I found it easier to shoot them.

For loose prints you choose between the scanner and camera options. And don't forget to shoot/scan the back of each loose print for the comments, names, dates that are usually written there. Handle with cotton gloves and blow off dust.

Software can make a large difference - software supplied with the scanner can be subpar. I don't have any experience with Canon's software. I used VueScan since I was doing both prints and negatives/slides with a high end scanner. My Epson V750 has an infrared channel to identify dust and scratches on negatives/slides that can be repaired much easier by VueScan. I also use VueScan for scanning prints like the first one (downsized from the original 7.1Mb for CR). The second one was shot with my 6D/100L/tripod when visiting family. I didn't bring a scanner so I picked up a couple of lights and some diffuser paper to shoot a few hundred old family photos.

Choose some easy and difficult prints to practice with and get your workflow down before you go through the whole process, you won't want to repeat it. There may not be one set of settings that works for all photos so you might want to check out different types of papers/finishes. Try all the options to see what works best, including scanner versus camera. I got good results from both methods and I kept learning as I went through the process and started over a few times as I learned more.

 

[Sabalok]

Best flatbed scanner: Epson V700 and V750.
Or the newer models V800 and V850.

If you scan your family pictures do it right. Buy a great scanner. You can sell it afterwards.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I'd consider using your DSLR. If you can get/or have a copy stand, so much the better. Rather than buy a
scanner, I'd invest in a good macro lens. I started doing this when my Scitex was not large enough for several
posters I wanted to scan and discovered the image I got (after careful setup) was better quality than the
scanned images. The key is parallax adjustment (thus the copy stand) but a good tripod and a level wall will
produce the same results.

 

[tolusina]

If you choose to use a camera, start with a room you can darken, expose with bounce flash to control reflections.
To save post work, set a custom white balance to compensate for any flash color shift due to the flash's bouncing around the room.

Use a mirror flat on your subject or on the surface where your subject will be placed, align the camera such that the center focus point falls in the center of the reflection of the lens, camera is now square in all axes to the subject.

Compose and focus with live view if available. ISO at minimum. I'd start metering in aperture priority, choose an aperture in your lens' sweet spot usually between f6.3 to f11 more or less, let the camera and ETTL flash choose the shutter speed.
Switch off the room lights and shoot.

Chimp that shot, decide if you want or need to set a specific shutter speed and flash power setting.

 

[CanonOregon]

I've scanned photos 'in album' with the Canon 8800f many times. The hinge moves up to allow very thick subjects to be scanned- or you can leave it open and just cover the area with a dark sheet.
If you want REAL speed in print scanning, consider a Kodak print scanner. They have auto feeders and can do 50 prints a minute but they start at around $1200! See https://ezphotoscan.com/products/photo-saver-desktop-scanner-windows-or-mac