Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Scanner for Scanning Snapshot Photo Prints

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
June 10, 2005 4:11:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm looking for the "best" scanner for scanning old photo's - all snapshot
prints with a maximum size of 4x6 - mostly smaller..

By best I mean something that will help me do this job quickly, I must have
a couple thousand old pictures that have been mostly sitting in envelopes
from processors waiting to be put in albums for the last 20 years. I'd love
to scan these all, but it would take more time than I have available with
the scanner I use now.

Is there any type of scanner that will scan these old photos quickly,
automatically adjusting to size of the print and such? Has anyone done a
project like this and have any recommendations?

If not, is there any place on the internet, other than this newsgroup, where
you can point me for more information on this type of scanning project -
another discussion group or website perhaps.

Larry
Anonymous
June 10, 2005 5:24:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 12:11:44 GMT, "Larry" <lsimon@nospammail.com>
wrote:

>I'm looking for the "best" scanner for scanning old photo's - all snapshot
>prints with a maximum size of 4x6 - mostly smaller..
>
>By best I mean something that will help me do this job quickly, I must have
>a couple thousand old pictures that have been mostly sitting in envelopes
>from processors waiting to be put in albums for the last 20 years. I'd love
>to scan these all, but it would take more time than I have available with
>the scanner I use now.
>
>Is there any type of scanner that will scan these old photos quickly,
>automatically adjusting to size of the print and such? Has anyone done a
>project like this and have any recommendations?

Yes:
http://www.imagers.com/scanning.html?source=google&keyw...
>
>If not, is there any place on the internet, other than this newsgroup, where
>you can point me for more information on this type of scanning project -
>another discussion group or website perhaps.

Yes:
http://www.imagers.com/scanning.html?source=google&keyw...
>
>Larry
>

--
Big Bill
Replace "g" with "a"
June 11, 2005 7:08:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Larry" <lsimon@nospammail.com> wrote in message
news:4sfqe.376334$H_1.375245@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> I'm looking for the "best" scanner for scanning old photo's - all snapshot
> prints with a maximum size of 4x6 - mostly smaller..
>
> By best I mean something that will help me do this job quickly, I must
> have a couple thousand old pictures that have been mostly sitting in
> envelopes from processors waiting to be put in albums for the last 20
> years. I'd love to scan these all, but it would take more time than I
> have available with the scanner I use now.
>
> Is there any type of scanner that will scan these old photos quickly,
> automatically adjusting to size of the print and such? Has anyone done a
> project like this and have any recommendations?
>
> If not, is there any place on the internet, other than this newsgroup,
> where you can point me for more information on this type of scanning
> project - another discussion group or website perhaps.
>
> Larry
>

I've done this work, and the scanner is by far not the factor that takes the
most time--it is the post-scan tweaking.

I use an HP ScanJet flatbed scanner, which is no better and no worse than
any other model that can do the job. But there is so much that can be done
to enhance the image after scanning that you probably will not want to just
scan them and store them in their unedited condition.

Figure a minimum of 10 minutes per photo, for scanning, tweaking and burning
to disk.

Also, remember to store your original unedited scan files. They are the
digital equivalent of a negative. In the future, as your skills or the
functionality of your editing software improves, you may want to reedit
those images and get much better results.

Finally, I recommend that you do not let your scanning software make any
kind of corrections at the time of the scan. Do no sharpening, cgange no
brightness or contrast levels, do not adjust the color balance. Just take a
baseline scan, set at default levels, and doo all the tweaking in your
editing software. I have found Paint Shop Pro to be more than up to the
task when it comes to enhancing old photos, and there are numerous tutorials
on the web that will show you what steps to take.

Keep the original scanned file in uncomressed TIF format, in case you decide
to reedit later. Don't use a lossy format like JPEG. You may use lossy
format on the edited version if you need to conserve file size, because you
always can reedit your original TIF files in the future.

For archival purposes, the original, unedited scan files are probably more
important than the edited versions. Whatever condition your original prints
are in, they will never be any better than they are right now. Your scan
files should try to preserve as much of the image as possible, for long-term
archiving. You have more leeway with the edited files, because you can
always re-do them if you choose.

It is not going to be a quick task, and you need to prepare yourself for
lots of boredom. And, don't forget to handle the original prints wearing
white cotton gloves, and be careful not to bend the photos, as older prints
can easily crack or crease.

Check www.scantips.com for excellent hints on scanning.

And you thought you could do it all in just a couple of evenings, eh?????
:-)
Related resources
June 14, 2005 4:04:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy: Thanks for the comments, but about 10 minutes a picture is what
I'm trying to avoid, that's why I'm looking for a speedier alternative. I
have probably close to 2 thousand old snapshot photos and don't have 300
hours to spend on the project. I realize I might be sacrificing perfection
for speed, but I just want some way to look at and share these old photo's
and feel some sort of scanning is preferable to spending time putting them
in albums.


"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:yAsqe.197$qr1.81@trndny07...
>
> "Larry" <lsimon@nospammail.com> wrote in message
> news:4sfqe.376334$H_1.375245@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> I'm looking for the "best" scanner for scanning old photo's - all
>> snapshot prints with a maximum size of 4x6 - mostly smaller..
>>
>> By best I mean something that will help me do this job quickly, I must
>> have a couple thousand old pictures that have been mostly sitting in
>> envelopes from processors waiting to be put in albums for the last 20
>> years. I'd love to scan these all, but it would take more time than I
>> have available with the scanner I use now.
>>
>> Is there any type of scanner that will scan these old photos quickly,
>> automatically adjusting to size of the print and such? Has anyone done a
>> project like this and have any recommendations?
>>
>> If not, is there any place on the internet, other than this newsgroup,
>> where you can point me for more information on this type of scanning
>> project - another discussion group or website perhaps.
>>
>> Larry
>>
>
> I've done this work, and the scanner is by far not the factor that takes
> the most time--it is the post-scan tweaking.
>
> I use an HP ScanJet flatbed scanner, which is no better and no worse than
> any other model that can do the job. But there is so much that can be
> done to enhance the image after scanning that you probably will not want
> to just scan them and store them in their unedited condition.
>
> Figure a minimum of 10 minutes per photo, for scanning, tweaking and
> burning to disk.
>
> Also, remember to store your original unedited scan files. They are the
> digital equivalent of a negative. In the future, as your skills or the
> functionality of your editing software improves, you may want to reedit
> those images and get much better results.
>
> Finally, I recommend that you do not let your scanning software make any
> kind of corrections at the time of the scan. Do no sharpening, cgange no
> brightness or contrast levels, do not adjust the color balance. Just take
> a baseline scan, set at default levels, and doo all the tweaking in your
> editing software. I have found Paint Shop Pro to be more than up to the
> task when it comes to enhancing old photos, and there are numerous
> tutorials on the web that will show you what steps to take.
>
> Keep the original scanned file in uncomressed TIF format, in case you
> decide to reedit later. Don't use a lossy format like JPEG. You may use
> lossy format on the edited version if you need to conserve file size,
> because you always can reedit your original TIF files in the future.
>
> For archival purposes, the original, unedited scan files are probably more
> important than the edited versions. Whatever condition your original
> prints are in, they will never be any better than they are right now.
> Your scan files should try to preserve as much of the image as possible,
> for long-term archiving. You have more leeway with the edited files,
> because you can always re-do them if you choose.
>
> It is not going to be a quick task, and you need to prepare yourself for
> lots of boredom. And, don't forget to handle the original prints wearing
> white cotton gloves, and be careful not to bend the photos, as older
> prints can easily crack or crease.
>
> Check www.scantips.com for excellent hints on scanning.
>
> And you thought you could do it all in just a couple of evenings, eh?????
> :-)
>
June 14, 2005 4:04:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Look at scanners with Digital ICE, such as the Microtek i320. They do a
very good job of removing the more obvious defects like creases and
scratches. They can also automatically adjust the color in faded color
photos.

http://www.microtekusa.com/smi320.html

Larry wrote:
> Jeremy: Thanks for the comments, but about 10 minutes a picture is what
> I'm trying to avoid, that's why I'm looking for a speedier alternative. I
> have probably close to 2 thousand old snapshot photos and don't have 300
> hours to spend on the project. I realize I might be sacrificing perfection
> for speed, but I just want some way to look at and share these old photo's
> and feel some sort of scanning is preferable to spending time putting them
> in albums.
>
>
> "Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:yAsqe.197$qr1.81@trndny07...
>
>>"Larry" <lsimon@nospammail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4sfqe.376334$H_1.375245@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>>I'm looking for the "best" scanner for scanning old photo's - all
>>>snapshot prints with a maximum size of 4x6 - mostly smaller..
>>>
>>>By best I mean something that will help me do this job quickly, I must
>>>have a couple thousand old pictures that have been mostly sitting in
>>>envelopes from processors waiting to be put in albums for the last 20
>>>years. I'd love to scan these all, but it would take more time than I
>>>have available with the scanner I use now.
>>>
>>>Is there any type of scanner that will scan these old photos quickly,
>>>automatically adjusting to size of the print and such? Has anyone done a
>>>project like this and have any recommendations?
>>>
>>>If not, is there any place on the internet, other than this newsgroup,
>>>where you can point me for more information on this type of scanning
>>>project - another discussion group or website perhaps.
>>>
>>>Larry
>>>
>>
>>I've done this work, and the scanner is by far not the factor that takes
>>the most time--it is the post-scan tweaking.
>>
>>I use an HP ScanJet flatbed scanner, which is no better and no worse than
>>any other model that can do the job. But there is so much that can be
>>done to enhance the image after scanning that you probably will not want
>>to just scan them and store them in their unedited condition.
>>
>>Figure a minimum of 10 minutes per photo, for scanning, tweaking and
>>burning to disk.
>>
>>Also, remember to store your original unedited scan files. They are the
>>digital equivalent of a negative. In the future, as your skills or the
>>functionality of your editing software improves, you may want to reedit
>>those images and get much better results.
>>
>>Finally, I recommend that you do not let your scanning software make any
>>kind of corrections at the time of the scan. Do no sharpening, cgange no
>>brightness or contrast levels, do not adjust the color balance. Just take
>>a baseline scan, set at default levels, and doo all the tweaking in your
>>editing software. I have found Paint Shop Pro to be more than up to the
>>task when it comes to enhancing old photos, and there are numerous
>>tutorials on the web that will show you what steps to take.
>>
>>Keep the original scanned file in uncomressed TIF format, in case you
>>decide to reedit later. Don't use a lossy format like JPEG. You may use
>>lossy format on the edited version if you need to conserve file size,
>>because you always can reedit your original TIF files in the future.
>>
>>For archival purposes, the original, unedited scan files are probably more
>>important than the edited versions. Whatever condition your original
>>prints are in, they will never be any better than they are right now.
>>Your scan files should try to preserve as much of the image as possible,
>>for long-term archiving. You have more leeway with the edited files,
>>because you can always re-do them if you choose.
>>
>>It is not going to be a quick task, and you need to prepare yourself for
>>lots of boredom. And, don't forget to handle the original prints wearing
>>white cotton gloves, and be careful not to bend the photos, as older
>>prints can easily crack or crease.
>>
>>Check www.scantips.com for excellent hints on scanning.
>>
>>And you thought you could do it all in just a couple of evenings, eh?????
>>:-)
>>
>
>
>
!