Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Photo feeder scanner?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 3:17:01 PM

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

I'm looking for a device I've not seen yet, but I'm sure is available
somewhere (or somewhen soon!).

I want a compact USB 2.0/firewire optimized photo scanner with a
'feeder' for prints up to size 4x6". I want to put a stack of 60 into
the feeder, calibrate for a representative image, set scan to produce
jpgs of about 4 MB, then come back two hours later.

I'd pay up to $300 for such a device. Ok, maybe more.

Anyone know of one?

Thanks,

john
jfaughnan@spamcop.net

meta: jfaughnan, jgfaughnan, compact photo scanner, photo feeder, sheet
feeder, automation, home, archives, image processing

More about : photo feeder scanner

Anonymous
September 5, 2005 5:33:49 PM

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

On 5 Sep 2005 11:17:01 -0700, jfaughnan@spamcop.net wrote:

>I'm looking for a device I've not seen yet, but I'm sure is available
>somewhere (or somewhen soon!).
>
>I want a compact USB 2.0/firewire optimized photo scanner with a
>'feeder' for prints up to size 4x6". I want to put a stack of 60 into
>the feeder, calibrate for a representative image, set scan to produce
>jpgs of about 4 MB, then come back two hours later.
>
>I'd pay up to $300 for such a device. Ok, maybe more.
>
>Anyone know of one?
>
>Thanks,
>
>john
>jfaughnan@spamcop.net

There's this:
http://www.cdw.com/shop/products/default.aspx?edc=43043...
Of course, it's only 24 sheets, and you have to already have the HP
scanner.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 7:59:11 PM

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

Thanks! Fujitsu has a good entry level document scanner on the market.
I try to avoid HP document scanners; I had a bad experience with an HP
sheet feeder years ago (turns out my scanner was a shredder too!) and
have been phobic ever since.

I'm not looking for a document scanner though, they are typically quite
poor at image scanning. In any case their sheet feeders will generally
choke on a print. Too thick.

The device I'm looking for is designed to scan prints, not documents,
and its sheet feeder is optimized for prints. Also, it needs to be very
compact, I don't have much room.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
September 5, 2005 8:32:57 PM

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

On 5 Sep 2005 15:59:11 -0700, jfaughnan@spamcop.net wrote:

>Thanks! Fujitsu has a good entry level document scanner on the market.
>I try to avoid HP document scanners; I had a bad experience with an HP
>sheet feeder years ago (turns out my scanner was a shredder too!) and
>have been phobic ever since.
>
>I'm not looking for a document scanner though, they are typically quite
>poor at image scanning. In any case their sheet feeders will generally
>choke on a print. Too thick.
>
>The device I'm looking for is designed to scan prints, not documents,
>and its sheet feeder is optimized for prints. Also, it needs to be very
>compact, I don't have much room.

Sorry, I can't help.
Maybe someone else..

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 4:13:15 PM

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

For your price range, you're probably better off outsourcing.

jfaughnan@spamcop.net wrote:
> I'm looking for a device I've not seen yet, but I'm sure is available
> somewhere (or somewhen soon!).
>
> I want a compact USB 2.0/firewire optimized photo scanner with a
> 'feeder' for prints up to size 4x6". I want to put a stack of 60 into
> the feeder, calibrate for a representative image, set scan to produce
> jpgs of about 4 MB, then come back two hours later.
>
> I'd pay up to $300 for such a device. Ok, maybe more.
Anonymous
September 6, 2005 6:10:18 PM

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

>The device I'm looking for is designed to scan prints, not documents,
>and its sheet feeder is optimized for prints. Also, it needs to be very
>compact, I don't have much room.

I've been looking for something like this for years, and still haven't
found it. I have perhaps 10,000 4x6 photos that I want to scan. I
want to drop a pile of photos in a machine, and come back later to
find scans nicely stored on my computer.

I don't think anyone makes such a device.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:08:16 AM

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

HP makes 'em. Here's a link
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006LHL...

I think these devices have a limit of about 24 photos in the feeder, but
that's a lot better than manually positioning them one by one ...

ChrisH

"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel@exc.com> wrote in message
news:erhTe.35506$U63.4738@fe12.lga...
> >The device I'm looking for is designed to scan prints, not documents,
>>and its sheet feeder is optimized for prints. Also, it needs to be very
>>compact, I don't have much room.
>
> I've been looking for something like this for years, and still haven't
> found it. I have perhaps 10,000 4x6 photos that I want to scan. I
> want to drop a pile of photos in a machine, and come back later to
> find scans nicely stored on my computer.
>
> I don't think anyone makes such a device.
>
> -Joel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 6:50:50 PM

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

Yes, this is almost exactly right (I wanted something compact and
dedicated), but the Amazon feedback on the sheet feeder tells me HP is
up to their old tricks.

The sheet feeder looks good, but it doesn't work. At such a low price
point that's not surprising.

Good link though, Amazon points us to Epson too:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006TVTG...

Unlike the HP the Epson had great reviews. However, it's also no longer
sold!! I wonder if Epson had trouble hitting their price point with the
sheet feeder. Instead Epson sells a similar model with a negative
feeder.

So now I'm puzzled. Why did Epson discontinue this product?

john
jfaughnan@spamcop.net
meta: image scanning, photo scanning, sheet feeder, automated,
jfaughnan, jgfaughnan
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:32:46 AM

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

The weird thing is Epson discontinued it! It looks great and it was
selling very well on Amazon.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 3:41:59 AM

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

Ooops! Should have read the reviews .... sorry. The Epson looks good,
though, and there appear to be some secondhands ....

I'm thinking of experimenting with using my digicam to do this sort of
scanning job - I'm thinking tripod, good diffused light, some sort of a jig
to position the photos with the minimum of fuss. My imagination and budget
are currently stalled on some way to get the photos to lie flat ... might be
easier to pick up one of those Epsons.

ChrisH

<jfaughnan@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:1126129850.260757.191840@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Yes, this is almost exactly right (I wanted something compact and
> dedicated), but the Amazon feedback on the sheet feeder tells me HP is
> up to their old tricks.
>
> The sheet feeder looks good, but it doesn't work. At such a low price
> point that's not surprising.
>
> Good link though, Amazon points us to Epson too:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006TVTG...
>
> Unlike the HP the Epson had great reviews. However, it's also no longer
> sold!! I wonder if Epson had trouble hitting their price point with the
> sheet feeder. Instead Epson sells a similar model with a negative
> feeder.
>
> So now I'm puzzled. Why did Epson discontinue this product?
>
> john
> jfaughnan@spamcop.net
> meta: image scanning, photo scanning, sheet feeder, automated,
> jfaughnan, jgfaughnan
>
March 26, 2009 3:59:26 AM

The feeding scanners you are looking for will cost more than a good service will charge for even a few thousand photos. But there is a somewhat affordable, and very capable machine available.

The Kodak i1210 costs $600-700. The best part is that it automatically crops and straightens each image no matter how crooked it feeds through. You'll still need to rotate it 180 degrees though if it goes through upside-down. It theoretically does 30/minute, although there will be some jamming and other issues that'll slow down the actual speed.

Doable, but probably not the best option. For example, TheDigitalConvert.com in Chicago has listed 15 cents/ea. 3,000 photos would only be $450. That includes editing, upload to the Internet, two copies on disc. And you don't have to waste your own time. The albums can even be done without removing the photos and messing up your albums (someone spent a LONG time putting those together). Of course, it's very understandable that someone would want to keep the photos in town. I'd encourage checking out some places, walking in and speaking to the person who'll actually do the work.

But alas, you still don't need to spend $3000 to do it on your own. No matter what, you'll be spending a good amount of time learning new software, hardware, editing etc. We're talking LOTS of time - don't underestimate it. You don't want to shell out the dough and then realize it's just too intimidating a task.


There are a few things you want to keep in mind should you go that route:

1) The scanner you get should have a straight paper path so the photos have the least chance of getting scratched or damaged. Most Kodak and Fujitsu scanners work well. Multipurpose units with a U-path will bend and flip the photo over the edge. If it gets stuck, there could be damage. Polaroids and other old thicker photos won't have a chance.

2) When feeding photos, you will learn that dust can be a major annoyance. Unlike a flatbed where a speck of dust on the glass blocks light in a tiny area, ADF scanners with dust on the scanning glass will block light from reaching the entire length of the photo passing over that speck. This results in red and green lines appearing in your final copies. You need to stand ready with a moistened (non-ammonia glass cleaner) lens cloth.
March 26, 2009 4:11:42 AM

The Kodak i1210 mentioned above is technically a document scanner, but its photo reproduction is quite good. Kodak sells a photo version (Kodak i1220s) of these to retail stores for about $1,600. It's the same hardware (plus double-sided capability) with some extra software. If you really want to do it yourself, just get the cheaper i1210 and use any software for touchups. It's the scanner everyone uses and I'm sure you'll be satisfied as long as you keep an eye on the output to make sure there no lines from dust. Dust is a major issue. It's really important you keep opening the scanner [it's simple] when a line appears and wipe the dust off.
!