I need to scan a lot of photographs ... how?

Trying to scan a lot of photos on a flatbed scanner has exhausted my patience so I've decided to buy something with an auto feed and a straight paper path. The Fujitsu ScanSnap iX500 is favourite at the moment - but there are lots out there to choose from. Any recommendations?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Have you considered a scanning service? I used an outfit called Pixsave for hundreds of old slides and negatives.
Ant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 22:08:50 +0000, bin wrote:

I was bought an ix500 for a task at work. I loved it.
So much so that I bought one for myself, and have scanned about 60,000 pages with it. These were things from my office that I wanted to keep but didn't have room for when I 'retired'.
The software is excellent, not a low quality add-on like so much else tends to be.
I guess my only (small) reservation is that it scans only to PDF and JPEG - no lossless scanning.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/11/2017 23:12, Bob Eager wrote:

That's good to hear. Some reviews say flesh tones have a slight pinky tinge compared to the original, have you noticed anything like that?
Most of my pics are family snaps, destined for display on a digital picture frame - and from what I've read (which isn't very much) JPEGs at 300x300 are OK for that. Does that sound reasonable?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, 25 November 2017 10:23:26 UTC, snipped-for-privacy@nomailthanks.com wrote:

If you're going to the effort of scanning, at least scan them at a reasonable resolution.
At some point you will want to look at them on something bigger than a 4" screen.
Owain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:23:22 +0000, bin wrote:

I have mainly scanned documents, but haven't had trouble with colours. Always adjustable afterwards, anyway.
The post-scan tools are pretty good, although they don't go as far as colour manipulation.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/11/2017 10:23, snipped-for-privacy@nomailthanks.com wrote:

That is odd on most scanners they usually offer PNG lossless as well.

If you are going to the trouble of scanning them then 600dpi is worth it and if the original is in any way precious saved as a lossless format. If it is something rare an was a contact print off a large negative then an even higher resolution might be justified to capture all the detail.
JPEGs you need to decide on a quality and a chroma subsampling strategy. If the image contains fine black detail on blue or red then no subsampling will produce a visibly better result. JPEG Quality allows everything from nearly perfect rendition to surreal cubism at the other extreme. I'd recommend using highest quality for original scans.
Images will look better if downsampled to the native size of the display you intend to show them on Irfanview will automate that.
For moderate numbers of images a tripod and a decent camera will be faster, but you will need to do some post processing either way if you want to get the best representation of the orginals.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 09:33:47 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

Just telling you how it is!

The ix500 will do 600dpi colour, 1200dpi B&W.

The scanner software doesn't give numbers, but allows 5 levels of compression.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[30 lines snipped]

I scanned some family ancestor portrait watercolours (*)(about A4 sized) at 1200dpi lossless PNG, although when I took them to be printed the print shop said "Can we have JPGs?". Sigh. Although, once framed, the copies were indistinguishable from the originals at normal viewing distance.
(* I was giving them to a relative who actually has children and wanted some copies to display).
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Most software can vary the amount of JPEG compression. I wonder how much information is lost in JPEG with minimum compression (maximum file size) compared with a lossless compression format like PNG or TIFF - or BMP which is not compressed at all (lossily or losslessly) so an m x n file is always exactly m x n x bit-depth bytes long (excluding the header!).
Using Paint Shop Pro, I can't see any difference between JPEG with compression of 1 (minimum compression) and PNG. Compression 10 may show slight ringing. Anything above 30 is getting pretty repulsive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 27/11/2017 11:20, NY wrote:

Just use PNG and convert it to JPEG later if required.
--
Max Demian

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

+1. S'what I did.
--
Today is Sweetmorn, the 39th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3183
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23:12 24 Nov 2017, Bob Eager wrote:

60,000 pages is very impressive. Must have taken a lot of time.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:49:41 +0000, pamela wrote:

Actually 63,201 to date (just checked). And that's sheets, not sides - nearly twice that in sides, as it's auto duplex (scans both sides at once). It does 25 sheets/minute.
--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/11/2017 19:58, Bob Eager wrote:

I'm getting more tempted by the minute, but I can't find any good deals on it at the moment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24/11/2017 22:08, snipped-for-privacy@nomailthanks.com wrote:

Have you considered photographing them? The set-up takes a while but then it's very quick. I use a greenhouse as a studio and choose a cloudy day. I've done thousands of archive pictures that way.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A bit on the chilly side at the moment though I'd imagine. Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/11/2017 02:53, Bill Wright wrote:

I did, but I've only got a phone camera. Also, the faff of having to lay them all out on some sort of grid didn't really appeal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 25/11/2017 10:29, snipped-for-privacy@nomailthanks.com wrote:

OK.
Bill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:29:47 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@nomailthanks.com wrote:

I think you mis-understand. Why would you need to lay them out? Just photograph them one at a time. Better if you can put the phone in a clamp to hold it in place. Be mutch faster than scanning. Be even better if you could borrow a proper camera, even a compact one. The lens/quality would be much better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.