hoola

Which is better for highest quality : Scanning with a high quality scanner or photo copying with a high quality setup(macro lens, flash, dead even lighting) ?? B&W 5x7 prints . Thinking as scanning can take a couple of minutes each photo versus photocopying with flash that photo copying would be quicker . Have about 200x photos to do .

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Are you scanning negatives, or are you scanning prints? Wasn't clear to me.

If you are scanning prints, you are limited by the resolution of the image on the paper, which is much lower than the resolution of a negative. Whether you use a scanner or if you use a camera and macro lens, you aren't going to get more detail from the print.

If you have negatives, why scan them? Just have prints made from the negatives.

In rereading your post, it sounds like you are scanning 5 x 7 B&W images. At first I thought maybe you just wanted to produce 5 x 7 B&W prints. I would most likely just scan them on a flatbed scanner. The light on the scanner will be plenty even, and most scanners have better resolution than the paper print. Plus, there is no complicated setup to deal with worries about glare on the paper.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

So prints, if desired, can be made at anytime, now or in the future, and a digital image exists.
If he has 100 negatives, he may not want 100 prints, now.

Hazmatman Loc: Santa Maria California

I use a scanner with up to 2400 dpi Which is more than enough resolution that you ever need for copying. I usually put as many pictures on this canner as I can that are related. They are easy to separate in Photoshop. I scanned black and white and color prints, color slides color negatives, (which has a program that removes the orange cast), and negatives of anywhere from 16 mm up to 4 x 5.
This is provided me with better results than trying to photograph them. It's a lot easier and quicker as well., Some mentioned that there is a limited amount of resolution in prints which is true so you don't have to get excessive sized files to work with.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I scan.
It the image is small I have the scan software do 200-300%, depending on the original's size (like wallets).

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

A scanner is a very useful tool.
I would go that way.

duhi Loc: Rochester, NY

I have snapshots and slides from my travels around the world when I was involved with construction. Have probably
Several hundred that I want to keep .Have decided to digitize them using an Epson high-end scanner.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Let’s talk budget, first.

Both paths work. Each has advantages and disadvantages. My experience is that macro photographic reproduction is sharpest for 35mm and smaller film. Scanning can be a better option for 6x4.5 and larger film.

For prints, a good macro photographic copy setup is faster. But scanners can crop, straighten, sharpen, remove dust, adjust contrast, gamma, and color... and can do some of that automatically, and all of it in the scanner driver software.

If you scan, thoroughly understand the software! Most scanners can automatically scan several originals with one click, each to a separate file, each processed separately, with different settings.

Either way, a lot of your success will come from study, care, discipline, and practice. Whole books and many videos are available to help with both methods.

MrPhotog

Highest quality would be with a rotary laser scanner. That would also be the slowest and most expensive way to do things.

Flatbed scanning, such as you can do on even a cheap multifunction printer/scanner is very good, and economical. At a resolution on 1200 dpi a 5 x 7 photo would have the equivalent of 6000 by 8400 pixels, or 50.4 million pixels. That exceeds all but the top end in cameras. There are many flatbed scanners that scan at higher resolution. At 2400 dpi you would have an image of over 200 million pixels— far in excess of what cameras can deliver.

For 200 prints, scan them two at a time on a flatbed scanner. That is 100 scan cycles of about 1 minute each, or less than 2 hours, total. Setting up a copy stand and photographing each image separately will take about that long, too. However, you can pop the pictures on the scanner, punch the button, and watch a tv show during the scan.

Scanner feeds the image directly to a file on your computer. Camera stores images on memory card which you have to transfer to computer (or connect with wires or WiFi).

Scanner is already square and level. Software can correct rotation. With camera and improvised copy setup you have some fiddling to do to get things level and aligned before your first shot.

Now, if you are fortunate enough to have a dedicated copystand, then photographing the originals will give very good quality—a 10 megapixel image should satisfy most needs, and higher resolution is certainly available. With a proper copy board you can change originals quickly and do 500 to 1000 copies a day. As noticed, the actual copy time is that fraction of a second of exposure, but most of your working time will be changing the images to be copied.

Copying slides or negatives can go much faster as there are dedicated holders for slides and negatives that allow for changing them faster. Handling the materials takes up most of your work time.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Scanner will always produce superior outcomes!

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I scanned. My brother inherited some family photos. He tried photographing but had to scan to get decent copies to send me. However, he is not an advanced photographer.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I find scanning to be the easiest way to get copies of prints. For slides I copy them with my camera.

Either way, the time required is longer than you think it might be. There is frequently postprocessing to be done, even though some of it can be done in the scanner. I have an old scanner, and the glass has a few issues with stuff on the back side, which is not accessible without dismantling the scanner, something I'm not anxious to do. The issues can be easily dealt with in post, just like dust on a copy of a slide.

Old color photos, both slides and prints, are subject to color changes with age, which you can usually correct in post unless they are extreme. A lot of my old B/W family prints were taken with cheap cameras with fixed exposures by people who didn't know anything about backlighting. Consequently, some of them require transmogrification to make faces recognizable and mitigate blown out backgrounds.

But it's worth the effort in many cases to get a family photo that is digital and easily distributed to the family.

domcomm Loc: Denver, CO

Absolutely agree! I've tried both, but a high-res scanner always comes out on top.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I used to use a RB67 then got a scanner.
I cannot think of any reason to go back to camera and film.
Actually more of a hassle with a camera aligning and keeping the photos flat etc.