bjprovo Loc: Northeast CT

I did this a number of years ago with a Canon Photo scanner. If you have the time and desire to do it yourself it allows you to pick and choose the photos you deem worthy of saving and keeping. I ended up scanning 1500 family pictures that were sitting in a box and I now have them cycling through as my screen saver. Allows us to just sit and watch good family memories that were collecting dust.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

The V500 as a life expectancy of 36,000 cycles but that's like the life expectancy of camera shutters. Sometimes they go for a couple of million cycles. :-D At 50,000 your scans have cost 1/3 of a cent per scan for the equipment. Pretty good.

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

I've done this with prints, not slides. I have scanned about 8000 prints. Yes, it took a lot of time. I discovered that I could do several hundred scans in a couple of hours.

I have used two different scanners, both were low cost HP All in One Ink Jets. Both did a good job. Many of the photos needs some post processing, but that was because either the print had started to fade, or the original was printed on a textured paper.

I always scanned at the highest DPI avaliable on the scanner.

Since most of the originals were small, I was able to put several photos on the scanner for each scan. After scaning, I was able to separate each individual photo with no real problem. I believe I used Photoshop Elements to do that, but I also remember that the HP software that came with the camera would do this automatically.

mdouglas1

I, too, had hundreds and hundreds of slides and old family prints. I purchased the Epson Perfection V700 and it has (and continues) to work perfectly. I believe I paid $230 a couple of years ago. Money well spent!!!

I scanned, PP and saved photos according to year taken. I then made photo books and placed them on flash drives. The photo books were Christmas gifts to the families; the flash drives went to all immediate family members so the cousins could make their own books if they wanted. Was a VERY appreciated and thoughtful gift. They loved it!

I am now scanning for a couple of friends - be careful who you tell that you have the capability! HA!

Bmarsh Loc: Bellaire, MI

I have an HP Photosmart 520 scanner which is by now at least 15 yrs old but still ticking. I am sure there are probably newer HP scanners that are better. The nice thing about the Photosmart was that it would do up to a 5x7 print, or a single slide or a 35mm negative strip, almost anything you could think of scanning.

But I would suggest a scanner that is specifically made for photo scanning which will eliminate all the alignment and cropping problems of a flatbed. I have two high quality flatbeds as well but I don't use them for photo scanning.

Hope this helps.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Are you printing billboards? :shock:

The scanning dpi is how many dots per inch of the original.

Example 1: A 35mm slide or negative is approximately 1 by 1 1/2 inches. At 12,800 dpi the scanner will record (12,800 X 1) times (12,800 X 1.5) = 245.7 megapixels. Printed at 180 dpi that will give you a print that is 71 X 106 inches, or 6 X 9 feet.

Example 2: A 4 X 5 inch print will be scanned at (4 X 12,800) X (5 X 12,800) dots. That yields 51,200 X 64,000 pixels or 3.276 gigapixels which will print a lovely 24 X 30 foot print. That also takes 20 minutes to scan and creates a 1/2 gigabyte file. :shock: :shock:

You need to figure your scanning dpi in reverse. Let's take the 4 X 5 print and I want to make an 8 X 10 inch copy. Printing at 300 dpi, I need an image that is 2400 X 3000 pixels (Or dots, but this is not the place to discuss dots vs pixels. Close enough.) So I divide the desired dots by the inches of the original photo. 2400 divided by 4 = 600. 3000 divided by 5 = 600. So I want to scan at 600 dpi.

Using the same reverse thinking, for a 35mm slide (remember 1 X 1 1/2 inch original) I want an 8 X 12 inch print to keep from cropping. So I need (8 X 300) X (12 X 300) dots, or 2400 X 3600. 2400 divided by 1 inch (of the original) = 2400. 3600 divided by 1.5 inch (of the original = 2400. So I need to scan the slide at 2400 dpi.

Got it? Hope so. :D

Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

I have scanned over 5000 slides and pictures in the last couple of years, it is a slow process, but worth it. I use the CanoScan 9000F Mark II Color Image Scanner Price 199.99. It uses LED scan lights so there is no warm up time. It comes with slide and negative carriers, but will do an excellent job on anything that you want to scan.

pete-m Loc: Casper, WY

I've always used an anti-static brush with mixed results. Never even thought about an anti-static "cloth". I'm going to try some.

Thanks for the info Morning Star!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For prints, a flatbed scanner such as the Epson V500 someone else mentioned would work fine.

If working with negs or slides, while some flatbeds (incl. that Epson) can work, their resolution is a bit low... especially if working with tiny images like those of 110 film. For that, a dedicated film scanner is much better. I use a 4000 ppi Nikon myself... But that's a discontinued model now and there are others that are more affordable. One of my main reasons for getting the Nikon was that an accessory bulk slide feeder was available for it... I can load up to 40 slides at a time and let it run overnight. Most others, you feed 1 slide at a time. When it comes to negs, some film scanners can handle a film strip of 5 or 6 shots, while the Nikon can scan an entire 36 exposure roll (so long as it's left uncut).

Avoid the "$100" film scanners. They're junk and only produce really low resolution files. You'd be better off with a higher quality flatbed or just taking the film to a scanning service and paying them to do it (most only do low resolution, or charge a whole lot more to do high resolution).

But, again, if we're talking about prints only, get a flatbed scanner instead. You'd only need a film scanner if working with negs and slides.

MabelLucy Loc: Oregon

Why a tif file instead of JPEG??

LarryFB Loc: Depends where our RV is parked

I think the highest scanning available to me was 600 dpi, that by itself limits the size. Most of the photos scanned were small snapshots (3 1/2 square, 3 1/2 X 5, or 4 X 5). I have not scanned negatives or slides.

I would have to question the idea of scanning a 4 X 5 to make an 8 X 10. I suspect the quality of the image would be significantly degraded. I've never done that so I might be wrong.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Because the image quality is better and you can do more with editing.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

That's where the magic of post processing comes into play, but I also have to say that it depends a lot on the quality of the original print. At some point of enlargement the film grain becomes visible but I don't think an 8 X 10 is unreasonable.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I have no idea how this is going to look here but let's give find out together.

Girl with stuffed cat. Original 4 X 6 inches, scanned at 300 dpi.

(Download)

Same girl, same cat, scanned at 600 dpi.

(Download)

Same girl, same cat, 600 dpi, minor tweaks.

(Download)

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I faced the same issue and fellow "hoggers" pointed me to an Epson V600 which has been doing well for my similar job.