Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick any two...

The likely candidate is the Epson FastFoto FF-680W Wireless High-speed Photo Scanning System. It's pricey, but good and fast. However, it only handles prints and documents. A bonus is, it scans double-sided documents. It is probably a reasonable compromise capable of plowing through stacks of prints. It handles 8.5" wide by 11.7" (and longer, depending on resolution).

https://epson.com/For-Home/Scanners/Photo-Scanners/FastFoto-FF-680W-Wireless-High-speed-Photo-Scanning-System/p/B11B237201

Personally, I built a copy stand I use with my mirrorless camera and macro lens to copy prints, flat art, stamps, coins, slides, and negatives with my digital camera. I find raw files give me the quality I need. It's pretty quick, but requires post-production.

I'll certainly agree with you that there are lots of technical imperfections in images posted on UHH — in many of the various sections. However, I agree with others here who point to the purposes of the different sections.

Sharing images isn't necessarily an invitation to constructive criticism. The photo gallery isn't a competitive space or a learning atmosphere. It's meant for SHARING. People put their images there because they find the subject matter interesting, or moving, or funny, or... for a whole myriad of reasons.

As Linda pointed out, there are other places on UHH where you can get and give advice regarding the nuts and bolts of how to put together a better photograph.

It is fairly safe to say that most images can be improved upon in some way. As the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, once said (I'm paraphrasing for context), the concept of perfection is just that — a concept. There is no perfect physical realization of a chair… just the idea of it. And for each of us, that concept of perfection is different. Sitting comfort is different for each of us. And that's okay.

Growing up as a teen photographer, I was lucky enough to have a great journalism advisor pluck me out of the hall one day at school, when she saw the Canon around my neck. She smiled and quite literally guided me by the shirt collar into the yearbook/newspaper office.

"You're Bill, right?"

"Yes, Ma'am?" (As if I weren't sure why she was asking).

"You're going to make pictures for the yearbook for us, aren't you?" She gave me an almost devious, "Don't deny me the honor of your help," look. "I'll pay you for your prints. Please say yes."

I let that sink in for about two seconds. "I would really like that! I smiled."

That lady took me under her wing and guided me from a casual snapper to a half-decent photojournalist in a matter of weeks. She was merciless. I would hand her a contact sheet. She would grab her ubiquitous Agfa 8X Loupe magnifier and start looking... and talking. AND criticizing — constructively. By the time I graduated, I'd gone through over 300 rolls of Tri-X.

She picked my work apart and told me how she would make it better. I never took any of it as insulting. She was full of great ideas and commentary on photography, and had a shelf full of books on photojournalism I devoured. She had several All-American Yearbook awards to her credit, and knew great images when she saw them.

That sort of mentorship worked for me. It doesn't work for everyone. Nor are most people receptive to that process. Lots of folks see photography as just a recording process, and not as a visual communications language or an art form. They're just in it for the fun of showing others what they saw. For me, photography is an essential part of life, a duty, an obsession, or more cynically, an addiction. I can't help but try to shape each image I share with a reasonable amount of care and finesse. So I don't share much. It's time consuming.

Most folks aren't like that. So if you want creative expression or value constructive criticism, skip the Gallery. If you want to see what people find interesting enough to share, and can get past their technical potholes, The Photo Gallery can be a pleasant surprise.

There are several services who will post your images privately for you, then allow your clients to purchase downloads, prints, and other products you sell. Then they will do fulfillment, ship direct to customer, and send you your price, less their cost for the service.

Fine Art America is one. But there are many.

Understood. I saw those earlier! They're clever. I especially like the cat and the goose.

Nice! It reminds me of fooling around with re-spooled Double-X Eastman movie film years ago. I like the grain.

The window reflection makes the scene look like a double exposure. I immediately think of photo-illustrated scene settings for chapters in novels.

I default to "List" in both Windows and MacOS. If I'm searching for an image without an obvious English name, I'll do thumbnail view on the Mac.

Every time I set up a new computer for myself, I pull out my list of preferred defaults and make it consistent. When I used both operating systems daily, I made them look as close to the same as possible.

People are still reacting to the genius that went into the smartphone as conceived by Apple's team. It disrupted many, many markets, and gave us questionable habits and superpowers we didn't know we needed.

I'm grateful not to use a VHS camera with separate recorder. But I use my mirrorless camera for serious video. I'm grateful for the demise of the portable cassette and CD players. But I still use a portable radio from 1980 in my copy stand room.

Many apps on my phone get daily, weekly, or monthly usage. Many of them also work on my Mac, so they're part of my routine. Either way, it's nice to be able to use a couple devices for many different tasks, rather than having to rely on all sorts of clunky, dedicated hardware.

Look at the Lumix S5 II (or S5 IIX if you want more video features). You can use Leica, Sigma, Panasonic, and other L-Mount lenses on it. The S5 II/IIX got phenomenal reviews on YouTube. It's the best of three worlds.

Leica makes cameras as art objects. Panasonic makes cameras that are easy to use and have remarkably useful features. Truth be known, Panny probably makes most of the guts of Leica's L-mount series. They collaborate a LOT on technology. (the L-Squared Alliance, they call it.) But glass is what makes the character of an image. With a Lumix, Sigma, or Leica body, you get plenty of lens options from all of them and several other sources. Sigma's L-Mount offerings are excellent. Leica's L-mount lenses are priced in the stratosphere, but create amazing images.

Chris and his band played here in High Point at the John Coltrane Jazz and Blues Festival in 2022. My wife and I were there... He was incredible! We're headed back this Labor Day weekend... third year in a row. Not sure of the line-up yet, but it'll be good.

No DVR. It interrupts my lawn mowing schedule. But I’ll watch anyway.

Nice! Reminds me of Tom Scott, Chris Botti, and others who play smooth jazz.

That hilarious little book is so 1940s or early '50s. It's such an easy era to mock, from today's perspective.

Somewhere, I still have the Boy Scout Photography Merit Badge book from the 1960s. It was thoroughly ridiculous, written in 1956 or so, and still in use when my Dad bought it for me in '66.

I like it. I do that all the time, especially when formatting output for smart phones and TVs.

The first thing I do with a new image is play with aspect ratios and correct horizon line tilt. Lightroom Classic is great for that. I'm usually able to get a pleasing result with a standard ratio — square, 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 7:5, or 16:9. But if an image needs it, I'll go custom with the crop.

Ink jet technology has been better than silver halide for both color gamut and print stability for over 20 years. Back then, it was five times more expensive, and slow to operate, but for some applications, it was worth it. In 2003, I attended a PMAI show, visited the Epson booth with our VP, and we put an Epson 9600 Ultrachrome printer in the lab two months later. It uses pigment ink that can last over 200 years in dark storage, or 80-100 years under glass. Kodak Portra Endura prints we made in 2003 have already faded noticeably. Inkjet prints made on the 9600 look like the images displayed on my calibrated monitor!

Our primary goal for that printer was to produce 60" by 40" composites of senior classes, fraternities, bands, and other large groups. When we saw the very first prints from it, our plans changed! That $5000 Epson 9600 replaced 11 specialty low-volume optical printers that were a pain to keep in control. Those old printers had been in use since the mid-1950s, and one of them (a military-grade 10x10 enlarger) pre-dated World War II. We saved nearly $100,000 in labor, paper waste, and chemistry during the first year the Epson was in service.

Inkjet photos require photo quality media and photo quality inks. The technology got a bum rap from consumers who bought early office printers and watched as their prints faded in weeks. They were using cheap dye inks and plain paper most of the time. A real inkjet photo paper print made with pigment inks will look better, longer, than any silver halide chromogenic (color) print.

Inkjet's tarnished reputation is why early high-end print service bureaus used the French word, 'giclée' to describe photo- and art-grade inkjet prints. For at least a decade, such shops refused to mention that they were making inkjet prints.

We actually had to "dumb down" the color of the Epson 9600 and later Epsons to the color gamut of our Noritsu mini-labs that used chromogenic paper and chemistry. Prints from all our silver halide chromogenic devices looked dull and lifeless next to the Epson prints. My reaction to complainers was, "The Epson output costs five times per square foot what the Noritsu output does, and takes five times longer to produce. You get what you pay for." The school portrait business was high volume. Our lab cranked out up to a quarter million packages of prints per week in peak season, from 40 digital mini-labs. The Epson output was about .005% of that.