Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

And be aware of dust! It is on the photos and more will settle as you work and pop out when you view the result.

johnh1944 Loc: North Las Vegas

The Epson FF-680W works great.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

It depends upon your definition of "good."

There are PHOTO scanners and OFFICE scanners. Office scanners can do a decent job with photo prints, but photo scanners can record finer details and more tonal range. Do you want professional results, or snapshot copies? If the latter, the office scanner is fine.

Frankly, the user's knowledge of how to use the scanner driver software means at least as much as which scanner is used.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, My Canon LiDE-210 (bought in 2013) does great for me...... Just like the scanner in the AIO printer.

Not worried about "professional" vs. "snapshot", just as long as I get a great scan.
(I don't pixel peep.)
I suppose just knowing that a scanner is a "professional" scanner one gets better results....
But then, I'd need to have both to really physically compare the results, not just believe it because it's a "pro" scanner.

ecurb Loc: Metro Chicago Area

There you are good to go. It will work splendidly. Identifying old relatives and friends will be the hard part as will be naming each individual file. After my mother passed I received tons of pictures dating back to the early 1900s. I can only recognize my grandparents!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I ran a pre-press preparation center for school memory books (soft cover elementary school yearbooks) where we had pro-grade flatbeds to scan prints, back in the late 1990s to 2001 when most candid photos came to us as prints.

The difference between an office scanner and a pro scanner is in the ability to record a higher maximum density, the ability to generate 16-bit-per-color-channel TIFF files, the scanner speed, and the quality of the software bundle that comes with the scanner. It's a lot like the difference between JPEGs baked in camera, and raw files processed later. You get files with greater dynamic range, and more flexibility for subtle tonal adjustment. And because the driver software is more capable, you have less adjustment to do after the fact (on most files). We also had a cheap office all-in-one printer/scanner/copier/FAX for forms. The scanner was fine for paperwork, but so-so for color prints. I was asked to demonstrate its use as a backup by my lab director. He saw a controlled comparison, laughed, and said, "Go ahead and order another pro grade flatbed like the first one." While most people would have accepted the results, the color didn't meet our lab standard. And it took almost three times longer to scan a file that had to be adjusted after the fact.

Those big UMAX flatbeds were about $6000 each, plus a Mac and a monitor. Today's mediocre digital SLR or mirrorless cameras with macro lenses
can do a better job for a lot less $$$.

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

Write the names you know on the back of the photos. Your grandkids will not recognize them without some form of documentation.

And place documentation on the digitized copies. Adding documentation to family photos

And do the same for family photos of the current family. Your great grandkids will probably need that.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

try taking pictures with your phone. Ive done that in the past and it worked really well.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

"...back in the late 1990s to 2001..." I can believe.
Nowadays, I'm not gonna worry about any difference there may be.

Keep in mind that you keep referring to "professional/commercial" work.
Not everyone needs "professional" scanners, much to your dismay.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

After running a lot of lab scanning operations, I don't find scanners relevant for photo work at all these days. My camera replaced my scanner a long time ago, and I'm a lot happier with the speed and the results.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Happy for you.

I'll use my <NON-expensive> scanner.

srt101fan

Geez, why don't you just accept that there are good scanners and there are better scanners.

Kinda like JPEGs are great but RAW might be better.....

Oh, no, did I say that?..,,.

OldCADuser Loc: Irvine, CA

300 hundred photos. I would think that investing in a flatbed scanner would be worthwhile.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Geez, notice that I never said I didn't acknowledge a difference in scanners?
I said I don't NEED a "better" scanner...

Erroneous inference.