Regardless of the type of scanner, think about whether or not you will be doing some editing on the file and/or you’ll want to make re-prints. I’ve read that 300 DPI, the lowest resolution, can give decent prints of 3x6 or 5x7 but if you want to go larger you’re etter off doing 600 DPI or 1200, maybe even higher. The trade-off is that higher DPI's require longer scan times. And another trade-off is that faster scan times at high DPI's mean more expensive scanners. I’m sure others may have different opinions about this but I’m just going by the little technical knowledge that have.

We went for a picnic last evening and I grabbed a couple of cameras on the way out (without really looking at them). I knew one had an 18-140 on it and figured that would be the one I would use for the most part. I had received my new (to me) FTZ ii adapter and put an old Tamron 16-300 lens on the other camera and forgot about it thinking I still had the 50-250 which helps if the 140 isn't enough. Well, it turns out the Tamron is really soft at the long end and isn't really compatible with the FTZ anyway, so when a pair of bluebirds returned to the area, I was totally unprepared and of course, something out of the ordinary occurred. We were visiting the local Master Gardener's plot where they had just put up a wire frame made of fence wire, bamboo and zip ties. Whoever did it just left one of their gloves on each upright about six feet off the ground. So, I said all that just to tell you I got this rather soft shot which could have been so much better if I'd spend a couple minutes looking at what I'm taking and what I might actually need. Tomorrow I'm having surgery that will limit getting around for a couple days, so I'm hoping the bluebirds have the decency to hang around till I get back to visit them again with a longer lens:

Your post says "photos" so I will assume you mean prints, not slides or negatives. If so, I strongly recommend the Epson® FastFoto FF-680W.

I live in a retirement community and our photography group bought one to share. It works very well on those shoeboxes full of prints. It does a straight scan, will create an optional color corrected extra file and, if it detects writing on the back, will scan that too.

It is fast and accepts a stack of prints. The instructions suggest that you should make stacks of similar sized prints.

Folks - I raised this subject a few years back and thought I’d give it an encore. UHH has 2 sections for members to post pics - Photo Gallery and Photo Analysis and posting constructive criticism in the first is frowned upon. I think this rule does a disservice to photographers looking to up their game.

I often look at posts in the Gallery and too often see, sorry for the blunt language, just awful photos. I’m not talking about subjective matters. I’m talking about pics that are out of focus, poorly exposed, with wildly tilted horizons (not done intentionally for artistic purposes), badly post processed or overprocessed, poorly composed with telephone poles growing out of heads, etc. or any number of other technical (NOT subjective) flaws.

And most times, well meaning members post, “Great set”, or “Nicely done” or other “ attaboys” in an attempt to not hurt another member’s feelings. I see this as counterproductive and reinforcing bad technique by poster. I ask how is a member to develop better photography skills if, I again apologize upfront, technically terrible pics are displayed and followed by lots of gushing platitudes?

Last time I mentioned this, I was slapped down by numerous members who argue that unless a poster requests constructive criticism, nothing negative should be said. Ok - I’ll buy the “If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing” idea, but gushing over bad stuff does harm to the poster too. If the pics are bad, say nothing. Stop reinforcing bad work.

Just a suggestion to those posting to the Gallery in the future - think about soliciting criticisms so you can improve your work. Sure you will get many nasty, snarky and often incorrect replies from a certain subsection of members, but you will also get many great suggestions for improvement offered in a polite, constructive manner. I’ve been a photographer for 55 yrs and I welcome all well meaning and civil critiques. We are never too old to learn a new trick.

Anxious to see the replies to this rant.

I will admit that I am occasionally lazy and use reply instead of quote when I reply within a short time of the post to which I'm replying.

But occasionally someone jumps in ahead of me. When that happens, I can go to the post to which I replied, click on 'quote reply' and then when I get the window into which to post (which has the quote in it) and I just press command-a then command-c to select all and copy. I then go back to my post, click on 'edit' and go to the top of the post and press command-v, which pastes the quote into my post. Then update will make my post compliant with UHH standards.

OTOH, I (like StanMac) am not familiar with 'the other forum', so I don't use that pragma.

PS: Frequently I (like others) am not replying to the last post, but possibly a post several pages back from the point at which my post will be placed. Sometimes I even read all the posts before posting a reply.

If you had selected "Store Original" when you uploaded the pics I would have more than the 102KB and 110KB files to work with . . .
I have attached my Post Process resulting in files of 6.4MB and 6.8MB files after running through Topaz Photo AI (default settings) and using PhotoScapeX "Auto Color" (default settings) for pics (IMO) with larger files, clarity, and much improved overall.
Both of these picture improvements took <1 minute to process.

If the original pic had been shot using RAW and then uploaded to UHH using the "Store Original" setting I may have been able to do much more.
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends