Scanning old photos and documents using DSLR or scanner, better and faster?

<p>I have more than 1000 old photos and some documents with me, which I need to scan into my computer. I am having a confusion, whether I should photograph all those photos and documents with my Nikon D90 or buy a dedicated scanner for the purpose. I know that scanner may produce better results for scanning documents and photos. I would like faster conversion and don’t need to spend a lot of money. Is there a way I could improve the results if I photograph them? Or is there any cheap, but good quality scanners available? I would appreciate some quick help here.</p>

<p>Are these old photos prints, or negatives? If prints, getting a simple all-in-one printer won't cost you an arm and a leg, and it will be easier to get decent quality. Not faster, but quite easy to do. If they're negavtives, then the story does get a bit more complicated, but there are a lot of recent threads on filmscanners versus using a DSLR to 'scan' negatives, so a little search will give you a wealth of info on that.<br>

For what it's worth, I've got a pretty standard Canon Pixma scanner/printer, and its scanner is certainly decent. No top quality, but it works well and isn't too slow.</p>

<p>Unless you already have a dedicated copying setup, then using a DSLR for flat copying is going to be a steep learning curve and involve investment in lights and some sort of camera support. This could easily exceed the cost of a scanner. Yes, a DSLR probably would be quicker on a copy-by-copy basis, but you'll have to set up the copy station square and true and flatten the artwork under glass or somehow else. This is all taken care of automatically by a flatbed scanner.</p>

<p>If you go the flatbed scanner route, make sure that you get one using CCD technology, and <em>not</em> CIS. CCD scanners have a separate light source underneath the glass platen, so they're easily recognised. These days the light source is often a LED array, doing away with the warm-up time that's needed with a fluorescent tube. See: http://www.canon.com/technology/canon_tech/explanation/scan.html</p>

<p>Epson and Canon both offer such scanners for around $150 (£90 UK) or less. My personal preference would be for Canon. Simply because Canon are a little more honest with the specification of their products - for example not using phrases like "True Optical Resolution" and then quoting a figure that's ridiculously exaggerated.</p>

<p>1. Photographing photos, negatives or slides with your D90 will require even and color-balanced lighting, as well as avoiding reflections. This may not be straightforward, depending on your equipment, patience, and experience.<br /> <br /> 2. Even a low cost flatbed scanner, for example, the CanonScan LIDE 120 (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1065673-REG/canon_9622b002aa_canoscan_lide_120_color.html"><strong>link</strong></a>) will give you very good results with documents and photos. You can scan several small photos simultaneously to save time.<br /> <br /> 3. If many of your documents come in standard paper sizes and are in good condition, a scanner with an automatic paper feeder will save you a lot of time. A Fujitsu S1500 has given me very good results for this, but the current model numbers appear to be different. Depending on the condition of your photos, you may also be able able to scan them in this kind of scanner, although the photo quality may not be as high as with a flatbed. I looked into this a while ago for someone on p.net, but can't find that right now.<br /> <br /> 4. If you have negatives and slides, the choices are more complicated, beginning with the need to pass light through the media. One reasonably priced possibility is the Epson Perfection V550 (<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/985630-REG/epson_b11b210201_perfection_v550_photo_scanner.html"><strong>link</strong></a>) a flatbed scanner which would do all right for the negs and slides, and a great job on your documents and photos. You could also use your D90 with the right setup or, better, a dedicated film scanner, but these can get expensive.<br /> <br /> Good luck. You can also send your materials out to be scanned if you're comfortable with that.<br /> (I see that Rodeo Joe provided some generally similar answers while I was typing.)</p>

<p>For some offset-printed stuff, though, a scanner can introduce a heck of a lot of moire.</p>

<p>I've had things I needed to scan that I just went ahead and photographed instead.</p>

<p>Buy a good used scanner, scan the stuff, resell the scanner.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

Scanning would be easier. But rephotographing via

a copy stand can help minimize some flaws, dust,

etc. Lights can be adjusted, which isn't possible

with scanners. It can also help to gel the lights

with polarizers, although those aren't ready to

find now.

 

I've been rephotographing some of my older

prints, mostly larger prints. But I plan to try a

better flatbed for the thousands of old family

photos, most of which are small b&w contact

prints.

<p>Scanning takes time but is quite flexible. One main advantage would be the automated dust removal via the infrared channel. FWIW, I use a Coolscan 5000 with Vuescan in a Mac setting.</p>

<p>I have a Canon LiDE 210 scanner that does an excellent job and fairly fast. It's less than $100 US.</p>

<p>I tried using a D90 as a scanner for prints and I was never able to beat the quality of my Canon LidI scanner. Learning curve and setup will take time, I'm sure you "could" equal the quality with enough effort and the right setup, but I would recommend using a scanner. The scanner is slower, but the quality better.</p>

 

<p>We use an inexpensive flatbed scanner, run it with Vuescan. You can set things up for various parameters, save init files for each task.</p>

<p>As an example, our grandkids made us some Christmas cards, very nicely done, their sketches transposed on photo paper. I first took some snaps with an Iphone (I know, not exactly a Nikon dslr), then disheartened by the highlight glare, uneven lighting, etecetera, I fired up the scanner and took the time to do it right.</p>

<p>I have an Epson XP-850 printer/scanner. It produces superb copies of monochrome and colour prints. However, the model is fairly expensive compared to some others. So is the ink.<br>

Sometimes I use a camera, either a D700 with a macro lens, or a Fuji digital compact on the macro setting. The latter performs very well indeed. Others have identified problems with lighting and keeping the print flat. Although I have a proper copy stand, I don't usually resort to it. I put a 'lowish' table under a window on a grey day, ie even light, and stand on the room side. If the print is not flat, I hold it down with blobs of blue tack, or invisible tape at the edges.<br>

Standing over the table/print, it is not difficult to get the image square, but there is no problem in taking several shots and selecting the best one. Since the light is coming from the other direction, there are not shadow issues. I usually take the picture beyond the edges of the print. I then import into Lightroom. That gives the opportunity to size the copy, adjust contrast and colour, etc. Indeed, I have substantially improved on some originals without making them look artificial.</p>

 

<p>Rodeo Joe and Hector + whatever.<br>

because of problems of lens distortion, set up sensitivity to everything being 'true' and myriad other variables, flat stuff is much better done on a decent scanner - for this level of scanning, available for very low cost (even some excellent ones for under $200). By the time you got the stuff together to use a camera (macro/copy lens, stand, lighting, and lots more), you'd spend a more on doing it with a dSLR</p>

<p>About the only benefit of the camera method is speed.</p>

<p>However, this seemingly minor issue should not be underestimated. </p>

<p>I've met quite a few people who have not completed a project because of the seemingly very slow progress made using a flatbed scanner.</p>

<p>Both methods are much quicker if the subject matter is same-size, like 6 x 4 postcards, so no reframing is needed. A camera set-up can do one every 3 seconds or even faster if you have a loader. That's 20 per minute. The sharpest lens aperture, say 5.6/8 of a 50mm macro, will have a DoF well in excess of the depth of subject, so refocusing is not necessary.</p>