Photographers' Advice Wanted: Digitalizing Family Photos with Professional Scanning Services?

<p>Hi all - first, sorry if I got the wrong subforum - please feel free to move this thread if it's not in the right place.<br /> <br /> I'm considering options for digitizing my family photos. I have, sitting in boxes in my closet, thousands of printed photos going back to my childhood. Several years back, I started scanning these prints with my own scanner, but after weeks of labor I found the task too insurmountable. Moreover, I realized that for all the time I was spending on these photos, I should use the best scanner possible. I came to the realization that it would probably be overall most efficient to have the job done professionally. It would cost a lot of money, but cost less in time, and most importantly, the resulting digital photos might hopefully be better quality than if I had done them myself.<br /> <br /> However, from looking at current professional scanning options, I'm not that impressed by the choices. Based on my research, it seems like ScanCafe is the best rated and most popular company. However, from looking at their website, I noticed that for scanning prints, this professional service uses a $120 scanner (now discontinued):<br /> <br /> http://www.scancafe.com/scanning-quality/equipment<br /> <br /> Also, they give you JPGs, unless you pay significantly extra for TIFFs (speaking of which, why do people like TIFF more than PNG, when both are lossless formats and TIFF have such larger file sizes?). When you add on all the "pro" options you want for your pictures, you end up paying close to $1 per photo instead of $0.22 per photo advertised, and I have also heard they try to get you to pay $10 per photo to have certain photos restored. I wonder if, in a few years from now, there will be better options, both in terms of quality and price?<br /> <br /> Today, my photos are still in storage, and I am trying to decide whether it's better to have them scanned already to avoid any further deterioration and information loss of the prints, or if it's better to wait a bit longer for the technology to improve before I spend $1000+ on this investment. I would be sad if I invested my savings into this project today, only to find out that in a few years, companies are using better scanners (what if tomorrow brings "HDR" scanners or something?) and using better algorithms for dust/scratch removal, color restoration, etc. Should I wait for the superior technology to come, possibly with the ability to undo any photo deterioration that occurs while I wait?<br /> <br /> Thank you for your thoughts!</p>

<p>Scan Cafe sends your things to be scanned to India. Doesn't mean they don't do good work and aren't reliable. It just means they are bundled and sent en masse to India. A good and reasonable service here in the U.S. is www.digmypics.com in Arizona. They did a smaller but similar project for my brother and he was very pleased and thought he got good value. Good luck!</p>

<p>You've pretty much covered it all. Scanning slides and photos is excruciatingly boring, even if they are your own family pictures. At one time I was planning to start a business doing just that (there can be big money in it), but I realized I didn't want to spend all my time scanning photos of somebody else's kids at Disneyland. Much better to be poor.</p>

<p>Anyway, I have explored some of the online scanning services and spent many, many hours scanning myself and discovered that you will do a much better job if you just do it yourself, no matter how awful it is. Most of the online services will do a few scans for free and I've compared the samples to my own work. No comparison. My work is much better. No surprise because I take the time to scan each image carefully, but the professional services just run the slides or photos through an automated process. They simply can't afford the time to do it right and still make a profit. </p>

<p>As far as now or later is concerned, I would say now. Your images are deteriorating as I write this and will get worse and worse over time. I don't foresee any big improvements in scanning technology coming either. In fact, some of the really good film scanners have been discontinued and there are no replacements available. Once I'm done with my slides, I'm going to sell my Nikon film scanner at a profit. Besides, the current scanning technology can read more data than exists in your images anyway.</p>

<p>With all that said, I'm almost done scanning the 2,000 or so 35mm slides in my closet and it's a great feeling. It's only taken me about 20 years!</p>

<p>Sorry I can't be more positive. That's just the way it is. Why don't you set up your flatbed scanner and just do a few every evening until you're done? A couple of beers can help. </p>

 

<p>You can get professional scans made that are much better than most people are able to do at home. The problems are that if they're putting the time in to get a great, colour-corrected scan they will be and need to be expensive. And that the high quality route may well not be geared up to deal with thousands of images, even if you're prepared to pay what they charge.</p>

<p>The bottom end of the market, aiming for volume at a low cost/price- is going to give you variable results because they're not charging enough to apply lots of QA . Its probably the case that Scancafe are using a cheap scanner for prints because there's a limited amount of data in a commercial print - too small to bet on making significantly enlarged prints from a scan- and frankly a cheap scanner can quite probably pull out pretty much everything that's still there. Pity you don't have the negatives. They'd scan much better, have a much wider range of uses, large & small.</p>

<p>I would not do what you're doing. I don't have the patience and I'd consider it a waste of time. I'd scan when I needed scans for a particular purpose and not until. But if you are going to do it, consider making a selection of the best stuff- maybe a hundred or two - enough to trigger memories but stopping just this side of terminally boring- and make or buy in decent quality scans that could fuel a website, or a coffee-table book, as well as responding to the inevitable family requests for pictures of x or y. The really destructive thing about scanning entire collections is the certain knowledge that 90% -maybe more - of the effort and/or money you're putting in is wasted. So don't do that 90%</p>

<p>I'm no scanning expert. - All I know: it takes time. - I also know: it takes even more time if you are inexperienced. - If Scancafe's claim of 3minute postprocessing per picture is true: the poor kid on the job either earns less than $4/h or they use slow PCs and multitask. - I got a scanning service provider rambling and heard he runs up to 4 PCs & scanners simultanously. <br>

I'm not sure how bad the Epsons used there really are. - Did you read reviews claiming either them or Scancafe's service to be bad? - I'm recalling that flatbed bashing focused on film scans, but the conclusion of it was like "get an Epson and shoot up to 2 formats bigger than you'd need for a wet darkroom print, to compensate for lack of resolution." - Which is in the 2000ppi range. - 600ppi from a half decent flatbed sound more than believable. <br>

I wouldn't mind JPGs as end results. - They are a nice format to wire images. - The TIFF benefit kicks in when you open edit safe, sleep rinse and repeat on yesterday's result. - JPGs suffer only from re-writing.<br /> Another TIFF benefit: there is a 16 bit version which grants 256 different shades per channel even after spreading the histogram during PP. - With an 8bit JPG you loose half tones if you mess with contrast. <br>

Your scanner from years ago is it in the same range as the Epson you are worried about? - I only had a 50 Euro supermarket flatbed to be wired to my LPT port and results were horrible, especially considering that I had no color management. <br>

An alternative approach would be to take pictures of the stored pictures with a copystand and 2 speedlights form 45°. - I suppose you'll get 120 shots per hour done, once that rig is set up. 200/h is somewhat possible. - Issue(s) you'd just digitize what you have, no corrections / enhancements done yet + you need a good macro lens on a decent camera to rival the 8MP Scancafe are generating. - Storage needs for RAW files would be bigger. - That matters in the long run; I suppose you need a new storage HDD every 2.5 years. <br>

I don't know how the world is going to evolve further. - I assume the standards of living will get more equal i.e. the 2 of us will earn efectively less and the Asians the same or more in our eyes. = have the stuff scanned now.<br>

Technology might improve a bit but: Is there a significant mass market justifying optimized scanners? - I'd doubt. - What we'd need to do your job cheaper would be a digital process camera with an automated feeder. The odds that anybody builds it are low. - Somewhat reliabele feeders got developed before WW2, but when I look at the various modern toys for short runs at work it appears the knowledge got lost or the concepts of the past are unsellable expensive now. <br>

Scancafe and the like will prefer to stick to cheap labor on low tech. - This makes them more flexible than the opposite approch.- Machinery needs to run to pay off. <br>

Software might improve even further but I am already impressed by Picasa's "I feel lucky" button as it is. And I have no clue what it might take to automate spotting and fixing of scratches to run such software blindfoldedly. - Maybe somebody who understands the challenge can elaborate on the odds.<br>

To summarize: Scancafe's service looks solid to me. Their 5k scans $1100 offer could be rivaled with a full week spent just photographing these original pictures and leaving them unfixed until you feel an urge to do anything to them. (I have no clue if Picasa allows batch actions or if there is a similar reliable automated process for color corrections) The latter doesn't figure in gear cost.</p>

<p>Sending the bulk work to those cheap places that have cheap labor and auto everything is OK for,well, bulk work but don't fool around for the more important images. This place has done great work for affordable prices... <br /><br /> http://www.dijifi.com/<br /><br />http://www.yelp.com/biz/dijifi-brooklyn</p>

<p>Excellent results from ScanCafe here. Scanning prints will yield much lower quality than scanning originals (slides or negs). Not sure why lossy JPEGs are an issue when you're scanning prints. Whenever I read about ScanCafe in a forum, that the work is done in India is usually mentioned as a disadvantage. I don't think this can be supported by actual experience. ScanCafe is superb in terms of telling you exactly where your work is in the processing chain. With a good scanner (I have an Epson for which I paid a few hundred dollars; might be a 730 or 750 -- it's downstairs and I don't feel like running down and looking), your scan of a print will be as good as anyone in the world can make it.</p>

<p>I undertook a similar project and found it to be a labor of love. My mother was the photographer in my family as I was growing up. She shot 127 black and white film. I had many boxes of her photos after my parents passed. I was and still am the photographer in my family as my kids were growing up. I scanned my mother's black and white snapshots and my color slides and some black and white negatives. The project took me over a year. I used a Nikon Coolscan 5000 for the slides and an Epson 4990 for my mother's prints. <br /> What I would give today to have a conversation with my relatives captured in those snapshots my mother took, or to have my kids once again be toddlers. Here's the nice secret about doing a project like this. Yes, scanning is meticulous. But while you are scanning, your relatives speak to you. You relive your time spent with parents, relatives, and your kids. And when the project is complete, I have in front of me those people that meant and mean the most to me today. I have over 1000 scanned images in my family folder. I always enjoy looking at them, although some images make me sad. <br /> I'm 62 now and shoot mostly digital. I no longer scan unless I shoot the occasional roll of remaining slide film. I enjoy photographing my grandson. However, my scanned family images are the ones I cherish the most. <br /> My suggestion: put on some music, scan the pictures yourself, and revisit your family while scanning. You'll find yourself wishing the project never ends. Ignore the clock and calendar; enjoy the memories. <br /> Jerry</p>

<p>Why not just pace yourself and so gradually finish the job? If you did 10/day how long would it actually take, 6-12 months? At least you'd know the job was done right and you also wouldn't be worried about someone's carelessness destroying your prints. </p>

<p>It really depends on how much time you can put into it. It could take years or decades... you might never finish it!</p>

<p>Scanning technology is mature and Your prints are not getting any better with time, so scan them. I would try to get the film negatives and scan those with film scanner, as it yields much better results. But if negatives are not available, source must be prints. Get a own scanner and do the process in small parts over time. Get suitable Epson ( one with nice photo restoration software features ) or Canon 9000 ( superior resolution for negatives for flatbed ) scanner. The source is prints, so it is perfectly sensible to scan directly to jpeg and avoid massive file sizes. Experiment if scanning to AdobeRGB color profile gives any advantage in colors over sRGB. SRGB should be good enough and compatible everywhere.</p>

<p>In practice, You allready have a scanner, use that. Limit print scanning resolution to 600dpi and recieve somewhat faster operation. If You are sure that You are not going to make enlargements of the prints, even 300dpi might be enough.</p>

<p>Here in Finland someone made her engineer thesis of scanning and restoration of old prints. It should be available online at Theseus. I read it, also You might be interested. It reminds how extensive restorative operations might get and 10$ per restorated image might just make sense.</p>

 

<p>People may disagree with my claims, but here they are:</p>

<p>Can a cheap Epson scanner do a good job of a small paper print, such that you can duplicate the print with the same color quality and resolution in the same size? Yeah, probably. There's certainly no harm in using a better scanner if you have it.</p>

<p>Will we ever have "better" scanners? We might have faster scanners (and computers and interfaces), but more resolution is generally not needed, and many (most? all?) of Epson's scanners can essentially outresolve the color information in any printed image, which isn't hard. Prints don't actually have much dynamic range. There will never be an HDR scanner, because HDR isn't necessary in a scan. In fact it would degrade the image. So I agree with Tuomas: Scanner technology is mature. It has been for quite a long time. In fact my scanner, an Epson V700, was introduced in 2007. I bought mine used in 2013, when it was still available new. It was discontinued this year (?) and replaced by the V800, which is a bit faster, but not much better. (The V700 is already a superb scanner.) That's not much change in almost a decade. Incidentally, the V700 is gross overkill for scanning paper prints. The reason I have it is for scanning negatives larger than 35mm.</p>

<p>Is a jpeg adequate for what you're doing? If you're going to do a lot of heavy restorative work, it's better better to start with a 16 bit TIFF, which will give you the "headroom" that you will need to get a better end result. Your final product can probably be a jpeg, unless the image is super special and destined for a large print. For most purposes (e.g. 4x6 snapshots), jpegs are fine. A jpeg will give you 8 bits of color information in compressed format. This color depth works reasonably well within the dynamic range afforded by a paper print. You won't start with more dynamic range than an 8 bit jpeg can handle, and if you print out your digital file, you'll be fine. The results will look good.</p>

<p>The scanning charge of $1 and the restoration charge of $10 is pretty cheap. I don't know what quality of work they do. I couldn't/wouldn't do that work for anywhere near that price, but then I'd be spotting dust and dirt, healing scratches, and such. Heck, if they're willing to engage in such drudgery that cheaply, they can have the work! But for a quality restoration job on a photo that really matters to you, I would suggest using someone else's services. You really can't expect much for $10. I guess what I'm recommending is to set aside the really special images for more careful work. The casual snapshots can go off to India. (That said, I'd be nervous about shipping my paper prints off anywhere, especially overseas. I'd far rather give the work to someone local -- less chance of loss.)</p>

<p>With any large project, look to simplify.</p>

<p>I would first sort the photos by year or at least by decade if unsorted and not in albums.</p>

<p>I would then go through them and pick the ones you really, really want to share with your family.</p>

<p>A $100 Epson or Canon flatbed scanner will do fine. Just like photography, the ability of the person who scans is very important. I have about 10,000 scans on my inexpensive Epson scanner and find its quality is great for prints.</p>

<p>By lowering the number of photos to scan you can take time to practice and the project won't seem insurmountable.</p>

Why do you want to scan

your thousands of photos?

You already have the

prints. Just select the

ones you want to save and

insert then in photo

albums like the good old

days.

<p>I can only support Jerry/Gerald's story in the above!<br>

Re-living the family-past through negatives/positives/prints is an extraordinary thing - even more so whilst scanning the material your self. If it is too much in volume, start by making some sort of selection. This will make it somewhat less of a job you may perceive as never being able to accomplish in full.<br>

But don't miss out the fun of seeing your scans develop on your computer!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Started out to reply to this topic and may have gotten carried away. This may not apply to everyone, but here are some principles I am following for my own family photo scanning project. Fortunately I am retired and have the time to do this. </p>

<ol>

<li>My time focus is 10, 20 + years out. My target audience at the moment is, say, my grandchildren; and I have great-grandchildren. Along the way, my kids will have an interest of course. And they probably have their own tons of photos and/or digital images. </li>

<li>Cull, cull, cull. Will this picture/slide, etc. (as a digital image) be of any interest or meaningful at all to someone in 20 years? Is the quality and subject matter of the photo worth fooling with?</li>

<li>99% of my scanned photos have people in them. I have generally not bothered with scenery, beautiful vistas, etc. They can get that from the internet. </li>

<li>I am only scanning print photos and have discarded negatives, slides, etc. Too much work. Tough.</li>

<li>I do not intend to make future paper prints from the digital images I have created. The future is digital. </li>

<li>Thus, I scan at only 300 dpi. And they are all JPG. Tough. </li>

<li>I have retained the print photos that I have scanned; they are now in 3-ring pocket binder pages in their respective albums (generally the albums from which the print photo came from originally). So, if someone down the line wants to do something different with the print photo, they will be around. If my heirs preserve them. And if they want a coffee table book, they can have at it. I did the hard part.</li>

<li>Scanning the photo is only part of the job! Identifying the who, where, and when, and perhaps background info for the photo takes at least as much time. Without context identification, the images will only be a mystery to those 20 years hence. For many of my family of origin photos, I am the only one who can make the identification. So, sending the prints out to a scanning service will still require me to identify and organize the digital images (otherwise they are just a batch of unknown digital photos). </li>

<li>I get better scanning results from a stand-alone scanner (Epson V37) than from my All-in-One printer/scanner. I use Vuescan as my scanning program; it is less confusing than the native Epson software. Whatever cropping, adjusting, etc. I want to do is done within the VueScan dialog. </li>

<li>My filename convention begins each file with the year of the photo. This keeps the files in chronological order. 20 years from now, few will care about month and date. A typical file name is: 1985 John P. Doe @ the Beach. Don’t be too profligate with the file names and nesting of folders; computers have limits on the number of characters allowed in a folder/file path (something around 260 characters grand total).</li>

<li>I use IrfanView as my manipulation program and enter data in (only) a few metadata IPTC fields: Document Title, Author, Caption, Keywords. The Caption field is where I make sure to enter the Where info and other context. My Windows Search Index keeps track of the metadata, so that one can use an ordinary search function to find a particular item in, say, the caption or keywords. </li>

<li>I have to be conscious of the format that a current and/or future digital viewer may wish to employ. There are Mac people, Windows people, iPad, Galaxy Tab, and sundry others. I try to be as universal as possible. </li>

<li>When I have entered the Caption, I copy and paste it into a MS Word template for Avery peel & stick labels. The printed paper label will go on the back of the original print photo, and will be in sync with its digital counterpart.</li>

<li>Backup, backup, backup. I use external hard drives and USB sticks. The USB stick is kept in the same manila folder as my Last Will & Testament. (Year 2025: “anyone know where Dad kept those family photos he talked about?”)</li>

<li>When I am finished, I plan to postal mail a small USB stick with the relevant images to each of my (5) children and (9) grandchildren. In a padded envelope. </li>

</ol>

<p>Sorry to run on so long, hope some of that will be helpful! </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Experiment if scanning to AdobeRGB color profile gives any advantage in colors over sRGB. SRGB should be good enough and compatible everywhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You'd need an Adobe RGB color space monitor to see an advantage of Adobe RGB. At least, that is what engineers have told me. Adobe RGB might do wonders for scans of Kodachrome film, but I've never been able to see it on my iMac.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There will never be an HDR scanner, because HDR isn't necessary in a scan. In fact it would degrade the image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking high quality scans of film may already be HDR, but gamma 2.2 hides it. I'm not sure. But why else can I bring out hidden detail in shadows, and sometimes highlights, in the scans of my film, and have to mask?</p>

<p>I am impressed with the app Pic Scanner. I was frustrated with the slog of scanning photos with my HP and cropping with Photoshop. Put the app on iPhone 6S and have scanned almost 1,200 photos so far. Their App Store page (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/pic-scanner-batch-scan-old/id644278663?mt=8) suggests scanning four pictures at a time, which the app detects, crops and saves individually. But I prefer scanning one at a time, which gives much higher resolution. Getting automatic cropping took a bit of practice, but turned out to be a big time saver. The app includes some basic editing features, as well as the facility to add filters and captions, and social media integration for online sharing of photos. Albums can also be created within the app, but a shortcoming is that albums and captions cannot be exported (I contacted the developer who assured me that this will be addressed soon). For its $2.99 sticker price, I found Pic Scanner a bargain. The Quick Start Guide on their website www.picscannerapp.com is a bit skinny but useful.</p>

<p>I'm particularly interested in scanning 35mm slides, but need to digitize other media as well. I registered with photo.net, because I was so impressed with your forums prompt response to Ethan's request. Having made a fairly exhausting, if not exhaustive search of my options, I've spent countless hours researching and come to a couple of conclusions. Even though their work seems superior, I can't afford to have all my slides processed at http://www.dijifi.com/. Having said that, my desire to have the best possible final product is hampered by my limited knowledge, and more importantly, my unwillingness to compromise on quality. To that end, I've read lots about scanner hardware, software, their limitations, and best practices. I'm not averse to sending them offshore to be processed, but have concluded that the best work can be done stateside, but is currently out of my budget.<br>

<strong>1. </strong>Not being a professional, I was impressed with the free information: <strong>How To Scan Slide Negatives Photos Into High-Resolution Digital Images</strong>, found at <a href="http://howtoscan.ca/">http://howtoscan.ca/</a>. Yes, he does have a product for sale, but I found it a very nominal amount. He addressed my concerns about quality, something that others seem to see as only a minor consideration.<br>

<strong>2. </strong>I also read <strong>Why I'm Not Using the Online Scanning Services</strong> at <a title="What I think about that" href="https://rknisely.wordpress.com/" rel="home">What I think about that</a><br>

blog <a href="https://rknisely.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/why-im-not-using-the-online-scanning-services/">https://rknisely.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/why-im-not-using-the-online-scanning-services/</a><br>

<strong>3. </strong> I read <strong>The Best Photo Scanning Service </strong>at the Wirecutter.com. The website comes with a disclaimer, something that I found completely acceptable: The Wirecutter (and <a href="http://thesweethome.com/">The Sweethome</a>) is a list of the best gadgets and gear for people who quickly want to know what to get. When readers choose to buy our editorial picks, we earn affiliate commissions that support our work. Here is an explanation of <a href="http://thewirecutter.com/hello-how-to-use-the-wirecutter/">exactly what we do</a> and <a href="http://thewirecutter.com/how-to-support-the-wirecutter/">how to support our work</a>.<br>

<a href="http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-photo-scanning-service/">http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-photo-scanning-service/</a><br>

As for my countless thousands of digital photographs, I want every bit of EXIF data attached to them. I care very much about the time, date and geo-tags. Managing all these images can be a challenge. Unfortunately, while photographing in the wilderness, I took a town day to upload almost 90 gigabytes of photos to an online site that didn't save the EXIF data and compressed the files, forever losing the original image size. Have I taken many photos that are good enough to grace a billboard? Perhaps not, but I'm confident that many of them are good enough to reproduce as life-size portraits or landscapes hanging over mantels.<br>

I have no affiliation with the three websites that I've linked to, but I sincerely hope that some of you will take the time to briefly peruse their content, so as to see where I'm coming from. Scanning the slides myself, seems like the only option for the moment, although I must admit to a burning desire to post this message and immediately go count the 35mm slides that need to be digitized most urgently. Perhaps I could send a test batch off for optimal scanning and correction, to be used for comparison to any 35mm slides that I scan and edit on my own.</p>

<p>Thank you, for your time. I'm looking forward to your comments,<br>

JW Sikes</p>

<p>We are a new business that provides digital scanning services to the US. We offer free shipping as well. What makes us unique is that we are a small family owned business. The person you talk to on the phone is the same person that handles your precious memories. There is no sending your family legacy to some photo farm full of low paid employees that don't truly care.<br /> <br /> We provide photo, slide, and document scanning. Additionally, we can scan photo albums if images are stuck to the pages.<br>

<br /> Beyond that, we upload your images to Drive where the exif data can be stored forever with the image. Things like the date, location, heck the story itself behind the image. Also, facial recognition can make it super easy to find every image of "someone" with a click.<br /> <br />Find us at <a href="https://www.foto2digital.com">https://www.foto2digital.com</a></p>