Which scanner for old family photos - Mac

[bmichel]

One of my much delayed retirement projects is to scan and organize our family photos. This would be mostly for

archival purposes along with having better organization than boxes. In some cases there are only prints (mostly

4x6) and in other cases I have the 35mm film only. I am only looking for something that would produce reasonably

good results considering that most of the photos are not of good quality. If I find something exceptional, I

could get it professionally scanned.

 

Simultaneously, I have a strong urge to replace my old Windows XP system with a Macintosh to support my digital

work. I now have a Canoscan 4200f which is not supported for Macintosh and is probably of marginal quality for

these purposes. The scanner would also be used for the normal home office stuff. Price would be a consideration.

 

I expect to have the necessary software to support my current digital work, so lots of built-in adjustment

capabilities for the scanner or bundled software goodies would not be a determinant. Features that would speed

up the process would be most welcome.

[User_503771]

First off, I think I should emphasize that scanning for archival purposes is a two-edged sword. No hard drive will last forever; and CDs and DVDs, while more stable, also don't yet have the shelf life that they should. If you're going to store things digitally, be ready to duplicate all of your CDs and DVDs on a regular basis, say every 5-10 years.

 

Therefore, I'd recommend making sure that your original photos and negatives are stowed correctly because they'll last much longer than current digital materials. Perhaps you could have the photos duplicated so that you have negatives, and have prints made from the negatives that you don't have photos for.

 

Regarding XP as opposed to Macintosh -- if you have experience using a Mac and prefer it, yes, go ahead. But if not, why go to the extra expense, including replacing all your software? The software these days is virtually identical from one platform to the other and color handling is now done to a universal standard, so the choice of model of computer is really a matter of taste rather than technology. Of course, user comfort is an important consideration -- I don't wish to hype one over the other. I just want to indicate that you can do everything you want with either platform. The most important differences will show up when comparing a slower computer with a faster one.

 

Regarding scanners: My own best experience thus far has been with the Epson 4870, a flatbed. Yes, it's not current -- in fact, it might even be discontinued! -- but even buying a refurbished one from Epson, I've gotten terrific results with it, even from 35mm negatives.

 

Recently I bought and had rebuilt a Nikon LS4000, which scans only 35mm negatives. This gives better overall quality than the Epson because it's a dedicated film scanner, but the difference isn't as great as I expected. So, if you're not going for the super-ultimate in quality, or to make huge enlargements, you might be thoroughly happy with something like the 4870 or 4990 (which do show up occasionally new in box, or refurbished with warranty) or perhaps with something from the current crop of Epsons.

 

By the way, I like the Epson scan software. For more features, I really like Vuescan, which is really powerful and very inexpensive (hamrick.com). But the Epson software just works really well with minimal "supervision" and the scanner itself is pretty fast.

 

One place to look for good in-depth hands-on scanner reviews is www.photo-i.co.uk . The guy who runs that site really puts the scanners through their paces and shows lots of examples of what he's talking about. It was his work that got me familiar with the various scanner models, and helped me whittle my choice down to either a certain Epson or a certain Canon -- I ended up finding a more-powerful Epson at the reduced, refurbished price, and it's still here and working flawlessly a couple of years later.

 

One more thing about the computer question you pose: Before making a final decision about your computer, go through it and make up a list of all the software, of any kind, that you have and use. Then, figure on replacing all of it and jot down a ball-park figure for how much that would cost you, for each program. I find that to be a rather sobering exercise. Maybe you just need to upgrade the computer itself, which would most likely be a far less expensive proposition.

 

Hope this helps.

[Ed_Ingold]

Most flatbed scanners, costing as little as $80, will do an adequate job scanning prints. You don't need super-high resolution - 300 to 600 ppi will suffice. The color performance can be significantly improved if you calibrate (profile) the scanner. Silverfast AI is available for many flatbed scanners and includes IT8 calibration targets and software. At about $100, Silverfast is well worth the money for a scanning project such as yours, and for other reasons too. The human interface of low-end scanning software can be very frustrating - defaults are not updated, too many input steps, etc. Silverfast is a mature product with good ergonomics.

 

The results of scanning film, particularly 35mm, with a flatbed will be disappointing. The color, resolution and dust control are poorly executed. A dedicated film scanner, like a Nikon LS-50 (Coolscan V) costs about $500 and does a superb job on film, and is much simpler to feed and adjust.

[peter_berger]

You want a Fujitsu ScanSnap. Small desktop profile, works on Mac and Windows, super-fast, gives nice results on old

photos, and comes with an awesome set of software. It's NOT a flatbed scanner, but a feed scanner, but as long as your

photos aren't literally falling apart, it should work fine.

 

It's comparatively expensive. It's also worth it.

[JeffOwen]

I too have the Canon 4200f and consider it more than adequate for what you want to do. I use mine on a pc with XP direct into PhotoShop. I did not know that it might not work with a Mac, it might be worthwhile contacting Canon to see if there are drivers available.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I would recommednd an inexpensice flatbed for prints, and a dedicated film scanner for your 35mm film. The Nikon V is excellent for about $500. For twice that amount, you can get a Nikon Coolscan 5000, which is faster and has an auto loader accessory available.

[steven_clark]

I'm a fanboy, so I'm going to have to say Epson. Really though the Epson software is quite powerful for working with reflected materials like prints and text as long as you're in Professional mode. It's actually good enough that I use it OVER Vuescan when I'm not scanning film. I've heard complaints about HP software these days but someone else will have to verify that. Epson also makes a point on keeping on the good side of Apple users, and in a worst case scenario there will always be SOME support for Epson scanners even if it's through SANE or Vuescan because Epson doesn't keep their hardware protocols a secret like many of their competitors.

[bmichel]

Thanks to all for your help. A good alternative considering the relatively small number of photos for which I have 35mm negatives and not prints would seem to be to get them printed by a high quality lab and then scan the prints. That would cost me a lot less than $500. These are memories, not art. A bigger part of my time will be spent working out good descriptions and dates.

 

Thanks, Michael, for the in-depth ideas.

 

I now have to face the PC vs. Mac as well as the LR vs. Aperture, etc. conundrums.