Community Newsletter: Q&A: What is the fastest and best method to scan photos into a computer?
- 9/29/08 10:23 AM
What is the fastest and best method to scan photos into a computer?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 9/29/08 10:23 AM
Question:
What is the best way to scan photos at home if I have hundreds and don't want to stand over a flatbed scanner all day long? I am thinking of starting a small business, but I want something that can do a little volume with a little speed, and I have found document scanners aren't set up well for photos and offer lesser quality even at similar resolutions. I can spend a little money on a decent option, but I don't want to drop a ton of money on it either. Help?
--Submitted by J. Lang
Here are some featured member answers to get you started, but please read up on all the advice and suggestions that our members have contributed to this member's question.
Best way to scan photo --Submitted by Watzman
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=309019&messageID=2862146#2862146
What is the fastest and best method to scan --Submitted by SCosgrove
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=309019&messageID=2863138#2863138
I discovered a great scanner --Submitted by bdaleday
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=309019&messageID=2862561#2862561
Bulk photo scanning --Submitted by Zouch
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=309019&messageID=2862254#2862254
Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50 --Submitted by DavidSSutton
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-10149_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=309019&messageID=2862095#2862095
If you have any additional advice or recommendations for J. Lang, please click on the reply link and submit it. Please be as detailed as possible in your answers. Thanks!
Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50
by DavidSSutton - 9/19/08 4:15 PM In reply to: What is the fastest and best method to scan photos into a computer? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
It was the subject of a David Pogue column in the Aug. 13 NY Times, at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/14/technology/personaltech/14pogue.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=scan%20photos%20to%20digital%20%20David%20Pogue&st=cse&oref=slogin
Scan My Photos
by mcsue - 9/19/08 5:27 PM In reply to: Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50 by DavidSSuttonI have used this service and was very, very satisfied. One option is that they will send you a prepaid box that you can fill with as many photos as it will hold (in our case 2100, with careful stacking)for a very reasonable price. I shopped for local options first and nobody came even close to this price--it was double, triple or more locally. The end result was remarkably good, as well as surprisingly fast. I opted not to pay them to turn them all the same way on the photo disk and to allow them to scan in random order; for my purposes this was fine. The only bad part is shipping off precious photos and worrying that something will happen to them en route.There is some risk there.
It sounds, however, like the questioner is thinking of starting a business that involves photo scanning. If that is the case, Scan My Photos might still be an option to consider--pay them to do the work.
ScanMyPhotos has a lot of fine print
by legohead1 - 10/4/08 8:37 PM In reply to: Scan My Photos by mcsueHow do you allow a company to mix up thousands of family pictures? I mean it'll take a lifetime to reorganize your pics afterward. And then nothing is rotated or anything. And if you have albums, you're supposed to destroy them, remove all the pics, and then have ScanMyPhotos mix 'em all up? And they even have tons of rules on how everything needs to be organized b4 sending.
It is true that the major photo outlets like Walgreens, Ritz and others have exorbitant prices for the same. And I probably wouldn't trust them either with all the traffic in those stores. Employees can't focus on solely on your pics.
There's a place doing albums I heard of - www.thedigitalconvert.com . They have good prices, do all the rotating and keep your stuff organized. They have an interesting slideshow option that'll zoom on each photo so you don't have to take each photo out.
But really, I'd Google for providers in your area. Fact is that your time is money and when you factor in the cost of a scanner, and all the time you'll spend doing the work on your own, it's just worth hiring someone. Flatbeds are not made for this kind of work.
May we suggest you look at our services
by sciregn - 10/5/08 4:27 AM In reply to: ScanMyPhotos has a lot of fine print by legohead1Hi,
Not to intrude but to tell you that our company does specialize in what you are talking about...
If you wish you can have a look at our website or call us and we will be glad to answer all your questions
Thanks
www.saveyouraudiovideo.com
On Site Scanning
by mynond - 10/5/08 8:23 PM In reply to: ScanMyPhotos has a lot of fine print by legohead1We are a small company in Utah that addresses the concerns you have of mailing your photos off to a large company. We go to our client's home and scan their pictures. Their irreplaceable memories never leave their possession. We are also able to organize their photos with their input. We do accept mail in orders for those who don't live close, but our main emphasis is on in home scanning. If you live in Utah, we may be the answer to your concerns. Give us a look at www.FromBoxesToForever.com
scanning your old photos to disc
by rosiemyrosie - 9/21/08 9:40 AM In reply to: Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50 by DavidSSuttonThank you for this great article about the company doing this tedious task.
Is digital really an improvement?
by foxwood farm - 9/26/08 8:18 PM In reply to: Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50 by DavidSSuttonI have mixed thoughts on the wonders of the digital age. I have actual photographs that are over 70 years old and still like new. I have 35mm slides that are 50 years old and again like new. I have read many articles the past few years on the shelf life of home made CDs and I expect the same applies to DVDs. Viruses mess up hard drives, wear causes them to crash. None of these modern devices seem to be a real improvement over the old "hard copy" of my pictures.
Why digital is better overtime.
by Gerard5819 - 9/27/08 3:34 AM In reply to: Is digital really an improvement? by foxwood farmI am one of these people who would like to know if there was a faster way to scan photographs into a pc. The only software I want is one that can tell the difference between landscape and a portray picture. I would prefer to load the picture as they are, because in time software is getting better at repairing old pictures and when I need a hard copy I then can go to work on repairing it as I think it should be. Having the original on file is always the best practices. A lot of editing can be done before the scanning is started. Such as, family, work and business shots all lined up separable. Moreover, on each of them you can use there dates as an index. All that is needed now is a magazine holder for each type of picture size and some type of auto feeder. I was thinking of a small feeder as they use for scanning your lodgement document into the bank, but adapted for cards. If this was designed to be linked to a digital cameras instead of a scanner it would speed up the process and allow any size picture and negative to pass thought. Lighting and auto sizing and position of shots is all that is needed. As I said early on, the rest can be done when needed. The most important thing is getting it into the digital form into your pc.
Digital pictures are made up of pixels that have a number attached to each one, that never changes. Each colour and shade has a number also. Unlike emulsion pictures stored over a long time, they do not fade. The colour and shade is as true as the first day it was taken. Each picture is as true as the printer and paper is capable of producing it. The digital negative if you can use an old meaning does not change in time as does emulsion. Emulsion is a chemical reaction that is still going on and that why it is not suitable for very long storage of pictures. It becomes a guessing game when trying to work out the true colour and shade of an old shot. This is not the case with digital as each colour and shade is recorded and number when first taken. Finding a secure way to store numbers, which is what a digital picture is in the end, is all that is needed. There are many ways to do this now. As to know which is going to last over time, it is clear that a hard copy cannot compete in any way.
scan old photo's
by enigma_mike - 9/27/08 6:52 AM In reply to: Why digital is better overtime. by Gerard5819I have just scanned over a 100 old images to my computer, using a HP Office Jet 5610 all-in-one in conjunction with Corel Paint Shop Pro. Corel Paint Shop Pro ask's if you want your images automatically rotated, which is great and saves loads of time manualy rotating invidual images.
Scan old pictures even if you prefer the old paper format
by suzcomptime - 9/27/08 6:46 AM In reply to: Is digital really an improvement? by foxwood farmIn response to the message about having 70 year old pictures and preferring them. That is fine but since my parents had a house fire right after I moved out many years ago, I would always suggest that people scan those old photos and have an online backup site or have copies of the cd's at your parents or child's home.
My parents lost many of their photos of our childhood vacations, some were salvaged but many lost. Everyone thinks it would never happen to them but seeing pictures of peoples homes after a hurricans, tornado or fire is enough to remind me to backup even my digital photos.
Sue
About catastrophic calamities
by sciregn - 9/27/08 7:03 AM In reply to: Scan old pictures even if you prefer the old paper format by suzcomptimeHi,
You mention the fire at your parents' house.
This is exactly why we supply (as I explain in a message further down) a full duplicate of the external hard disk onto which we scan all images.
Please see below or log onto SaveYourAudioVideo.com
Thanks
Serge Ciregna
mmcsi@attglobal.net
paper vs. digital
by rrrock - 9/27/08 11:58 AM In reply to: Is digital really an improvement? by foxwood farmRegarding foxwood farm's comments on the shelf life of digital media and whatnot, I have to say that the logic doesn't quite pan out. No matter what you do, your paper photos, as well as the negatives from which they were printed, will deteriorate with time to the point at which they are essentially gone. Furthermore, as someone else pointed out, their quality will slowly deteriorate even before they become junk. Your 50 year old photos may be in excellent shape, but they are not as good as the day they were printed. In ten more years, they will be slightly less good.
On the other hand, digital media, no matter how poor the shelf life of CD's, DVD's, or magnetic media may turn out to be, can be backed up indefinitely at very little cost, and because the media is digital, the backup copy is exactly as good as the original, and always will be. If you have a way to back up your hard disk already, as many of us do, all you have to do is keep your photos on your hard disk. If you back it up regularly, you will always have an extra copy. If you are worried about the chance of losing both your primary and backup disks, in a fire say, then you can keep as many CD backups as you want, wherever you want. Again, each backed up copy will be exactly as good as the original copy.
Just a thought.
re mixed thoughts re wonders of the digital age
by bixxo - 9/27/08 2:33 PM In reply to: Is digital really an improvement? by foxwood farmNote to foxwood farm---
Thanks for your observation re "hard copy" pics from olden times are probably as reliable as digitized versions---that was my conclusion as well, so it was nice to read a confirmation.
When you want to send a copy to family/friends one can just scan those in for eMail. Otherwise with a dig camera just start anew creating a digital pic library.
The best of both worlds, keep the old and phase over to the new.
Bixxo, Los Angeles
Scanning Color Negatives
by Fred D L - 9/27/08 1:13 PM In reply to: Don't do it at home. ScanMyPhotos.com will do 1,000 for $50 by DavidSSuttonI have an Epson Perection 4490 PHOTO. It comes with a plastic frame designed to hold various sized negatives. The frame I use holds frames of six 35mm negatives. It scans the negatives into twelve color photos. I have digitized thousands of my 35mm negatives without trouble or faults. All came out in Jpeg format and there has been no problem modifying or printing any of these pictues.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
