Scanner vs. iPhone for capturing old photographs

[convergent]

We have a LOT of old photographs (and negatives) stored in boxes. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of pictures taken with 35mm of my family, and some heirloom photos from extended family that have passed way. Years ago I bought a fairly expensive Epson V750 Pro scanner and tried to star scanning a few times. I frankly haven't had the time to really do it because scanning with a high quality scanner is very slow and time consuming... although the results are very good.

It is much quicker to take pictures of old photographs with my iPhone. What I'm curious about is what is the real quality/resolution difference between using the iPhone vs. scanner... assuming I scanned at 600DPI for example with the scanner (its capable of much higher resolution). I'm at the point of thinking it would be better for me to have them captured by the iPhone vs. procrastinating for another 10 years (or forever) because of the time involved of using the scanner.

Anyone done any comparisons or have any thoughts on this? What apps have you tried on the iPhone?

 

[NorCalLights]

I would absolutley not use an iPhone for this... unless you're going to set up a tripod mount of some sort, just thinking about holding the camera makes my hands hurt. And how will you hold it level? And plus, you'll still need to crop out everything outside of the photo.

I would, instead, get a Fujitsu Scansnap scanner. They scan color at 300dpi, and you just feed the photos through them. Since they feed straight through, the photos won't get bent.

Scansnap scanners aren't the greatest quality photo scanners in the world (they're mostly meant for documents), but they handle objects of differing sizes really really well, and they are very fast.

 

[Squirrel]

I wouldn't recommend a Scansnap. For one, you can't scan negatives with a ScanSnap, and two, if your photos are curled, you run the risk of damaging them in the Scansnap. The flatbed scanner really is the best way to go to keep the photos protected, and you can even scan several photos at once. Scanning software will allow you to scan them all together, yet they will be separate files. If you really want to try taking photos of your photos, you'll want a way to mount your iphone for sure. While I haven't used my iphone, I have used a DSLR on a photo stand. Here is a link to the photo stand that I use. There are smartphone mounts that have a 1/2" screw at the bottom (I have one) and you would attach it to the camera plate. Have a look...d

Alzo Digital Macro Table Top Studio

 

[mildocjr]

For photographs I'd suggest scanning them with a scanner at a high dpi, the color will be more accurate than taking a picture with your phone, this also removes other issues such as gloss glare and having to manually crop the photo afterwards. It's also faster to scan your photos, unless you are a cellphone camera ninja with perfect aim and no glare.

 

[carlgo]

Scanner. Nothing else. Pay a service to do this. They have the mega-buck scanner that does this as best possible. It is an investment and you will be glad you did. You will be unhappy if you do it any other way because it will suck. Don't think it won't or that your results will be ok. They won't be and you will spend half your life getting bad results. You need to save your time for when they are done and you need to fix them up in Lightroom or another photo program. This is not a fast process, but there is no easy or quick alternative. Slides are great though and many of the photos will be terrific.

 

[glenthompson]

For a bunch of old snapshots I used my ScanSnap. Results were acceptable and very quick. A print mad from the scanned image was just barely noticeable as a different image.

 

[phrehdd]

Get a relatively moderate priced scanner. It is a good investment. You don't have to scan your images above 600 dpi. In fact, some restoration folks say 300 dpi is fine. As for me (as this is what I do) use 600 to 1200 dpi on complex restorations but a simple copy - 300 to 600 dpi should be fine. As for colour, this has more to do with software and your monitor. The latter items are a topic unto themselves. Typical scanners include Epson and Canon as the most popular.

 

[filmbufs]

^ This.

But if you're looking for convenience, take it to a place and work out a deal since you have so many images. If you use an iPhone, chances are good your images will be skewed unless you're somehow able to hold it level and parallel. And then there's the glare factor unless you're an expert at lighting. And, of course, they'll be lower res using an iPhone.

 

[phrehdd]

^ This.

But if you're looking for convenience, take it to a place and work out a deal since you have so many images. If you use an iPhone, chances are good your images will be skewed unless you're somehow able to hold it level and parallel. And then there's the glare factor unless you're an expert at lighting. And, of course, they'll be lower res using an iPhone.

Agreed. If you have don't have the time to do it yourself, there are places that will do it for you. I also agree that the iPhone is not the best tool for the job.

As for colour photos - you don't have to be overly concerned with the top of the line as most photo prints are extremely limited in their colour gamut (being reflective art as it were) and easily captured by a decent scanner or better quality "real" camera with a flat field lens.

 

[mic j]

Glare off any type of glossy photograph is hard to control using an iPhone to copy a photo. Scanner (or service) is the way to goal.

 

[robgendreau]

Sorta depends on what you wanna do with 'em. I prefer a service (like digmypics) but there are frames for using an iPhone to photograph film: http://microsites.lomography.com/smartphone-scanner/ for example.

You can get decent results for just stuff like Instagram posting or previewing and such. But it's time consuming and not as good as a good scanner, or a DSLR or mirrorless and a nice rig for the images. And software that can remove dust and color correct is kinda important too.

 

[jparker402]

I know I am bringing up an old thread, but I am now running an experiment to see if I want to continue using my HP 3-in-1 at 1200dpi or my iPhone 8 to scan old photos. On my very first experiment, I think I have discovered that my iPhone gives me a clearer copy than scanning with the HP. I am comparing the results (or trying to) on my 2015 MacBook Air/Photos. I say trying to because I am not smart enough to bring up the two photos side-by-side. But just switching back and forth, seems like a clearer picture with at least as good color. But according my reading of the conventional wisdom from above, that shouldn't be the case.

 

[tizeye]

Scanner hands down. Two major problems with iPhone (or even regular camera). First is the required tripod setup. Next, and perhaps more critical is lighting. That would be both color balance consistency, and reflections if original photo has glossy finish, or under glass to hold original flat. Cropping excess is a non issue as I run all my scans through photoshop anyway for tone, scratch/dust removal, and even cropping the photo itself (correcting the old armature practice of showing they have feet, etc) or cropping an old Brownie 120 square to a 2:3 for printing.

Use the V750 Pro Scanner. I own the V550 and have used it extensively for copying both prints and slides. I have had several Epson scanners over the years and the scanning driver/software hasn't changed. It gets down to a pattern that makes if quick. Workflow: Create a destination folder, like "Scan" and if slides to maintain historic order, subfolders "Tray 1" etc. Slides are obvious (bump them up to 2400DPI) but prints (600DPI is sufficient) You are lucky that they are all 35mm, and hopefully 4x6...but some older ones could be 3.5x5 and hopefully none are the silk finish that was popular in the 1980's. Try to keep the same orientation and fill the entire platten and can usually do 3 or 4 at a time. Do a preview scan, then set the scan window the size of the first photo. You don't have to resize for each...drag the scan window down since is the same size and orientation. Afterwards, go to the saved folder and load into Photoshop for quick cleanup/photo repair.

 

[jparker402]

Scanner hands down. Two major problems with iPhone (or even regular camera). First is the required tripod setup. Next, and perhaps more critical is lighting. That would be both color balance consistency, and reflections if original photo has glossy finish, or under glass to hold original flat. Cropping excess is a non issue as I run all my scans through photoshop anyway for tone, scratch/dust removal, and even cropping the photo itself (correcting the old armature practice of showing they have feet, etc) or cropping an old Brownie 120 square to a 2:3 for printing.

Use the V750 Pro Scanner. I own the V550 and have used it extensively for copying both prints and slides. I have had several Epson scanners over the years and the scanning driver/software hasn't changed. It gets down to a pattern that makes if quick. Workflow: Create a destination folder, like "Scan" and if slides to maintain historic order, subfolders "Tray 1" etc. Slides are obvious (bump them up to 2400DPI) but prints (600DPI is sufficient) You are lucky that they are all 35mm, and hopefully 4x6...but some older ones could be 3.5x5 and hopefully none are the silk finish that was popular in the 1980's. Try to keep the same orientation and fill the entire platten and can usually do 3 or 4 at a time. Do a preview scan, then set the scan window the size of the first photo. You don't have to resize for each...drag the scan window down since is the same size and orientation. Afterwards, go to the saved folder and load into Photoshop for quick cleanup/photo repair.

Thank you for the advice! Edit: Should mention that I would be working with a few old photographs (early 1900s), some more contemporary snapshots and 35mm slides. My goal is largely to preserve them digitally, to view them from Photos on my MacBook, and to send digital copies off to family members. Seriously doubt that I would get involved in making prints or having prints made, though I suppose that is possible somewhere down the line.

 

[phrehdd]

I know I am bringing up an old thread, but I am now running an experiment to see if I want to continue using my HP 3-in-1 at 1200dpi or my iPhone 8 to scan old photos. On my very first experiment, I think I have discovered that my iPhone gives me a clearer copy than scanning with the HP. I am comparing the results (or trying to) on my 2015 MacBook Air/Photos. I say trying to because I am not smart enough to bring up the two photos side-by-side. But just switching back and forth, seems like a clearer picture with at least as good color. But according my reading of the conventional wisdom from above, that shouldn't be the case.

What do you plan to do with the copy file (scan or photo from your phone)? I'll try to keep this easy and condensed. For film (negative and transparency) a flatbed scanner is perhaps higher in dpi but it also depends how the film is placed on the scanner. 35mm slides often get warped over time and that slight curve doesn't always translate to the sharpest scan possible. Similarly a warped photo that cannot be fully flattened also can be problematic. Both would do better with a proper set up with a camera and the adjustments made accordingly. For flat older photos being copied, the scanner is ideal and many suggest 300 dpi but I find that larger images do well at 600 dpi and smaller images at 1200 (especially if you plan to get any "digital restoration" done). You don' need a high end flat bed scanner nor should you go with any interpolation for the highest dpi. An 8x10 at 1200dpi can be over 300 megs tiff file.

I have used camera copy methods, flatbeds, and even have in storage a spare Minolta 5400 I scanner from years ago. I find it also makes sense for higher end images (often slides and colour negs) to consider a quality commercial lab that can use high end scanners. For your prints consider learning to use a flatbed scanner with 600 or 1200 dpi tiff file. This is an ideal for post work if desired as the information can exceed the image itself (b/w or cooler range and resolution).

 

[gkarris]

We have a LOT of old photographs (and negatives) stored in boxes. I'm talking about thousands and thousands of pictures taken with 35mm of my family, and some heirloom photos from extended family that have passed way. Years ago I bought a fairly expensive Epson V750 Pro scanner and tried to star scanning a few times. I frankly haven't had the time to really do it because scanning with a high quality scanner is very slow and time consuming... although the results are very good.

It is much quicker to take pictures of old photographs with my iPhone. What I'm curious about is what is the real quality/resolution difference between using the iPhone vs. scanner... assuming I scanned at 600DPI for example with the scanner (its capable of much higher resolution). I'm at the point of thinking it would be better for me to have them captured by the iPhone vs. procrastinating for another 10 years (or forever) because of the time involved of using the scanner.

Anyone done any comparisons or have any thoughts on this? What apps have you tried on the iPhone?

I have a Canon Multi-function Inkjet and scanning photos on it is slow and tedious...

I wanted something stand-alone and easy, they are hard to find.

I came across this:

Pandigital Photolink One-Touch PANSCN05 4-Inch x6-Inches Photo and Slide and Negative Scanner (Discontinued by Manufacturer)

Featuring one touch scanning, and requiring no PC, the Personal Photo and Negative Scanner/converter from Pandigital makes it easy to enjoy digital copies of all your favorite printed photos, up to 4x6. Designed for ease of use, scanned images are saved directly to SD card for quick and simple tr...

www.amazon.com

It is a stand-alone unit, you just plug it in the wall, insert the micro-sd card, and feed the photos and negatives in. Photos are scanned as jpegs onto the card. It knows the size of the photo and scans accordingly (like 35mm vs APS Panoramic). Quality is surprisingly good. You of course can make adjustments in post.

I love it - you can just use it on your desk and feed photos through it as you do other things. I've so far just did some old photos I really love and want to save...

I can post examples if interested...

 

[jparker402]

Interesting. And that Kodak one that is on the same Amazon page also looks interesting. But is limited to photos, and to only those size photos.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

I have an old Epson Perfection V700 flatbed scanner that allows me to scan several slides at a time, photos, negatives, and so on. However, the scan software I use is VueScan Pro, nothing else. You can scan based on dpi, or even by image size by inches and the rest. VueScan also helps with dust and scratches, image tones, and so on. I believe that VueScan is second to none in relation to a scanning software.

The V7000 is an older scanner now, so I don't know if the newer models are any better, other than this scanner is noting but outstanding. I believe that the V-series is up to 800 already. Oops! Never mind about the Epson Perfection 850, since it costs over $1,000. When I bought my V700 I only paid $400.00. Just listen to what others have to say above, since those are better choices

 

[MacinMan]

Hey all, may I jump aboard this conversation? It's an old thread, but I've had the same question recently as well.

I recently decided to retire an HP Office Jet 6978 because Ink is just too expensive for not needing to print much anymore, and because it's a combo unit when the printer has issues, it either doesn't work at all, or complains So I decided to make an investment in a stand alone scanner because then it's paid for up front, and there when I need it.

I purchased the Epson Perfection V600 for $250 from Office Depot, and reading reviews, and seeing what people have to say, many people are saying at this time, this is one of the best value to feature scanners to get. I'm joining this conversation because it seems like whenever you mention old tech, people in the apple community seem to say things like "why bother with a scanner, when you can just use your phone." When I was in high school I took a bit of graphics design, and also more in college as part of broadcast, and in both instances flatbed scanners were used. Granted when I was in school it was before smart phones existed like they do today, and even in college, the iPhone was just becoming popular.

I've read through quite a bit of the thread and noticed it started back in 2016. With the improvements to the iPhone and scanning features Apple has added in recent years, would the same argument that a dedicated flatbed is still the best and reliable choice? I was just curious because I feel like a lot of Apple users get stuck on the hyper of the new tech and stop thinking realistically. Especially if they have no professional video or photography training / experience.

With that said, for doing text documents for business, I still would select a flatbed, for stability as well.

Oh, and a P.S. I have tried the phone scanning feature, and it has potential and it did produce good results, but I still wouldn't put all my trust in it to deliver every time.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Deleted (I didn't realize that this one is a very old thread).

 

[robgendreau]

I've ditched the scanner; I get sharper images and better color from my camera. My experiences aren't much different than this fellow got: https://casualphotophile.com/2020/0...ods-and-results-dslr-vs-flatbed-vs-lab-scans/ (V550). A better scanner (say a drum), or using a fluid mount, might have improved things but not sure it's worth it. Most of the film shooters I know have moved to cameras to digitize and it makes a certain amount of sense, as the sensors in our cameras and our lenses are capable of very fine detail. And if it's old prints, instant prints, and 35mm film, probably all you need. I can resolve grain in ASA 100 film, and not much point in getting finer than that.

And the camera is MUCH faster and easier. I did a tripod over light table (well, iPad) set up, but broke down and got an Nikon ES-2 and film holders instead recently. I love it. Fit right onto my Pentax FA 50mm macro, and I was up in running in about a minute. You can even do it hand held. For the processing, Negative Lab Pro works great. Was better than Vuescan on my scanner, and SO much easier to get good results. Even keeps track of film, camera, lenses, etc in Lightroom for you, using presets. And will add that as captions on export.

For instant film, get Polaroid's app. It has a scanning feature, and will auto-deskew, so the instructions are to hold the phone at an angle to eliminate reflections and fire away. Works great. Scanning instant doesn't work well unless you get the prints off the glass due to Newton's Rings problems. And instant is pretty low res. Adobe's scanning app works pretty well too.

 

[Allyance]

Flatbed scanner for high quality serious work for sure, but for quick digital copy of old slides this cheap device holds the iPhone perfectly and has a LED light source built in.

See 'Photo of the Day #353' for example.

 

[phrehdd]

I've ditched the scanner; I get sharper images and better color from my camera. My experiences aren't much different than this fellow got: https://casualphotophile.com/2020/0...ods-and-results-dslr-vs-flatbed-vs-lab-scans/ (V550). A better scanner (say a drum), or using a fluid mount, might have improved things but not sure it's worth it. Most of the film shooters I know have moved to cameras to digitize and it makes a certain amount of sense, as the sensors in our cameras and our lenses are capable of very fine detail. And if it's old prints, instant prints, and 35mm film, probably all you need. I can resolve grain in ASA 100 film, and not much point in getting finer than that.

And the camera is MUCH faster and easier. I did a tripod over light table (well, iPad) set up, but broke down and got an Nikon ES-2 and film holders instead recently. I love it. Fit right onto my Pentax FA 50mm macro, and I was up in running in about a minute. You can even do it hand held. For the processing, Negative Lab Pro works great. Was better than Vuescan on my scanner, and SO much easier to get good results. Even keeps track of film, camera, lenses, etc in Lightroom for you, using presets. And will add that as captions on export.

For instant film, get Polaroid's app. It has a scanning feature, and will auto-deskew, so the instructions are to hold the phone at an angle to eliminate reflections and fire away. Works great. Scanning instant doesn't work well unless you get the prints off the glass due to Newton's Rings problems. And instant is pretty low res. Adobe's scanning app works pretty well too.

Wow. I have a box of 36 slides. Please tell me how using your camera is faster than say, a flatbed scanner? I find the use of a camera to have advantages but speed is not one of them. Also, cameras are handy with a copy stand when a photo is not perfectly flat and flattening might damage the photo. If one wants to spend time to get the best quality from negative or transparency, they might go for fluid/wet mount but it is also possible with care to do multiple shots of a slide with a naturally curved surface and change the location of the focus and stack the images for all tact sharp in focus product across the entire image. From my PoV, flatbed scanners are ideal for prints with reasonable dpi as the colour and b/w gradation of the print will be less than what a capable flatbed can produce. For film, I would consider something along what you advocate as the best means to an end unless one gets a very high-end film scanner. (I have had Minolta scanners in the past and one unopen box from years ago in storage). Sadly many consumer film scanners today are not all that good.

 

[400]

My 7D is awful for noise if you don't set up right. Seems to be a built in feature of that model.

The scanner I have that deals with a trove of negatives inherited with scanner (Canon 9000), coupled with vuescan, I am getting great results for my needs and running through many in one scan or getting excellent quality copy (most are B+W and some with damage). Most is just checking what is on them and scanning a few in before filing. I can load two strips of 6x35 mm or 4 of 6x6 and the slide holder, not used yet but that takes a few in one go (6?).
I suppose it depends on your needs and what the end result is for. Not even bothered with the phone.

 

[robgendreau]

Wow. I have a box of 36 slides. Please tell me how using your camera is faster than say, a flatbed scanner? I find the use of a camera to have advantages but speed is not one of them. Also, cameras are handy with a copy stand when a photo is not perfectly flat and flattening might damage the photo. If one wants to spend time to get the best quality from negative or transparency, they might go for fluid/wet mount but it is also possible with care to do multiple shots of a slide with a naturally curved surface and change the location of the focus and stack the images for all tact sharp in focus product across the entire image. From my PoV, flatbed scanners are ideal for prints with reasonable dpi as the colour and b/w gradation of the print will be less than what a capable flatbed can produce. For film, I would consider something along what you advocate as the best means to an end unless one gets a very high-end film scanner. (I have had Minolta scanners in the past and one unopen box from years ago in storage). Sadly many consumer film scanners today are not all that good.

36? I put on macro lens. Screw on Nikon ES-2. Put one slide in, point at my lamp, focus, set exposure, snap. Then the next and next and next. Putting the slide into the ES-2 holder is a bit faster than the holder for my scanner. But the real difference is the amount of time for a scan versus a shutter snap, which might be say 1/100 of a second. Setting up the scanning rig I had with tripod, light table, etc was more complex. I got somewhat better results with that because my negative hold kept the film a bit flatter, but I can do some of that in post, and I am happy trading that for the speed of the ES-2. I wouldn't bother to tether the camera with only 36.

Post with slides is faster with Lr and Ps rather than with Vuescan and then Lr or Ps, but I guess that depends on what software one has. I just find it easier to work in the same software for all my images, so I probably don't make optimum use of Vuescan anyway.

And they are better than any of the consumer flatbeds I've used. I've tried pixel shift on the transparencies, but it doesn't seem to improve things much. With my full frame I can resolve down to grain at 1:1; that's fine for me. 120 or bigger might be different too; drum scanning or wet mount as you say.

The transparency scanners that used to be more common were pretty good but actually I think it was Nikon's software that was the best feature of those. Quite awesome at scratch and dust fixing.

I'm thinking of just switching to my iPhone for a lot of old family prints since the auto deskewing and such is so good. But I can't find any scanner app that does TIFF or raw, and color correction is more of a pain with the JPEGs. But I just don't need much more resolution on Polaroids and 4x5s.