←back to thread

79 points goodburb | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.41s | source
Show context
sxp ◴[] No.41084509[source]
Related question: what's the best way to digitize a collection of physical photos for personal use?

I ran into this problem recently for a family reunion where we wanted a slideshow of photos that were decades old. The best solution was to manually scan them using Google Photoscan which involves taking a 5 pictures of each photo with a phone and letting the app remove reflection, perform skew correction, crop, etc. This resulted in better photos than just using the phone's default camera software, but it still took 10+ seconds for each photo.

Does anyone have an recommendation for at home photoscanners that would allow me to drop a stack of photos into it and have it automatically scan them? I found various devices on Amazon that target this use case but they all have drawbacks like low resolution or excessive manual work. Has anyone done this with their family's old photos?

replies(12): >>41084549 #>>41084656 #>>41084669 #>>41084730 #>>41084755 #>>41084866 #>>41084943 #>>41085963 #>>41086035 #>>41086122 #>>41086444 #>>41088941 #
genewitch ◴[] No.41084656[source]
I acquired every photo taken by my dad, mom, etc. about 8000 photos iirc. Almost all of the post 1975 ones had negatives, so I started out looking for negative scanners, as the negatives had probably been handled and scuffed less. I couldn't find anything with good reviews that was under $1000, so I settled with an Epson FastFoto FF-680W. After I did a couple of packs of prints, my wife took over. I think it took her about 6 hours over a weekend.

I then set up a "photo website" using a static photo site generator, and then uploaded the output to a racked server we have. Afaik no family members I sent the link to even looked. Oh well. I also sent the tiffs to Amazon glacier where it costs something like $20/yr to keep there.

Unless something has magically happened in the last six years, I'd still steer clear of negative scanners and flatbeds.

The Epson is soooo fast!

replies(2): >>41086144 #>>41086908 #
1. darknavi ◴[] No.41086908[source]
+1 to the FF-680W.

It's janky. I had to try a few USB cables onces the original broke because a cat ate it, had to try specific USB ports, and the software is a bit rough. But the software allows you to scan both sides of photos, auto "enhance" while keeping originals, and do about 40 like-sized photos in an effortless batch.

It's also good for doc scanning!

I lend it to all my friends and family that have similar projects.

replies(1): >>41088005 #
2. genewitch ◴[] No.41088005[source]
we didn't have any such issues, but i have a lot of the old style USB cables with the rounded square ends. They are used a lot in rugged devices and "equipment" or instrumentation, like ham radios, packet modems, ADC/DAC devices, scanners, printers. So i just collect them.

I have noticed in the past 4 years or so that i am throwing away "broken" USB cables at about 10x the rate of the years prior, so maybe the overall quality of cables has gone down? Even extension cables - those are "breaking" at a very high rate - and i mostly use those for wired controllers!