PCWorld Forums

PCWorld Forums: Most Efficient Way To Copy Old Photos - PCWorld Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Most Efficient Way To Copy Old Photos

#1 User is offline   DSlenkamp 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 27 August 2009 - 07:56 AM

My winter project this year is to get all my old photos onto my computer (probably 3000 or so). In the past I have used an old Epson scanner 1660 and it works fine but is a bit time consuming. Is there any newer, slick way to get large quantities of photos onto my computer or is the scanner still the tried and true method to do this task? Also is there a safe way to archive all these photos online as well as on my computer? I have several thousand on my computer now and that number will be doubled at least when I am done. I use a 750 gb backup for my mac but was thinking it would be nice to archive all these photos with some online service if that is a good backup protection. Is there a multi function printer that does a good job with photo scanning or a special machine that just copies photos? Thanks for any advice. Diane
0

#2 User is offline   mjd420nova 

  • Expert
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,340
  • Joined: 05-August 06
  • Location:Fremont, California

Posted 27 August 2009 - 09:58 AM

Welcome to PC World forums. One of the things I do when scanning photos to my PC is to fill the maximum area of the scanned area with as many photos as possible. The flatbed I use allows me to do five photos at a time and I use 1200 DPI to get the maximum resolution. Yes, this does take a long time to scan at that setting but once I break out the individual photos, I can then reduce the resolution to better allow for e-mail or to fit the parameters of where I'm storing them or displaying them online. Initially I want the highest possible for future printing for friends and family. This is a lot cheaper than getting it done by a photo store or kiosk. I've done close to 10,000 photos and keep the ones of major interest on individual DVD's for slide shows at family gatherings. The mother-in-law is nuts about this as she enjoys putting together albums for each family member and I am a major source of content as I have been the major camera nut and have taken thousands of rolls during the past fourty years. I still have over 10,000 photos that I haven't gotten scanned yet as they are quite old and not much interest to anyone but me. That doesn't include about 3,000 slides and at least that many negatives that have unknown content as the photos don't exist anymore. My retirement will be pretty much taken up transposing all this content to readily available media.
0

#3 User is offline   smax013 

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,139
  • Joined: 28-January 07

Posted 27 August 2009 - 03:12 PM

View PostDSlenkamp, on 27 August 2009 - 07:56 AM, said:

Is there any newer, slick way to get large quantities of photos onto my computer or is the scanner still the tried and true method to do this task?


Yep...pay someone to do it.

Ok, I will be serious now.

mjd420nova gave a rather good suggestion. I had not thought of that.

You could try a scanner with an auto-loader tray, but my guess is that it would choke on a picture (they are more designed for auto-loading paper). I have not tried that with my all-in-one's auto-loader tray...and I would not even know where I have actual pictures any more if I wanted to try...I am sure I have some somewhere...

The other thing to try if you have a GOOD DSLR camera (might work with some higher end "point and shoots" or hybrid digital cameras too) is to just setup a small tripod with the camera on it aimed at a desk surface with a good macro lens and just retake the picture as a digital picture. I believe my dad has done this. It might take a bit of work to get it setup, but once it is setup, it might be faster than scanning. But, then it assumes you have good DSLR and a good macro lens (or it could be a good excuse to go purchase a good DSLR and macro lens B) ).
Good riddance PCWorld.
0

#4 User is offline   DSlenkamp 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 31 August 2009 - 12:50 PM

Thanks for tips. That saves me time searching for some "miracle machine" to turn all my snap shots into digital. I was just hoping. I like the idea of using a macro lens and photographing each snap shot. I have a nephew is good with photography. I also didn't know about scanning at 1200dpi. Thanks for information. diane
0

#5 User is offline   smax013 

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 13,139
  • Joined: 28-January 07

Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:41 PM

View PostDSlenkamp, on 31 August 2009 - 12:50 PM, said:

I like the idea of using a macro lens and photographing each snap shot.


My dad has done that with some old photos to get them in a digital format. In many regards, it is easier and faster than a scanner...and if you have a high quality DSLR, it can be nominally just as good.
Good riddance PCWorld.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users