I have the earlier model 640. I scanned about 6000 photos and have been delighted with the quality and performance. I have also been using my 640 to scan loose pages of research notes and other sheet items up to A4 size. Works well, but wouldn’t trust delicate items to it. The wireless support in the model you reviewed makes setup or office layout easier.
Thanks for this review. I found it very informative. I have already scanned most of my photos with my flatbed scanner, but this is good information to know for the future.
Hello, It is great to find you here. I was a long time subscriber to your emails. Anyway, I have a question about this scanner? I have 1000's of photos to scan like a lot of commenters. Does this scanner physically scan to a computer? Does it have the option to send to a phone? thank you.
Nice to "see" you again! Regarding your question-The answer is yes. It sends the scans to your computer via a cord connected to your computer or via wifi. It looks like it can also send to a phone. Check out some FAQs about the Epson FastFoto 680W here: epson.com/Support/Scanners/FastFoto-Series/Epson-FastFoto-FF-680W/s/SPT_B11B237201#questions
I just ordered this scanner tonight when Amazon dropped the price back to $549.99. I have plans to digitize loose photos and boxes of memorabilia. I’m also planning to use it to digitize documents as needed. My goals is to digitize all of these things that I can. When that big job is completed I’ll be buying the Plustek scanner for the 12x12 scrapbook albums. Thank you for the wonderful videos explaining the uses of both machines.
@@FamilyHistoryHero I’m thinking about taking it to our family reunion this summer and see if any family members would like to digitize photos. They could bring a flash drive for storage.
@@RhodaJayne That is a terrific idea. Thankfully it's compact enough to take it along. I'm planning on doing the same with family across the country this summer.
Hello. Great video and explanation on the various features of the scanner. Do you recommend scanning at 600 DPI or 1200 DPI? What does interpolated mean? I’ve done a bit of research and there are mixed opinions on 600 vs 1200 DPI. Storage space and time spent are not an issue to me. More so, the efficiency and definitely quality of the scan. Thanks!
I never recommend scanning at a higher resolution than needed to print an image at the size I desire. To get a good print from any digital image you need 300 ppi. If you have an 8x10 inch photo that is 300 ppi you're good to go. Making it 600 ppi gives you the ability to double the size of that photo but it doesn't give you a better 8x10 inch print since all but some very high end professional printers only have the capability of printing at 300 dots of ink per inch. And do you really want to double your 8x10 inch photo up to 16x20 inches? So when do we need to scan at a higher resolution? Obviously for very small photos you'll need to increase the size-slides and negatives, for example, or other really small printed photos. Increase the resolution based on how large you want the final image to be. Every 300 ppi you add when you scan gives you the ability to enlarge that photo by the size of the original photo: Scanning at 600 ppi allows you to double the size of the photo. 900 ppi allows you to triple the size of the photo. 1200 ppi allows you to quadruple the size of the photo. For slides and negatives 1200 ppi, 1700 ppi, or even 3000 ppi makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind that in order to print those image at the larger size you’ll have to use software (like Photoshop or Photoshop Elements or Lightroom) to rearrange the pixels to expand the size of the image. The software does this by changing the resolution to 300 ppi without throwing away any pixels-which expands the size of the image for printing. So to answer your question! For standard 3x5 or 4x6 inch family photos I generally use 600 ppi and rarely more. That allows me to double the size of the photo if necessary when I create a photo book with them. But if it's a group photo you might want to double or triple the resolution to make sure you have a large enough view of each person in the photo. For smaller photos choose a resolution based on the information I gave you above for how large you want the scanned photo to be. But arbitrarily scanning all photos at a high resolution to increase the quality of the images does not accomplish that purpose and only increases file size.
Thanks for a balanced review of the FF-680W. Have you tried it with century-old, unmounted prints? With newspaper clippings? Have you tried the carrier sheet(s) for small or damaged prints? The User Manual, likely still available for free as a PDF on the Epson support page, specifies a recommended maximum number of prints between thorough cleaning and eventual replacement of the rollers. I've seen comments on other YT reviews about FF-680W users who have agreed that scan time per print is faster, but when cleaning time is considered, camera scanning with a digital camera, with at a 24 megapixel sensor, and a 1:1 macro lens; LED light panel, with appropriate film holders for slides and negatives (neither of which can be digitized with the FF-680W) a pair of LED lights for lighting reflective materials like prints; a decent copy stand or tripod; is a faster combination per image digitized. It is also far more versatile since it can handle virtually any size of print, slide, negative, other documents, AND 3D artifacts. Oversized albums, scrapbooks, artwork, family painted portraits, card mounted prints (CDV, Cabinet Cards), etc. can be digitized at least as quickly. Depending on the sensor size of the camera and the macro ability of the lens used, far greater resolution (generally a minimum of 4000 x 6000 pixels) is easily achieved, so once an entire image has been digitized, any desired smaller portion can be cropped by re-framing in the camera and digitized at the same resolution. As photo scanners go, the FF-680W and V-600 are among the best available today, but both have limitations on maximum possible output quality and in size of originals that can be digitized.
Art TaylorThanks for adding your perspective. My review doesn't cover every detail for sure. A good camera is another option that I might try someday but there are a lot more pieces to consider, so for the average person a flatbed scanner plus a scanner like the FF-680W takes care of most everything needed.
I’ve gone the camera scanning method. For slides and film it’s incredible. Much faster and significantly higher quality than the V600, which I also have. But for physical prints I could never make it work. Reflection is incredibly hard to deal with on glossy prints, and often prints are bent or warped or otherwise not laying flat. To flatten them I could shoot through glass, but now you’re dealing with dust like the V600. I’ve also considered constructing a “vacuum easel” where I rig up a vacuum like a wet vac to a box that has perforations on one side where the vacuum would hopefully suction prints flat. But, I’ve got two kids under the age of 3 so no time to spend days in the garage trying to figure that out. If you have other ideas for how to deal with the challenges of glossy prints I’d love to hear it. For reflection I ended up shooting against a black background behind the prints and poking the macro lens through a hole I cut in a black t-shirt, but I’ve never worked out the other issue.
@@MRing1107 It sounds like you've done some great experimenting! I agree-dust on scanners is a constant battle but photographing takes a great camera and a lot of attention to set up that many of us aren't willing to do! However, it's nice to know it worked so well on slides and film. Thanks for sharing your ideas!
Hi, Your revive is good, I need quality and large number of old photos. What do you think Epson Perfection V39 II is better quality ? I can scan 10-20 photos per day if quality is good. Epson Perfection V39 II has 4800 dpi. can you give a comment please. In your review scan photo v600 is better
The key factor in a scanner is the image sensor that's used-not how much dpi it can give you. That's why I don't recommend the cheaper scanners. They use a cheaper image sensor that does a decent job on really good photos that have good lighting and color but they don't do well on photos with shadows or tints of color such as faces that are a little red. They actually accent the problem and you'll get really bad looking scans. Watch this RUclips video where I compare the two sensors on both good and less than good images and you'll see the difference: ruclips.net/video/9VyD4i9wNuc/видео.html The comparison is on a Plustek scanner but the principle is exactly the same for Epson scanners-you get what you pay for.
@@nihalbasnayake2199 I don’t test every scanner on the market and I don’t even keep up with each new version of the flatbed scanner I use. So the short answer is usually no-I can’t give you my opinion about the model you’re considering. But I did look up the sensor used by the Epson Perfection V39 II and as I suspected, it uses the cheaper image sensor so I do NOT recommend it! The scanner I’ve used for years and highly recommend is the Epson V600 flatbed scanner. It’s moderately priced, anywhere from $150 on sale to around $300, and yet it creates excellent scans-as good as the more expensive Epson models where you’re mostly paying for more bells and whistles or size. The key factor for creating excellent scans that look like the original photo is the image sensor-not how much resolution (dpi) the scanner can give you. That's why I don't recommend the cheaper scanners. They use a cheaper CISS image sensor that does a decent job on really good photos that have good lighting and color but they don't do well on photos with shadows or tints of color such as faces that are a little red. They actually make the problem worse-the faces get redder or oranger or whatever problem color the photo has and the shadows areas get darker so you lose detail. The more expensive CCD sensor does an excellent job of reproducing the original photo. If you want to see my comparison of both sensors used on the same photos watch my demo video called: Review: Plustek Large Format Scanners. Here's the link: ruclips.net/video/9VyD4i9wNuc/видео.html The comparison is on a Plustek scanner but the principle is exactly the same for other scanners-you get what you pay for: The cheaper image sensor with lower quality is the CIS Sensor. The more expensive sensor with great quality is the CCD image sensor. Image Sensor information is usually listed in the “Technical Specifications” -usually way near the end of the sales page on a site like Amazon. Sometimes, though, they simply don’t list it. (When I looked it up they didn't list it for the Epson Perfection V39 II.) If you don’t see this information: Open a new web page and in the search field enter the name of the scanner you’re interested in, e.g. Perfection V19 II/V39 II Add the word “manual” at the end like this: Perfection V19 II/V39 II manual Press Enter or Return and you'll almost always get the manual or "Users Guide." Look for "Technical Specifications." If it says CISS don't buy it. If it says CCD you know you have a higher quality scanner that will do a good job on your photos.
Thank you for the infomative review of the Epson FastFoto 680W. You explain the procedure clearly and I found it very helpful. I noticed you commented on really small photos I guess passport sizes that can be damaged, however I have a lot of old black and white photos from about 1920 onwards which most families would have and these are really important for Family History recording. These are normally 3 1/2 X 2 1/2 inches or 900 x600mmm. They have a lot of info written on the back and some have a slight curl which this scanner caters for both issues. Have you ever scanned this size with this scanner? I suppose they wouldn't stack as well as the 6x4 inches photos and would maybe use the plastic sleeve provided for the curled photos. Are you happy with the quality of the reproduction of the B&W and would you scan them at 600? Like you mentioned I am trying to get out of many hours of flatbed scanning hence my interest in the Fastfoto FF680W. If I were to buy a flatbed I think the Epson V600 would suffice nicely than rather buying a V850. I am concerned at not buying the right rapid scanner that is other than a flatbed for the 900x600mm photos and quality and ease of use. Looking forward in hearing from you. Thanks.
I agree-those old black and white photos are very important. I almost always scan those on my Epson flatbed scanner and put a black felt cloth over them to turn the background black instead of the normal white background. This makes those cool white vintage edges stand out! If I use those photos in a family history photo album I get rid of the black background in Photoshop and add a drop shadow to make them look like they're sitting right there on my photo book page. When scanning, if there's writing on the back I turn them over and scan the back as well. I do think the slight curl a lot of them have might make it hard to run through the Epson FastFoto scanner unless you do it carefully one at a time. Recently, though, we did a batch of larger black and white heritage photos and were happy with the quality, so you could go either way and just feed the smaller curled ones through one by one.
@@FamilyHistoryHero Thank you for your fast reply that's kind of you. I note you normally scan them through your flatbed scanner but have you actually tried scanning those curled 900x600 mm through your FF680 one by one? How did it go? It's quite pricey to buy a FF680 I just want to get my decision right on the scanner choice rather than buy both. Kind regards.
@@dougdevoz6611 If an old photo is slightly curved it might work OK in a feeding scanner but I would be very careful and probably run the photos through the scanner one at a time so I can hold them in place until the scanner "grabs" them. If I have a group of photos like that I just pick up one after the other and run them through by putting them into place, holding onto it at the top with one hand and pushing the scan button with the other hand if necessary. If the photos are badly curled I prefer a flatbed scanner where you can put something small and heavy on top to hold it flat. Then cover it with a soft black cloth, close the lid, and scan it.
Maybe I’m perfectionist but I tested a device with equivalent image quality from Plustek and I couldn’t handle it, knowing some of these pictures could have the extra vibrancy, contrast, dynamic range and detail I’d just put in the work on either the V600 or camera scanning. On the other hand though, 5 years in and I’m still not done!
It's interesting that you didn't find the Plustek to be as vibrant and acceptable as the V600. It's true that each scanner has an area where they might excel more than another scanner. I found that scanning the large 12x12 pages with the Plustek Pro gave me amazing quality. I checked each page after it was scanned as it popped up in Photoshop and compared it to the original I was holding in my hand and was astonished at how well the Plustek did. I've found that my Epson V600 usually does better with black and white photos, though. It's one reason I own several scanners.
It'll depend on how thin and fragile the pages are. I haven't tried magazine pages myself but have found it to be picky with anything outside of regular photos. I think it'll depend totally on the thickness of the pages.
I've found that it scans well and can accept magazine size pages. However depending on how the page was originally printed you will get a strange gridlike effect at certain resolutions onscreen. This has to do with interference patterns with the printed dots of the original page and the pixels of the screen you are viewing on. I'm currently archiving our family albums which include many leaflets and magazines from museums and exhibits, and I'm including these because it helps to tell the family story. I would say that the scanner captures the text information of the leaflets well but the images can be a little disappointing. But for photo scanning I can't fault it. Our archive is at least 30,000 photos in albums and many many more boxes of loose prints. Once I'm done with this I'm moving on to the film slides and 8mm film too!
@@marvrogers9540 That's a great point Marv, and thanks so much for your comment! Any scanner can struggle with screened photos like appear in magazines, and it's typical to get a moire pattern on images in the scan. The scanner captures an image in dots, and when scanning an already dotted screened image some moire is likely to happen.
I read reviews for the earlier Eason scanner that said it has compatibly issues with Mac OS. I have a MacBook Pro. Can you comment? I am trying to organize my deceased Mom’s 80 years of family photos.
❤❤❤
I have the earlier model 640. I scanned about 6000 photos and have been delighted with the quality and performance.
I have also been using my 640 to scan loose pages of research notes and other sheet items up to A4 size. Works well, but wouldn’t trust delicate items to it.
The wireless support in the model you reviewed makes setup or office layout easier.
Thanks for adding your perspective-I agree with your assessment!
Thanks for this review. I found it very informative. I have already scanned most of my photos with my flatbed scanner, but this is good information to know for the future.
Hello, It is great to find you here. I was a long time subscriber to your emails. Anyway, I have a question about this scanner? I have 1000's of photos to scan like a lot of commenters. Does this scanner physically scan to a computer? Does it have the option to send to a phone? thank you.
Nice to "see" you again! Regarding your question-The answer is yes. It sends the scans to your computer via a cord connected to your computer or via wifi. It looks like it can also send to a phone. Check out some FAQs about the Epson FastFoto 680W here: epson.com/Support/Scanners/FastFoto-Series/Epson-FastFoto-FF-680W/s/SPT_B11B237201#questions
I have a Mac computer. Would this work with it? I do have an Epson printer and it works great with my Mac.
Yes, it works great on a Mac.
Hey donna
I just ordered this scanner tonight when Amazon dropped the price back to $549.99. I have plans to digitize loose photos and boxes of memorabilia. I’m also planning to use it to digitize documents as needed. My goals is to digitize all of these things that I can.
When that big job is completed I’ll be buying the Plustek scanner for the 12x12 scrapbook albums. Thank you for the wonderful videos explaining the uses of both machines.
You're welcome RhodaJane. So glad you found it helpful. Best wishes on your scanning projects!
@@FamilyHistoryHero I’m thinking about taking it to our family reunion this summer and see if any family members would like to digitize photos. They could bring a flash drive for storage.
@@RhodaJayne That is a terrific idea. Thankfully it's compact enough to take it along. I'm planning on doing the same with family across the country this summer.
@@RhodaJayne Great idea!
Hello. Great video and explanation on the various features of the scanner.
Do you recommend scanning at 600 DPI or 1200 DPI? What does interpolated mean?
I’ve done a bit of research and there are mixed opinions on 600 vs 1200 DPI.
Storage space and time spent are not an issue to me.
More so, the efficiency and definitely quality of the scan.
Thanks!
I never recommend scanning at a higher resolution than needed to print an image at the size I desire. To get a good print from any digital image you need 300 ppi. If you have an 8x10 inch photo that is 300 ppi you're good to go. Making it 600 ppi gives you the ability to double the size of that photo but it doesn't give you a better 8x10 inch print since all but some very high end professional printers only have the capability of printing at 300 dots of ink per inch. And do you really want to double your 8x10 inch photo up to 16x20 inches?
So when do we need to scan at a higher resolution? Obviously for very small photos you'll need to increase the size-slides and negatives, for example, or other really small printed photos. Increase the resolution based on how large you want the final image to be. Every 300 ppi you add when you scan gives you the ability to enlarge that photo by the size of the original photo:
Scanning at 600 ppi allows you to double the size of the photo.
900 ppi allows you to triple the size of the photo.
1200 ppi allows you to quadruple the size of the photo.
For slides and negatives 1200 ppi, 1700 ppi, or even 3000 ppi makes a lot of sense.
Keep in mind that in order to print those image at the larger size you’ll have to use software (like Photoshop or Photoshop Elements or Lightroom) to rearrange the pixels to expand the size of the image. The software does this by changing the resolution to 300 ppi without throwing away any pixels-which expands the size of the image for printing.
So to answer your question! For standard 3x5 or 4x6 inch family photos I generally use 600 ppi and rarely more. That allows me to double the size of the photo if necessary when I create a photo book with them. But if it's a group photo you might want to double or triple the resolution to make sure you have a large enough view of each person in the photo. For smaller photos choose a resolution based on the information I gave you above for how large you want the scanned photo to be.
But arbitrarily scanning all photos at a high resolution to increase the quality of the images does not accomplish that purpose and only increases file size.
Thanks for a balanced review of the FF-680W. Have you tried it with century-old, unmounted prints? With newspaper clippings? Have you tried the carrier sheet(s) for small or damaged prints?
The User Manual, likely still available for free as a PDF on the Epson support page, specifies a recommended maximum number of prints between thorough cleaning and eventual replacement of the rollers. I've seen comments on other YT reviews about FF-680W users who have agreed that scan time per print is faster, but when cleaning time is considered, camera scanning with a digital camera, with at a 24 megapixel sensor, and a 1:1 macro lens; LED light panel, with appropriate film holders for slides and negatives (neither of which can be digitized with the FF-680W) a pair of LED lights for lighting reflective materials like prints; a decent copy stand or tripod; is a faster combination per image digitized. It is also far more versatile since it can handle virtually any size of print, slide, negative, other documents, AND 3D artifacts. Oversized albums, scrapbooks, artwork, family painted portraits, card mounted prints (CDV, Cabinet Cards), etc. can be digitized at least as quickly. Depending on the sensor size of the camera and the macro ability of the lens used, far greater resolution (generally a minimum of 4000 x 6000 pixels) is easily achieved, so once an entire image has been digitized, any desired smaller portion can be cropped by re-framing in the camera and digitized at the same resolution.
As photo scanners go, the FF-680W and V-600 are among the best available today, but both have limitations on maximum possible output quality and in size of originals that can be digitized.
Art TaylorThanks for adding your perspective. My review doesn't cover every detail for sure. A good camera is another option that I might try someday but there are a lot more pieces to consider, so for the average person a flatbed scanner plus a scanner like the FF-680W takes care of most everything needed.
I’ve gone the camera scanning method. For slides and film it’s incredible. Much faster and significantly higher quality than the V600, which I also have. But for physical prints I could never make it work. Reflection is incredibly hard to deal with on glossy prints, and often prints are bent or warped or otherwise not laying flat. To flatten them I could shoot through glass, but now you’re dealing with dust like the V600. I’ve also considered constructing a “vacuum easel” where I rig up a vacuum like a wet vac to a box that has perforations on one side where the vacuum would hopefully suction prints flat. But, I’ve got two kids under the age of 3 so no time to spend days in the garage trying to figure that out.
If you have other ideas for how to deal with the challenges of glossy prints I’d love to hear it. For reflection I ended up shooting against a black background behind the prints and poking the macro lens through a hole I cut in a black t-shirt, but I’ve never worked out the other issue.
@@MRing1107 It sounds like you've done some great experimenting! I agree-dust on scanners is a constant battle but photographing takes a great camera and a lot of attention to set up that many of us aren't willing to do! However, it's nice to know it worked so well on slides and film. Thanks for sharing your ideas!
Hi, Your revive is good, I need quality and large number of old photos. What do you think Epson Perfection V39 II is better quality ? I can scan 10-20 photos per day if quality is good. Epson Perfection V39 II has 4800 dpi. can you give a comment please. In your review scan photo v600 is better
The key factor in a scanner is the image sensor that's used-not how much dpi it can give you. That's why I don't recommend the cheaper scanners. They use a cheaper image sensor that does a decent job on really good photos that have good lighting and color but they don't do well on photos with shadows or tints of color such as faces that are a little red. They actually accent the problem and you'll get really bad looking scans. Watch this RUclips video where I compare the two sensors on both good and less than good images and you'll see the difference:
ruclips.net/video/9VyD4i9wNuc/видео.html
The comparison is on a Plustek scanner but the principle is exactly the same for Epson scanners-you get what you pay for.
Thanks for the reply, Is Epson Perfection V39 II better ? how to find out what sensor used ?
@@nihalbasnayake2199
I don’t test every scanner on the market and I don’t even keep up with each new version of the flatbed scanner I use. So the short answer is usually no-I can’t give you my opinion about the model you’re considering. But I did look up the sensor used by the Epson Perfection V39 II and as I suspected, it uses the cheaper image sensor so I do NOT recommend it!
The scanner I’ve used for years and highly recommend is the Epson V600 flatbed scanner. It’s moderately priced, anywhere from $150 on sale to around $300, and yet it creates excellent scans-as good as the more expensive Epson models where you’re mostly paying for more bells and whistles or size.
The key factor for creating excellent scans that look like the original photo is the image sensor-not how much resolution (dpi) the scanner can give you. That's why I don't recommend the cheaper scanners. They use a cheaper CISS image sensor that does a decent job on really good photos that have good lighting and color but they don't do well on photos with shadows or tints of color such as faces that are a little red. They actually make the problem worse-the faces get redder or oranger or whatever problem color the photo has and the shadows areas get darker so you lose detail.
The more expensive CCD sensor does an excellent job of reproducing the original photo. If you want to see my comparison of both sensors used on the same photos watch my demo video called:
Review: Plustek Large Format Scanners.
Here's the link: ruclips.net/video/9VyD4i9wNuc/видео.html
The comparison is on a Plustek scanner but the principle is exactly the same for other scanners-you get what you pay for: The cheaper image sensor with lower quality is the CIS Sensor.
The more expensive sensor with great quality is the CCD image sensor.
Image Sensor information is usually listed in the “Technical Specifications” -usually way near the end of the sales page on a site like Amazon. Sometimes, though, they simply don’t list it. (When I looked it up they didn't list it for the Epson Perfection V39 II.)
If you don’t see this information:
Open a new web page and in the search field enter the name of the scanner you’re interested in, e.g. Perfection V19 II/V39 II
Add the word “manual” at the end like this:
Perfection V19 II/V39 II manual
Press Enter or Return and you'll almost always get the manual or "Users Guide." Look for "Technical Specifications." If it says CISS don't buy it. If it says CCD you know you have a higher quality scanner that will do a good job on your photos.
Thank you very much for the information
Thank you for the infomative review of the Epson FastFoto 680W. You explain the procedure clearly and I found it very helpful. I noticed you commented on really small photos I guess passport sizes that can be damaged, however I have a lot of old black and white photos from about 1920 onwards which most families would have and these are really important for Family History recording. These are normally 3 1/2 X 2 1/2 inches or 900 x600mmm. They have a lot of info written on the back and some have a slight curl which this scanner caters for both issues. Have you ever scanned this size with this scanner? I suppose they wouldn't stack as well as the 6x4 inches photos and would maybe use the plastic sleeve provided for the curled photos. Are you happy with the quality of the reproduction of the B&W and would you scan them at 600? Like you mentioned I am trying to get out of many hours of flatbed scanning hence my interest in the Fastfoto FF680W. If I were to buy a flatbed I think the Epson V600 would suffice nicely than rather buying a V850. I am concerned at not buying the right rapid scanner that is other than a flatbed for the 900x600mm photos and quality and ease of use. Looking forward in hearing from you. Thanks.
I agree-those old black and white photos are very important. I almost always scan those on my Epson flatbed scanner and put a black felt cloth over them to turn the background black instead of the normal white background. This makes those cool white vintage edges stand out! If I use those photos in a family history photo album I get rid of the black background in Photoshop and add a drop shadow to make them look like they're sitting right there on my photo book page. When scanning, if there's writing on the back I turn them over and scan the back as well. I do think the slight curl a lot of them have might make it hard to run through the Epson FastFoto scanner unless you do it carefully one at a time. Recently, though, we did a batch of larger black and white heritage photos and were happy with the quality, so you could go either way and just feed the smaller curled ones through one by one.
@@FamilyHistoryHero Thank you for your fast reply that's kind of you. I note you normally scan them through your flatbed scanner but have you actually tried scanning those curled 900x600 mm through your FF680 one by one? How did it go? It's quite pricey to buy a FF680 I just want to get my decision right on the scanner choice rather than buy both. Kind regards.
@@dougdevoz6611 If an old photo is slightly curved it might work OK in a feeding scanner but I would be very careful and probably run the photos through the scanner one at a time so I can hold them in place until the scanner "grabs" them. If I have a group of photos like that I just pick up one after the other and run them through by putting them into place, holding onto it at the top with one hand and pushing the scan button with the other hand if necessary. If the photos are badly curled I prefer a flatbed scanner where you can put something small and heavy on top to hold it flat. Then cover it with a soft black cloth, close the lid, and scan it.
Maybe I’m perfectionist but I tested a device with equivalent image quality from Plustek and I couldn’t handle it, knowing some of these pictures could have the extra vibrancy, contrast, dynamic range and detail I’d just put in the work on either the V600 or camera scanning. On the other hand though, 5 years in and I’m still not done!
It's interesting that you didn't find the Plustek to be as vibrant and acceptable as the V600. It's true that each scanner has an area where they might excel more than another scanner. I found that scanning the large 12x12 pages with the Plustek Pro gave me amazing quality. I checked each page after it was scanned as it popped up in Photoshop and compared it to the original I was holding in my hand and was astonished at how well the Plustek did. I've found that my Epson V600 usually does better with black and white photos, though. It's one reason I own several scanners.
How does this scanner perform with magazine pages?
It'll depend on how thin and fragile the pages are. I haven't tried magazine pages myself but have found it to be picky with anything outside of regular photos. I think it'll depend totally on the thickness of the pages.
I've found that it scans well and can accept magazine size pages. However depending on how the page was originally printed you will get a strange gridlike effect at certain resolutions onscreen. This has to do with interference patterns with the printed dots of the original page and the pixels of the screen you are viewing on. I'm currently archiving our family albums which include many leaflets and magazines from museums and exhibits, and I'm including these because it helps to tell the family story. I would say that the scanner captures the text information of the leaflets well but the images can be a little disappointing. But for photo scanning I can't fault it. Our archive is at least 30,000 photos in albums and many many more boxes of loose prints. Once I'm done with this I'm moving on to the film slides and 8mm film too!
@@marvrogers9540 That's a great point Marv, and thanks so much for your comment! Any scanner can struggle with screened photos like appear in magazines, and it's typical to get a moire pattern on images in the scan. The scanner captures an image in dots, and when scanning an already dotted screened image some moire is likely to happen.
I read reviews for the earlier Eason scanner that said it has compatibly issues with Mac OS. I have a MacBook Pro. Can you comment? I am trying to organize my deceased Mom’s 80 years of family photos.
I'm on a Mac (running Monterey 12.3.1) and the Epson FastFoto software works fine.