Rapid scanning of old photo prints. Epson FF-680W photo scanner test. Even scans writing on the back

Looking at the Epson FF-680W print scanner. High speed photo print scanning. Auto enhancement and capture of the back of the print if there is writing on it.
Software saves at 300/600/1200ppi. Full review under way - AMA questions welcome.
Scanner details
www.epson.co.uk/en_GB/support...
My review of a much higher end scanner
www.northlight-images.co.uk/e...
For a full categorised index of all my videos, see:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/k...
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2008...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/?...

[@johnhuntley5591]

I bought one of these during lock down, scanned all my old photos and cleared out the old space consuming albums. But once you are finished it becomes redundant! Great scanner and worth the money in time saving from the tedious business of flat bed scanning.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - one reason I suggest people looking for used ones ;-)

[@ME2K23]

Wow that's a nice solution, thanks Keith! 👍🙂👍... I just looked at the price and... Looks like I'll keep scanning mines on the flatbed (at a "slightly" slower pace than this machine 😉) until I can find the FF-680W at a discount price... I will sure keep an eye on this one 🧐👁 , very interesting!

[@KeithCooper]

It's been round a few years, so I've seen quite a bit of variation in the prices. For me it lowers the tedium which forces a premature end to any time I decide to scan more than a few items ;-)

[@JensMHA]

So, just in time and swell it is, as usual! i stumbled over the Epson FF-680W in a video from "One month, Two cameras" and has it in my shopping cart as I type, and hey-ho, the technical go-to fellow has uploaded a video as well! I have about 120 years worth of family photography to sort out and digitalise and have been looking for the better mousetrap since I though about digitialising the hoard by shooting the negatives with a digital camera in 2016. Finding this scanner, I have thought about doing the scans as 600 DPI TIffs, the Tiffs being "lossless" and archival "worthy" for the coming generations, and as the hoard is probably between 10-20K photographs, anything cutting down on time is well worth the effort, as long as the output is of decent quality. I am pondering how to set up a proper archive, though. Especially doing the meta files, i can most likely separate most of the pictures down to at least decade, with the newer stuff down to year(ish) and season from the early 70s to approximatly year. Do you have any tips for how to build up such a archive? I forsee scanning the hoard onto a separate HD, and set up a separate, historical cataloge in LR, and then do the normal sort of keywording and such, in there, with a possibility of doing post on separate files, keeping the original scans intact, but having the leeway of "bettering" the output.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - my own feeling is that the organisation of any archive is definitely something to do first ;-) Given that I have no fully categorised archive of all my digital work for 20+ years, I'm not the best person to ask about this. However, the book I always recommend is 'The DAM Book' thedambook.com

[@stevenmuncy491]

Nice find. I have boxes of old photos that need a digital home. Really looking forward to your review.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - subject to 'real work' it should be within a few weeks

[@M31glow]

Wicked fast! Great post

[@KeithCooper]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@daviddb2528]

Would be great for postcards also. I seem to have inherited several generations worth of them and the ability to scan the back with the stamps and so on at speed is a tip top feature. Wish you were here etc etc.... 🙂

[@KeithCooper]

I'll have to check how it performs with such media.

[@chromagraphphotoart]

an excellent solution to an age-old problem and a potential business idea for someone with the flair to make it work. Probably not me tho'

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - not me either ;-)

[@lynsmith1096]

Good first look video Keith

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks

[@harolddavies1984]

I'm amazed at the speed. I also have thousands of prints going back 100+ years (in unusual sizes) from our family. I'd like to edit the scans if the quality is what I hope it is, thank you for checking this out!

[@KeithCooper]

I'd use this scanner for bulk digitisation, then any specific images, I'd scan with a proper flat-bed. The highest 1200ppi setting is slower but more suited to further editing. The speed helps alleviate the boredom factor, which hits most people's attempts at such archiving/digitisation ;-)

[@musiqueetmontagne]

Thanks for this Keith, it looks exactly what I'm looking for for our private family "archives". Any further info on use and organizing would be fantastic. Thank you for uploading this. Cheers, Robert.

[@KeithCooper]

My initial thoughts are to decide on a storage hierarchy and naming convention before you start. The full speed 300ppi mode is great for large collections, in that it lets you actually get through the task, BUT if you then decide that there are lots you want to do more with, then it's another big lot of work. Think ahead would be my key concern at the moment

[@hedydd2]

Looks almost identical to my excellent Fujitsu ScanSnap iX1600, which is now branded as a Ricoh iX1600 document sheet scanner. I scan hundreds of documents every month and they are searchable in its software. I’ve scanned a few photos and it does the job very well. It even scans till receipts. Not cheap at around £350 inclusive of VAT but I don’t know how I survived before it. Yes it has OCR as part of its software and that is what makes the documents searchable. It doesn’t like NatWest paper statements and can’t seem to separate the many sheets, pulling the whole lot in together. It does flag up a fault when it pulls more than one sheet at a time and any jam is simplicity itself to unjam and discard the partly scanned file.

[@KeithCooper]

Not ones I know, so thanks. I'm just testing this as a one off, so it's not the start of series of reviews though!

[@michaelhornyak7506]

Looking forward to your review on this unit. I have every size negative too 110 to 4x5. Have my dad's, moms sister and mine. I have looked at Epson V 850 it's expensive about 1200 us dollars. Have thousands of 35mm mounted and unmounted slides.

[@KeithCooper]

This unit is print only For lots of negatives it seems a scanner like the V7550/850 is best unless you can make up something using a camera and macro lens

[@michaelhornyak7506]

@@KeithCooper Thank you for your input, I have been researching. Film holders, been heavily thinking about Epson 850. I have special photos with no negatives. 16x20 11x14. Moms wedding album fell apart into dust from 1946. The photos are perfect condition. Again thanks for your input.

[@stanleyjacobson2617]

I have the FFG-640 version of this scanner. The scanner really does work remarkably well, EXCEPT the interior scanner parts(for lack of a better term) need to be kept immaculately clean. Any speck of dust will create a white line on scanned photos. This won't be noticed until you look at your scanned images. If you have scanned say 30 photos, then you have a tiny white line on all 30 when you look at them on your computer. This is in part because those scanner parts are rather open to the air. This may have been remedied in future renditions, but I don't know. Did scan all my old photos and the scanner has now set on the shelf for quite some time.

[@KeithCooper]

This one has a dust detection warning - not seen it work yet though

[@jameshoward9700]

Nice! We can only dream of a scanner that could work that fast with negatives…. I’m guessing it can’t?!

[@KeithCooper]

Nope, 'fraid not.

[@jean-claudemuller3199]

it exists but is not affordable, cinéma film scanners used for photographic films, Silbersalz company in Berlin uses them.

[@user-ru2qn1ow1d]

A negative and slide scanner of equal speed and convenience would be wonderful.

[@KeithCooper]

And expensive I suspect ;-) They do exist...

[@gosman949]

I'm interested in that too. I have slides from the 70's that I need scanning!

[@KeithCooper]

@@gosman949 Some time ago I saw someone had made a home brew one using a carousel slide projector, DSLR and macro lens [some pics on a forum, not build-it guide] Not the speed of the one in the video though...

[@kore996]

While I do have one, it’s been a minute since I’ve scanned photos with it because….life. I have a big backlog of family photos from back in the day that both my dad and I took and I can’t wait to hear your future thoughts on this photo scanner

[@KeithCooper]

It looks an excellent solution for cataloguing stuff. Personally, if I really wanted to make a big print (and didn't have the negatives!) I'd likely scan on a proper flatbed scanner - but I'll see what this can manage

[@JoeTourist]

Epson's website states that the Colour Bit Depth is 30-bit internal / 24-bit external, so this bears investigating. As you know, colour depth with photo scanners is fundamental to a good scan, even if it's off paper. FWIW, I have the Fujitsu ScanSnap iX-500, which I've used for quick JPG scans of prints, despite using it mainly for quickly scanning both sides of documents.

[@brightboxstudio]

What those specs translate to is 10 bits per RGB channel internal (10 * 3 = 30 bits total) and 8 bits per channel external (8 * 3 = 24 bits total). That’s OK for prints, and appropriate for this snapshot scanner. For context, for many years good film scanners have been 16 bits per channel internal and external, for 48 bits total. Also, the internal or external bit depth is not actually the most important quality spec for scanners…it’s the dynamic range of the sensor. Two film scanners can brag about recording 16 bis per channel, but the one that wins is the one with the sensor that can record more of the original film’s dynamic range. The other one is recording 16 bits of lower quality image data. For the scanner in this video, dynamic range and high bit depth aren’t so important because it’s mostly scanning prints that were made by inexpensive automated photo labs. Those cheap prints often have blocked shadows and blown highlights that cannot be recovered during digital editing, and sometimes incorrect color balance. If I want the best quality from one of those images, I ignore the cheap print and scan the negative, when available, to get the most possible first generation dynamic range and color out of the image.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - this is not a high end scanner. It's made for prints like those I showed here. For any images I might want to reprint at size, I'd first go to the pack of negatives that's in most of my packs of old prints, failing that I'd use a higher quality scanner. The real benefit of this scanner is that if you've lots of prints, it gets the job done relatively quickly. Or, more to the point, it gets the job done rather than potentially giving up part way through from boredom ;-)

[@dbenedict357]

2:18 don’t forget though that scanning at higher resolutions won’t improve the photos….so the higher dpi might just be enhancing the flaws of the photos.

[@KeithCooper]

Not "won't improve" - I'd say it's "may not improve" ... It all depends on the original image and reproduction, as well as what you're doing with the images. Whilst the prints in the example here are not particularly high resolution, I've scanned old contact prints which were very high res - beyond what this scanner could manage,

[@simontemlett5098]

Great first look 👍Can you set the destination of the scans to be, for example, a network drive? I have a NAS and it'd great to just archive a load of old family photos to that.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - any normal folder works on my Mac, local or not. It also include scanning to Google or Dropbox [see the link to the manual in the notes...]

[@JJHamster]

I shall be very interested to see how you get on with this scanner. I have just returned mine due to the horrible quality of scans which, suffered from lines across images, “smeared” colours and very pronounced blocky artifacts in dark areas. I was not expecting the flatbed quality I get from my Epson 4990 but even so! I tried updating software and cleaning as per Epson instructions but guess my unit must have been a dud.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - testing has been somewhat delayed due to family matters, but the one I've got here shows none of those issues

[@jamesmgreen15]

Only started watching but I will let you know if I never found it useful..........I am confident that first won't happen, especially as this really does have an interest to me.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks, just an initial check to see how well it does

[@michaelwiley5427]

I have one. I set it at 600dpi, still fast enough, 1200 would be interpolated. The color correction is quite good. It is pricey.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, I'd need to have a lot of prints needing scans to warrant one

[@bryantwalley]

The price puts it in the “no” category. After you scan in the box of photos it becomes a paper weight taking up closet space where the box of photos used to sit. Right now it is showing $399 US. It would need to be closer to the $200 mark to be a consideration.

[@KeithCooper]

Maybe not for you, but for a lot of people, this is irrelevant if they have a large family archive to scan. The time saved can make the difference between it happening or not. It also happens to be a paperweight which will sell very well on eBay... $200 may be the price your personal archive is worth, but many have told me otherwise...

[@bryantwalley]

@@KeithCooper looks like I was mistaken on the price. It’s actually $499 US now. The is most definitely a hard “no’. Maybe looking for one on eBay where someone else has paid the markup is a good idea. Don’t confuse yourself with the value of the archive vs the value of the tool. There are other tools, slower, but still better quality scans and cheaper price.

[@KeithCooper]

Ah, no confusion here. The personal balance between up-front cost, value of the archive, and value of your time, vs scan quality is left entirely as an exercise to the viewer... ;-) It is of course, something I'll return to in the actual review.

[@bryantwalley]

@@KeithCooper yes. I do agree.

[@vl0029]

One thing I have always wondered about is why would you want to scan at more than 300ppi? I thought that prints only have at most 300ppi resolution. So scanning at anything higher doesn't give you anything extra. So scanning a 4x6 at 1200ppi won't give you the ability to create a good 16x24 print. Am I right about this? Thank you for the review, I'm very interested in watching your follow up review as I have many boxes of prints that I would love to digitize. This certainly looks like a good solution.

[@KeithCooper]

No, not quite, it's about sampling. With a photographic [wet] print there is no '300ppi' to start with. With digital prints, even if you were printing at 300 ppi, the distribution of ink dots is on a much finer pitch. So, the actual 'resolution' of a analog print is dependent on film/lens/enlargement/processing - I've produced 2' x 3' prints from small contact prints from the past, with scanning at several thousand ppi. Remember - this test is with analogue prints not digital...

[@meececa]

If one had a photo processing business (printing, restoration, that sort of thing), how useful would this scanner be for duplicating prints? For example, customer comes in with a pack of prints and says can you make a copy of these please?

[@KeithCooper]

For getting scans and applying basic corrections [fade etc] very good - you just need to decide how to make the prints. With photolab type printer, like the D700 I tested a while ago, you'd just be able to send the images straight to it, and out comes a stack of prints. You could also offer them on a memory stick for example.

[@daveturner5305]

What would recommend for negatives? 2.5x3.5 , 2 1/4 square and 35mm. I've many snaps that I didn't print due to cost considerations over the last 60 years or so, never mind whether they were any good or not.

[@KeithCooper]

The only scanner I've tested of late is the Epson V850. It comes with holders for several different sizes See here [there are newer videos too] www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-v850-film-scanner-review/ I still have a perfectly good Canon FS4000 which works fine for 35mm even after 25 yrs...

[@benelleliv]

4:30 - 5:01. Riveting.

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, the speed impressed me ;-)

[@dunnymonster]

I have lots of photos in family albums of various sizes which I'd been meaning to digitise but put off due to it being a mammoth task. A product of this type might be perfect. Looking forward to the full review Keith 😊

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - I'll look at the organisation aspects too

[@jpdj2715]

I think it's fast. I cannot get that speed with my ML camera ;) and macro lens. As to how it works, it could scan to a TIFF file maybe that has RGB rather than a Bayer raw file? Also, it seems to try to mimic the original in contrast, tone, etc., without trying to technically improve the image. Which is fine.

[@KeithCooper]

There's an option to scan to jpeg or tiff. I need to scan a really good print to get an idea about the quality settings and image content. I've a few ideas about getting the best out of it, but likely much slower...

[@fcemari]

I wonder if it has an option for removing the textures of old bw photo papers which is a pain in the …

[@KeithCooper]

No that I've found in a read through the manual... See links in notes

[@Richardincancale]

What’s the resolution of the rear scanner? Could be a useful tool for scanning double sided documents, books etc. Can it automatically do processing on the images such as OCR? Can it write XIF data in the files to embed the scanned text for example.

[@KeithCooper]

Both scanners have an optical resolution of 600, the interpolated 1200 is available for photos Text is scanned as an image file and like the photo, saved as JPEG or TIFF Any OCR for document scanning is using a different program - you will have to read the manual for that [see links in notes]. I've not looked at OCR for 20 years, so have no idea what whistles and bells it can manage or save... There are lots of options for much larger paper sizes... All in, you've guessed it, the manual ;-)

[@martink8080]

Do all the prints in a single run have to be the same size or can mixed sizes be scanned together? How critical is the flatness of the prints, some old one have a pronounced curl?

[@KeithCooper]

It cab take mixed sizes - the manual cover this

[@MrJoeT-p6n]

I have a lot of 35mm slides I need to scan. Can you recommend a good slide scanner?

[@KeithCooper]

The only one I've looked at recently is the V850 www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-v850-film-scanner-review/ Personally, if I had a lot to do, I'd investigate some of the DIY solutions I've seen using cameras and suitable lenses

[@allenbuyck7957]

Does it matter if I mix portrait and landscape orientations on a single batch?

[@KeithCooper]

No - the manual suggests it allows you to mix sizes/orientations. In this case, I went though the folder in edit mode afterwards and quickly applied rotations to photos the wrong way round.

[@allenbuyck7957]

@@KeithCooperthank you so much.

[@kore996]

Do you think that you will try a scan and then enlarge a print to see the limits of the scanner?

[@KeithCooper]

Yes, if I can find a print up to it ;-)

[@ddsdss256]

I got an Epson V600 (flatbed) scanner primarily to scan old prints, transparencies, and negatives (mostly 135 format but some 120). I've used it a bit primarily using EPSON Scan software, but I also have SilverFast 8. Do you have any experience with that? Needless to say, it takes a lot longer to hand-place items (there are holders for multiple negatives or transparencies) than that rocket ship you have there, but it also has more source material flexibility and much higher resolution. Would you use the FF-680W (I assume the second "F" is for fast, the first for something else ;)) to scan images you intended to process in order to make high-quality prints, or would you use a more capable scanner? I'd also worry about putting very old/fragile prints through such a high-speed device.

[@KeithCooper]

I tried silverfast when I originally reviewed the V850 [see link in notes] - didn't much like it it at the time. My preference for better scanning performance has been Vuescan for years. I'd use this scanner for rapid processing of big collections of prints. As to scans for prints - it depends on quality. Scanning to duplicate a set of prints like those in the video - it would be fine Scanning to make a single bigger print from one - I'd likely scan the individual print with a flatbed scanner There is a scanning folder option for fragile prints, but what you see in the video is not suggested for old/delicate images

[@ddsdss256]

@@KeithCooper Thanks! I'm hesitant to learn new software unless it's worth the effort. I'll have to look into Vuescan once I get to the arduous process of compiling and curating my film-based work (there's much in the queue ahead of that). So afar, I've only scanned a handful of family photos and achieved good results using the output from EPSON Scan in DxO/Topaz, but I'll need a more efficient workflow when the floodgates open (tens of thousands of images from over 50 years)!

[@KeithCooper]

@@ddsdss256 Not sure what workflow option VS has - I just like it because it supports almost every scanner I've ever tried

[@chusfoose]

I know that in this video you talk about scanners, but I have a question related to printers, I hope you could give me your opinion. Is it possible to use the photographic inks from the L18180 in the L15150? I recently bought the L15150 to print opaline, fine arts and photographic paper in A3 format, but I was surprised that it uses Pigmented inks, frankly I did not notice that detail when purchasing it so now I have a doubt about using other inks such as of L18180. I did not buy the L18180 since there is a difference of just over 500 dollars that I frankly cannot afford at the moment. The L15150 that I purchased has not even been taken out of the box yet, that is why I have this question if it is possible to use the inks from the L18180 and thus start my L15150 with the photographic inks from the beginning. Obviously, I would buy only the corresponding CMYK inks for my L15150.

[@KeithCooper]

Not something I'd try. It also completely messes up any hopes for colour accuracy Two very different printers I'm afraid.

[@chusfoose]

@@KeithCooper Ok, I get the point and how about the inks of the L14150? That printer has 4-color DYE ink like the L15150 or in your opinion, do you think it will be a problem if I print on photographic paper with the Pigmented inks that the L15150 uses?

[@KeithCooper]

Should be fine on some papers Just allow for random colour accuracy unless you are going to be making custom profiles - even then it falls into the 'why?' category...

[@kipling1957]

What’s the maximum size of photo?

[@KeithCooper]

8x10 max for panoramic is 36" long [with various restrictions - see the manual]