Scans multiple photos and separates them automatically

[Remah]

The scan time when the carriage moves down the platen is usually a constant speed so it will be quicker to scan one document instead of multiple documents where the carriage usually has to move further down the platen.

But in terms of the entire process to generate correctly named and corrected image files, it is usually faster to batch and automate activities. For example, if I have to lift the scanner lid for each document then I avoid this twice if I place three documents together.

A lot depends upon what you are scanning. Here's some of the positives and negatives that I can think of:

Document type
+ If all documents are the same size and type you can set the scan to a pre-determined size which saves the scanner having to do a full platen scan.
- Mixed document size so cannot uses a default size
- Mixed document type (photo, black & white/monochrome, greyscale, colour document) so have to change settings

+ Automatic Document Feeder (ADF) avoids manually handling.
- ADFs are generally not recommended for photographs which have surfaces more easily damaged by bending and scuffing.

Aligning documents
+ Single document is easy to align on the platen.
+ If multiple documents are all the same size then the documents can be placed in a grid which some scanners will process the grid into individual images.
- Multiple documents are harder to align as they usually need space around them to ensure that separate documents are recognised.
- Multiple documents are different sizes.
+ De-skew processing automatically aligns the images correctly when the scans are processed.

Preview scan
- Previews are an additional scan that should be avoided but might be needed due to having to select non-standard sizes or multiple documents in one scan.
+ Automatic recognition of multiple documents before the final scan.

[Joe A.TT]

Sorry for the late reply Remah.

I know I would save time on the physical action of lifting the scanner lid, placing the photos, etc, etc, however, that is not what I wanted to know. Sorry if I didn't explain myself better.

What I meant was, if I am scanning 4" x 3" photos one at a time at, say, 600 DPI, wouldn't scanning, say, six photos at the same time take longer? After all, instead of the scanner having to scan a 12 square inch area, it now has to scan 72 square inches.

I am curious because, quite a while back, I went through a long and tedious exercise where I scanned all the family photos so that I could preserve them digitally.

Also, although one day I would love to own a good flat bed scanner, I am limited to an Epson Workforce 610 all-in-one printer at the moment. At 2400 DPI, the optical resolution of the scanner isn't as shabby as other AIOs, but it's certainly not professional quality. In all the time I have been using it, I have never seen any feature to split scans either. Maybe if I scan from GIMP I'll be able to use the plugin, but don't envisage myself doing a lot of scanning in the near future.

[Burn-IT]

Most scan the full area anyway and the software discards the "empty" areas.
After all it cannot tell whether there is something else there to scan until AFTER it has scanned.

[Joe A.TT]

Originally Posted by Burn-IT

Most scan the full area anyway...

Most may, but I don't.

[Remah]

All my scanning in recent years has been through a professional service but I am doing this to make a slideshow for a friend's birthday party.

I used the GIMP plug-in and saved no time for 100 photos because of all the setup and post-processing involved!

It would have taken me less time to scan the photos one by one as each scan would not have needed any further rotation or cropping.

One big issue is that the automatic deskew was usually out by one degree. This meant that there was too much white space around most photo images so that had to be cropped too.

I'm planning to try out some other free methods and may write a how-to article.

[Joe A.TT]

That's exactly the information I was after. Thanks again Remah.

[Remah]

My mistake: deskew didn't work because I forgot to install it.