Introduction
 |
| Scan from FF-640. Sunset over Ponca State Park. (Photo by Daniel Binkard) |
The Epson FF-640 is an auto-feed scanner primarily intended for digitizing the stacks of 4x6 and similar size prints that you've had sitting in storage since switching to your digital camera. Quicker than laying each print on the flatbed.
After running a few hundred prints through it, my conclusion is that it's good for building a reference library of your analog archive. Once everything is scanned, I can sort and filter using Lightroom, alongside my existing digital photos.
There are several issues to be aware of, which I detail below. With the dust and tone quality issues in mind, I find that the FF-640 works well enough for my purposes.
Building a Reference Library
My film collection is organized by the date I took the roll(s) in for processing, and I use those dates to name and organize the scans. Unfortunately, I didn't keep good records for more specific shooting dates, but this still allows organization within a month and year of whenever I actually took the photos. Wherever possible, my goal is to use external references to find the correct dates, and update the files as needed.
Library Naming Convention
/YYYY-MM-DD-Desc/YYYYMMDD####.tif
At the moment, I am numbering files in the order I scan them. I may rename files to match frame numbers in the negative strips, although that is less critical.
Matching Prints and Negatives
The print scans will form the foundation of the reference library, and I will replace them with negative scans as I make them.
Running the Scanner
The FF-640's strength lies in its speed. It can run through a stack of prints in short order. The specs quote something along the lines of one second per print, which is certainly fast enough. I have been running prints through in stacks of six, although more should be possible. It is important to fan the prints and make sure they are clean before loading them. The scanner double-fed a few prints in my initial runs, but I haven't had issues with that since then.
Operation
I am foregoing the dedicated Epson software for the FF-640, preferring to use Vuescan. Vuescan allows auto-feed and duplex operation, along with automatic saving and file naming. At this point, I choose and folder and file name prefix with Vuescan, load a stack of prints in the scanner, and let it run. The only issue I have at the moment is cropping to the print size. Vuescan allows the user to set automatic crops with good control, and I need to explore and fine-tune those settings. Currently, I am saving full-size scans, and batch cropping in Lightroom.
Dust Lines
 |
| Crop of full scan with shadows opened to show dust line (light line above trees) and banding (the rest of the lines throughout). Click to view crop full size. |
Unlike a flatbed scanner, the auto-feed mechanism in the FF-640 runs the print past a stationary scan head. The drawback is that a single piece of dust on the scan head's glass cover results in a line running the length of the image. In the beginning, I tried to be diligent about checking images every few scans, and re-running them if I found dust lines. Unfortunately, even prints that I've stored fairly cleanly in their envelopes end up depositing dust in the scanner. There's really no way to avoid the dust lines without cleaning the scanner after every individual photo. At that point, may as well head back to the flatbed and abandon getting your whole library digitized.
I decided to let it be, and live with the occasional dust line. Since the scans for this reference library aren't intended to be the highest quality reproductions, I can live with the dust. Beware, however, if you are hoping to use this scanner to get consistently clean scans.
Image Quality
The FF-640 is limited to a maximum 600 pixels per inch. This is large enough to see details in the scans, but certainly pales in comparison to the 1600 or 3200 or whatever ridiculously high resolution new flatbed scanners offer. For my reference library, this is not a problem, and keeps the file sizes under control.
I have not made any detailed tests for color accuracy. Since the prints themselves were automatically color-corrected, I am not concerned about maximum accuracy. Better to save that effort for negative scans.
Of greater concern is the low quality of the scans themselves. There is plenty of banding visible in the dark areas of scans, reminding me very much of a Canoscan from about 2003. This is the biggest disappointment for me, considering it's a 2016 model and should be able to do much better. My old Epson Perfection 1660 from 2002 produces far cleaner shadow detail. In the end, I will live with the results, but beware that the banding makes clean post-processing adjustments difficult if not impossible. For a reference library it's not the end of the world, but really, Epson, is this the best you can do at this price?
Other Uses
Because the scanner can run documents up to letter size, it's a quick way to archive paper documents. I have done a couple already, and can see using the unit for that purpose once I finish the primary task.
