Scanning in old images

Scanning is usually more convenient. However, these days you normally get much better quality photographing than scanning - if you have the necessary equipment. This is even true for 35mm negatives and transparencies.

The "necessary equipment" basically means a dedicated flat-field macro lens, and some kind of repro stand. Then you need two light sources at roughly 45 degrees angle off the original (or backlighting for film).

Most camera manufacturers have suitable macro lenses in their lineup. I have used a Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 with excellent results.

There are several problems with scanners. First, they usually have a very high amount of chromatic aberration - colored fringes. This is usually random and irregular, and not possible to correct with the automatic tools in, say, ACR. This is mostly a problem with small originals like 35mm film.

Second, it's hard to control contrast and dynamic range. A good raw file, properly exposed, is much easier to work with, and contains more useful data than an 8-bit RGB file out of a scanner.

Third, few scanners truly give you the advertised native, optical resolution - nevermind the interpolated max resolution. You will almost always get better resolution and more useful detail with an appropriate camera setup.

I use a Brother Scanner in my Mac. Perhaps I can offer you some useful tips:

Before scanning, I clean the scanner glass. my favorite is iKlear travel single wipes and the lint-free cloth that comes with it. I use a flashlight to highlight any unwanted dust I might have missed. Some people use gloves to keep fingerprints and smudges off the glass.

Yes, if a photo or any item is not exactly on that glass, it gets out of focus. I use a black sheet of paper and something lika thinn book to press it flat. sometimes I'll place a heavier book on the lid. I also throw a towel on top to prevent light leaks when there is a gap between the lid and the glass. Black backing is preferred over white to eliminate anything on the other side of the photo from bleeding through.

256 levels of gray is fine. That's 8 bit grayscale. I'm not sure about 16 bit, I've used it and I'm told scanners do not go beyond 12 bit.

There are two kinds of scanner resolution: Optical and Interpolated. Optical is best. Depending on the scanner this can be 1200 or 2400 ppi. anything higher is "interpolated", created by adding pixels. Not necessary IMO. I scan halftone print at 1200 to eliminate halftone moire. I hope some photographers here can weigh in on an optimal scan resolution. 300-600 seems reasonable. You can experiment.

The scanner in a way is a camera, taking pictures with a digital camera is not a good idea because you don't have much control over lens distortion or lighting as you would with a scanner. If you need to edit out scratches, there are plenty of filters and other tools in Camera Raw and Photoshop that will do this kind of work.

I hope others can better weigh in on photos.

And one more thing...always, always, always back up. Not only on the local drive, but also to an external drive and since you have it and hopefully a fast connection, to your Creative Cloud or other cloud storage. You will be doing a lot of work and you do not want to lose it.