I want to suggest using a camera to copy old photo prints, rather than using a scanner. The scanner & camera you'd use, plus the size & quality of the prints will determine which works best, scanner or camera, so the only way to tell for sure is to give it a try. The one thing you do need to take a picture of a photo is good light -- daylight LED bulbs are both common & cheap nowadays, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem, or just go outdoors. Most cameras struggle with available light indoors -- you can easily wind up with images that have a color cast &/or suppressed shadow detail etc. -- so this does matter. But that is really all it takes to see if using a camera instead of your scanner is going to be a viable option.
If it turns out that using a camera to copy [digitize] photos suits or appeals to you, there are some things you might have to figure out, like what you want to use to hold the phone or camera, what kind of light or light fixture you want to use & so on. I'll get into that [and more] below.
Myself, I've used scanners for over a couple of decades -- my 1st flatbed was a monster by today's standards, being physically huge in comparison, it used an SCSI cable as thick as your thumb. And I've got nothing against them really, but the problem is, & always has been that I spent too much time fixing scanned photos. I've got a Lot of photos I want/need to digitize, and the half dozen or so times I've decided to tackle the job, the amount of time I was spending on each image turned those efforts into false starts. I don't feel that there's anything wrong with spending time enhancing a special image, and there's nothing wrong with spending time to fix a damaged photo, but I was spending way too much time just getting the scan to look like the photo.
Since I've got most of the negatives, my solution for copying my old photos is to take new, digital photos of those negatives, but that's a different story. When my mom passed a few years ago, I got a bunch of old photos she had saved, which meant taking photos of all these prints. This is based on that on-going project.
* * *
Why a camera might be the better choice [for those hesitant to give it a try & judge the results for themselves].
Both cameras & scanners use sensors to capture reflected light, turning that data into images. The software [firmware] that converts that data in most scanners is designed to produce the sharper edges, perhaps granularity to better copy a document's text & graphics, while all cameras are designed for continuous tone photos.
Scanner manufacturers tell you the resolution, optical & interpolated that a scanner is capable of, while cameras can give you X amount of megapixels, optical & sometimes interpolated. Both types of figures or specs really only tell you the maximum size of captured images, and are not a measure of detail or quality. Maybe think of it as setting a PC's/Laptop's 1080p display to something less, say 720p in Windows... the display panel may be capable of displaying 1920 x 1080 unique pixels, but many of those native pixels are merged or combined, so you only get up to a possible 1280 x 720 unique dots of color. It's still a 1080p display, but the picture it shows you isn't as good as a 1080p monitor displaying a 1080p picture.
Long story short, many cameras, & many [perhaps all?] scanners cannot give you the max rated number of *unique* pixels. So if/when someone says to use a scanner rather than a camera, because the scanner has a higher max *rated* resolution, that's often meaningless bunk. Does that mean that no one can actually know the real resolution of a camera or scanner? Not at all, but finding out may cost you... There are test charts that you can scan &/or photograph that will show you the true resolution that a camera or scanner is capable of -- the problem is, most of us don't have access to a high enough quality printer to make a copy that's accurate enough to really do the job, so for best results you probably will have to buy a test chart.
That said, you can still print & then scan &/or take a photo of a test chart -- the 1st link has a PDF available for download -- and that may or may not reveal one or more scanner &/or camera weaknesses. I printed the chart on my Brother MFC-J4310DW printer at highest quality on plain paper, shrinking the chart to fit letter sized in Adobe's Reader. Scanning the chart it appeared gray rather than black, & showed a problem with diagonal fine lines. Scanners take a series of 1 line photos, stitching them together, and that can cause errors. Re-scanning the chart at the highest optical resolution, besides giving me a huge file, showed something I thought interesting... using a magnifying glass on the chart I printed, I could see where the scanner firmware &/or drivers, biased towards text & biz graphics, actually improved the image, separating fine lines that were too small for the printer to print as separate lines.
graphics[.]cornell[.]edu/~westin/misc/res-chart.html
imaging[.]org/site/IST/Standards/Digital_Camera_Resolution_Tools/IST/Standards/Digital_Camera_Resolution_Tools.aspx?hkey=f9040928-44d3-411a-9594-98ee6fd81e69
* * *
Stuff that might help you taking photos of photos...
Maybe the biggest challenge in photographing photo prints is trying to fill the frame with the photo you're copying -- the smaller the print, the harder that can be. You can of course always just fill the frame as much as possible, then crop the result -- you won't get all the resolution the camera is capable of, but the results may be enough, & by cropping the image you might be getting rid of the parts, the outer edges that can show some [usually slight] distortion with some camera lenses.
A zoom or telephoto lens often helps, but if/when the photo print in pretty small, like some contact prints my dad made [you lay the negative on the print paper rather than use an enlarger], you need the lens to focus pretty close up -- this is the minimum focus distance you'll see in camera lens specs. Probably the easiest way to achieve that is with an add-on lens, which are available, often pretty cheaply, for cell phones, interchangeable lenses, & many fixed [non-interchangeable] lenses. Similar to a magnifying glass, they come in different strengths -- 10x is popular.
For interchangeable lenses you can also buy a set of extension tubes [prices start pretty cheap], which are simply tubes that fit between the lens & the camera, having the same practical effect as using an add-on lens. For some cameras you can also find special mounts that let you attach the lens to the camera backwards, so that part that normally mounts to the camera is facing out. You'll get best quality using a Macro lens with a camera that uses interchangeable lenses -- designed for extreme closeups, they can be high priced, so you may not feel the difference in quality is worth it, especially if the prints you want to copy aren't the highest quality to begin with.
I wish I could give you, or point you to a list of which lenses, interchangeable & add-on to use to copy different sized prints, but this seems to vary so much -- the smaller the camera sensor the easier it is to fill the frame -- that I haven't found any lists or good sources for advice. What I did personally was buy a set of 4 closeup lenses on Amazon -- they look like the filters you screw on the end of interchangeable lenses, but came in a case, each with a different magnification. You can use them individually or stack 2 [or 3] to see what works for you. The lens extension tubes I mentioned also come in sets of 3 or 4, each a different length, & you can use them singly or combined to find out what works. If you have an interchangeable lens camera & more than one lens, if you try the closeup lenses or extension tubes, try them on all your lenses to see which combo works best. Note that those closeup lenses come in different sizes to fit the end of various lenses -- to try them on more than one lens you might need to buy filter adapters, which are just a cheap ring with male threads matching the lens & female threads matching the add-on.
Just like there's no one lens I can say to use, there's no one way to handle mounting & holding the camera, or lighting the prints you want to copy. They do sell copy stands -- search Amazon & Ebay -- that can be fairly cheap, but they also sell flexible arms with clamps on one end, & all sorts of tripods etc. I use a old, cheap tripod, that like many has a mount on the bottom of the center column, so I can screw on a cheap ball head & mount a camera [or cell phone or tablet] there & have it pointing downward. Or I can just point the regular head downwards -- I use a simple 3 inch extension(s), that works like a mini boom to put the camera further out from the tripod, so what I'm taking a photo of isn't bumping up against the tripod legs. I also clamp on weight to the rear leg when I do that, to make sure it's stable & won't tip over. The prints I'm copying sit on a low table, I use a level that fits into the camera's hot shoe to make sure the camera's level, & then I raise/lower the tripod center column to adjust the size of the print in the frame. But there's nothing that says the prints you're copying have to lay flat on a table -- you could have them stuck to a wall or bulletin board etc.
You do generally want to keep the camera perpendicular to the photo, for the same reason you want the photo to be flat rather than curled -- depending on the lens & its aperture setting, you may only have a couple or few mm focus range where the picture is going to be sharpest. If your camera is pointing at the picture at an angle other than 90 degrees, part of the image may be a little bit softer, not quite as sharp, plus you might also get some perspective distortion, with the closest part of the print you're shooting appearing taller or wider then the part that's furthest away.
[Tripods that have a center column that rotates to use as a boom are expensive (for me anyway), so I just use one or more of these metal handles screwed into the camera's tripod mount on one end, & the quick release plate for the tripod head on the other. Each one raises the camera 3 inches, or moves it out from the tripod when pointing down.
ebay[.]com/itm/Black-1-4-Metal-Handle-Hand-Grip-For-Camera-SLR-DSLR-Stabilizer-PLD-PL/222839060580?hash=item33e23e3864:g:dNIAAOSw5bFZZZVR ]
For lighting I had/have 2 problems to tackle... some of the prints are curled rather than flat, and many are glossy to the point of being reflective. I solve both issues by putting the prints under a piece of non-reflective plexiglass -- I use a piece of white cardboard for backing, then clamp that to the plexiglass with the prints in between [I use regular binder clips like you buy at Staples]. Glass would be better, but the plexiglass was cheaper locally from Home Depot, & while I'd rather not have anything between the lens & the prints, some of these are curled so badly I've no choice.
You do want what might seem like overkill when it comes to lighting -- the less light you have the slower the shutter speed, & the slower the shutter speed, the greater the chance that the camera's sensor will add noise to your image. One way to have plenty of soft light [so less chance of glare] is to use what Amazon classifies as a Shooting Tent [search shooting tent]. They come in different sizes & configurations, and can be pretty cheap on sale. What they all amount to basically is a collapsible cube, with a translucent fabric [like a very thin white bed sheet] on 3 or more sides to let light pass through, at the same time diffusing that light to prevent glare. Many of these shooting tents come with lights, or you can use clamp-on or table/desk lights with daylight LED or CFL bulbs.
You can also buy small lights for photo & video work that are pretty cheap when they're on sale. Usually rectangular, they come in different sizes, have a bank of LEDs, often include diffusion screens, & are battery powered. Most all come with a hot shoe mount, but many also have a threaded hole to mount to a tripod -- I've used those mounted to a very cheap mini or tabletop tripod, having the light shoot across the prints.
[I bought one similar to this for about $10 on sale including rechargeable battery & charger --
amazon[.]com/YOun-Portable-Photographic-Lighting-Camera/dp/B079RZ71S4/ref=sr_1_304?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1518917891&sr=1-304
I've also got a couple of lights similar to this that I got for around $13-$15 --
amazon[.]com/Dimmable-Digital-Camcorder-Panasonic-Samsung/dp/B004TJ6JH6/ref=pd_rhf_dp_p_img_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=2TX29F51ZSB3JTYQD90S
They came without batteries, & will take either a rechargeable battery or a bunch of AA batteries. They have an adapter for one size rechargeable battery that comes out to mount a larger, more common size. Knock-offs of the Sony FN-350 & 550 are popular & fairly cheap -- roughly $20 for 2 batteries & a charger -- but watch the milliamp hour ratings so you get what you pay for.]
* * *
Conclusion & results.
So far my experience copying these prints is working out pretty well... I have less problems with dust than I've had with scanners, though the plexiglass sheet I use can get a static charge & collect dust. I don't have the problem of the camera picking up any texture from the print [like scanners tend to do], & things like creases aren't as pronounced as they are when I scan photos. I think separate from scanners picking up a print's texture [when/if it has one], I've always struggled with scanned photos being very granular or having a definite grain. Using the camera I don't see that, though of course if you zoom in enough you'll see the inevitable pixilation. Once I have things set up, before I take the 1st shot, I lay down a blank sheet of printer photo paper, setting the white balance to that to accommodate the lighting -- I haven't seen any color problems like what I'd get scanning.
And at the same time I'm shooting RAW images, which gives me both more to work with & more tools to use, whether enhancing the photos or fixing things due to the original's age. The downside of all this has been figuring things out, since this isn't a ready made solution like using a scanner. I expect that I'll come up with ways to improve my methods over time, but once I made it past the initial hurtle of figuring out how I was going to do it, so far things seem to be working out pretty cool.
With Franzis offering their older HDR v.4 on SOS, I'm reminded to add this... The light sensors in cameras [& scanners], plus their firmware/software, have definite limits -- there's only so much data that can be captured at one time. HDR methods & software try to overcome some of this by taking a Goldilocks approach, e.g. taking one picture that's too dark, one that's too light, & one that's just right -- software puts all 3 photos together. Taking pictures of old Black & White photo prints, I've found that several don't fit entirely within the camera's dynamic range, which was a bit of a surprise -- I was expecting the dynamic range to have already been compressed in the original, fitting within the camera's range. And for those prints I take an HDR approach, bumping the exposure up or down as needed for a 2nd [& sometimes 3rd] shot. If I don't, I lose some shadow &/or highlight detail.
One nice thing about using a camera in this case is that once I import the RAW format photos into Lightroom, I can merge them there [in Lightroom] into one HDR image that's also RAW format. That way I have all the data & all the tools to make a better final image.
