Scanner Recommendation

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , RJH wrote:

RJH:
Recently, I tried to scan a photo using my cheap Samsung
multifunction laser printer. The photo is a decent quality
wedding photo. But the results are quite poor - certainly not
as sharp as the original. I also tried with my Canon 40D and
the results were similar. The best was with my iphone 6 - but
still not that good.

snip

It's a wedding photo - about 10" square print taken by a
professional, so reasonable quality. Noted your enthusiasm for the
V750, but a bit beyond my means!

If you don't have much scanning needs, I would give the Canon route another
go.
Use some DIY rig to mount the camera very still and pointed directly down.
Use a
pane of glass over the photo to make it perfectly flat and put it under the
camera. Something like this:

http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?
key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.dpbestflow.org%2Fsit
es%
2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F%2Fuploaded_images%2Fcopystand .jpg

Make sure there is no glare in the glass and/or photo (the lights in the
image
might be placed a bit too tight actually) and you'll do fine.

I found this listing at ebay uk!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/B-I-G-Digi...l-fur-digitale
-Makro-Reproaufnahmen-428930-/151767760359?hash=item2356103de7
--
teleportation kills

On 11/08/2015 10:30, Sandman wrote:
In article , RJH wrote:

Sandman:
Well, the Coolscan scans negatives and slides, and he tried to
"scan" a photo. I don't know if it was a negative/slide but
probably not, so the Coolscan wouldn't help here. For scanning
developed photos, he needs a flatbed, and the Epson ones are
amazingly good.

It's a wedding photo - about 10" square print taken by a
professional, so reasonable quality. Noted your enthusiasm for the
V750, but a bit beyond my means!

Few flatbed scanners takes a 10" (254 mm) square, and certainly not the Epson
V550, which is A4 sized (216x297 mm). You need a A3 scanner (297mm x 434mm), and
then prices will rise accordingly. lus, few A3 scanners are good photo scanners.
Most are document and/or book scanners.


Most photos I have are 'normal' size, and certainly within A4. This was
to extract one face from a small group, so an A4 scanner would be fine.

Really, if I wanted to do this on an industrial scale, I'd use the work
photocopier, which seems to be at least as good as my scanner.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , android wrote:

In article
,

RJH:
Recently, I tried to scan a photo using my cheap
Samsung multifunction laser printer. The photo is a
decent quality wedding photo. But the results are quite
poor - certainly not as sharp as the original. I also
tried with my Canon 40D and the results were similar. The
best was with my iphone 6 - but still not that good.

Sandman:
snip

RJH:
It's a wedding photo - about 10" square print taken by a
professional, so reasonable quality. Noted your enthusiasm for
the V750, but a bit beyond my means!

Sandman:
If you don't have much scanning needs, I would give the Canon
route another go. Use some DIY rig to mount the camera very
still and pointed directly down. Use a pane of glass over the
photo to make it perfectly flat and put it under the camera.
Something like this:

http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?

key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.dpbestflow.org%2Fsit
es% 2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F%2Fuploaded_images%2Fcopystand .jpg

Make sure there is no glare in the glass and/or photo (the lights
in the image might be placed a bit too tight actually) and
you'll do fine.

I found this listing at ebay uk!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/B-I-G-Digi...l-fur-digitale
-Makro-Reproaufnahmen-428930-/151767760359?hash=item2356103de7

Excellent!

--
Sandman

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

In article , android wrote:

In article
,

RJH:
Recently, I tried to scan a photo using my cheap
Samsung multifunction laser printer. The photo is a
decent quality wedding photo. But the results are quite
poor - certainly not as sharp as the original. I also
tried with my Canon 40D and the results were similar. The
best was with my iphone 6 - but still not that good.

Sandman:
snip

RJH:
It's a wedding photo - about 10" square print taken by a
professional, so reasonable quality. Noted your enthusiasm for
the V750, but a bit beyond my means!

Sandman:
If you don't have much scanning needs, I would give the Canon
route another go. Use some DIY rig to mount the camera very
still and pointed directly down. Use a pane of glass over the
photo to make it perfectly flat and put it under the camera.
Something like this:

http://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?

key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=http%3A%2 F%2Fwww.dpbestflow.org%2Fsit
es% 2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F%2Fuploaded_images%2Fcopystand .jpg

Make sure there is no glare in the glass and/or photo (the lights
in the image might be placed a bit too tight actually) and
you'll do fine.

I found this listing at ebay uk!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/B-I-G-Digi...l-fur-digitale
-Makro-Reproaufnahmen-428930-/151767760359?hash=item2356103de7

Excellent!

Yeah! i almost broke out the card to get on meself!!!
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-08-11 07:53:43 +0000, RJH said:

On 11/08/2015 08:32, Sandman wrote:
In article , nospam wrote:

RJH:
Recently, I tried to scan a photo using my cheap Samsung
multifunction laser printer. The photo is a decent quality
wedding photo. But the results are quite poor - certainly not as
sharp as the original. I also tried with my Canon 40D and the
results were similar. The best was with my iphone 6 - but still
not that good.

if you're scanning a print, then most scanners should do an
excellent job. taking a photo of it generally won't.

RJH:
So this has got me thinking about a scanner - not just for this,
but also a pile of old (30 - 40 years old) 35mm negatives I have,
and I'd like to go through them at some point.

A bit of research suggest an Epson V550 - it's at the top of my
price range, supports Macs, and has the features I'd like. Any
thoughts?

don't use a flatbed for negatives. do it right and get a nikon
coolscan.

unfortunately, they're not made anymore, so you'll have to look for
a used one, but that's fine since people buy them, scan their film
and then sell it. there's usually nothing wrong.


It does seem to be quite a high risk endeavour, and the UK ebay returns
don't look that encouraging. Scanning negatives is more of an added
bonus - if I found any I really liked, then maybe I'd look for a better
solution


Well, the Coolscan scans negatives and slides, and he tried to "scan" a
photo. I
don't know if it was a negative/slide but probably not, so the Coolscan
wouldn't
help here. For scanning developed photos, he needs a flatbed, and the
Epson ones
are amazingly good.


It's a wedding photo - about 10" square print taken by a professional,
so reasonable quality. Noted your enthusiasm for the V750, but a bit
beyond my means!

A flat-bed scanner, even an inexpensive one can produce good results.
This was scanned on a $99 multi-function Epson XP-610.
https://db.tt/klP72th7

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

So this has got me thinking about a scanner - not just for this,
but also a pile of old (30 - 40 years old) 35mm negatives I have,
and I'd like to go through them at some point.

A bit of research suggest an Epson V550 - it's at the top of my
price range, supports Macs, and has the features I'd like. Any
thoughts?

don't use a flatbed for negatives. do it right and get a nikon
coolscan.

unfortunately, they're not made anymore, so you'll have to look for
a used one, but that's fine since people buy them, scan their film
and then sell it. there's usually nothing wrong.

Well, the Coolscan scans negatives and slides, and he tried to "scan" a
photo. I
don't know if it was a negative/slide but probably not, so the Coolscan
wouldn't
help here. For scanning developed photos, he needs a flatbed, and the Epson ones
are amazingly good.

he said he has a pile of negatives.

a negative scanner is the correct choice for negatives, not a flatbed
scanner with an adapter.

also, scanning film is very time consuming. don't waste your time doing
it with substandard equipment. do it properly.

and as i said, if you buy used and resell it when done, the net cost is
basically zero.

In article , RJH wrote:

Most photos I have are 'normal' size, and certainly within A4. This was
to extract one face from a small group, so an A4 scanner would be fine.

what happened to the pile of negatives?

Really, if I wanted to do this on an industrial scale, I'd use the work
photocopier, which seems to be at least as good as my scanner.

then you have a ****ty scanner.

On 2015-08-11 02:36, RJH wrote:
Recently, I tried to scan a photo using my cheap Samsung multifunction
laser printer. The photo is a decent quality wedding photo. But the
results are quite poor - certainly not as sharp as the original. I also
tried with my Canon 40D and the results were similar. The best was with
my iphone 6 - but still not that good.

So this has got me thinking about a scanner - not just for this, but
also a pile of old (30 - 40 years old) 35mm negatives I have, and I'd
like to go through them at some point.

A bit of research suggest an Epson V550 - it's at the top of my price
range, supports Macs, and has the features I'd like. Any thoughts?


If it's for film, I'd suggest a good dedicated film scanner (used or new)

Minolta 5400 or 5400 II - the former being more ruggedly built the later
having more neutral colour. (Used market)

Nikon 4000 or 5000 (Used market)

(or 8000 or 9000 if you have MF film - expensive - in fact they go for
more used than their original retail price. I have the 9000).

All of the above have ICE. (dust/scratch "removal" from the scan by
using an IR channel).

That said, the Epson flat beds do quite well with film - just shy of a
good scanner.

On a Mac you'll probably need 3rd party scanning s/w such as VueScan.

First rule of scanning: sort through and only scan the best or most
relevant photos.

In article , android
wrote:

For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with
the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of
information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have
that much info to begin with compared to a negative.

I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of
your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac
and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on
prints.

no software can fix a ****ty scanner.

On 2015-08-11 12:18, nospam wrote:
In article , android
wrote:

For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with
the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of
information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have
that much info to begin with compared to a negative.

I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of
your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac
and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on
prints.

no software can fix a ****ty scanner.


True. And no scanner can get more detail out than what is in the actual
print.