Scanner Recommendation

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.

No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to
file.

you can't get water out of stone and you can enhance it all you want in
photoshop. you don't need scanner software to do that.

In this case it's free to try. It could be the case that
the disappoing results that the OP got steams from crappy
soft!

no.

On 2015-08-11 12:36, android wrote:
nospam Wrote in message:
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.

No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to
file.

Then it's not a scan. It's added art.

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.

No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to
file.

you can't get water out of stone and you can enhance it all you want in
photoshop. you don't need scanner software to do that.

Photoshop only mangles existing files. The scannerware produces
the equivalent of the cameras raw files.

complete nonsense.

On 8/11/2015 12:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
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.

There is also the flip side of the coin. A high quality scanner may
reveal all the defects and scratch marks in the negative, causing a lot
of work to remove.

--
PeterN

On 11/08/2015 16:29, nospam wrote:
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?


They're still there. The scanner plan was not just for photos -
negatives too.

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.


Or a good copier. I work in an architects' department, so maybe it's
unusually good. I've only used to to archive magazines to pdf though, so
not sure of its photo copies.

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , PeterN
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.

There is also the flip side of the coin. A high quality scanner may
reveal all the defects and scratch marks in the negative, causing a lot
of work to remove.

not if you know what you're doing, it doesn't.

and you can always just blur it and pretend you had a ****ty scanner.

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?

They're still there. The scanner plan was not just for photos -
negatives too.

ideally, you should get two scanners, one designed for prints and one
designed for negatives, but a hybrid might suffice if you're not picky
about the results.

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:29:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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.

Why is no one bringing up the idea of setting up a rig, and using a FF
DSLR to photograph the negatives? It is very fast, and I did it with
my negatives. But I've admittedly not gone back to evaluate the
results on most of them. I believe I might have had the focus less
than perfect, and I used only a 16 MP APS-c camera.

But like I said, it's really fast, and there are people out there that
say they got better results than with a scanner. One of these days
I'll go back and redo the ones I want, but I'll use a 24 MP camera,
and live view to get the focus right.

In article , Bill W
wrote:


Why is no one bringing up the idea of setting up a rig, and using a FF
DSLR to photograph the negatives? It is very fast, and I did it with
my negatives. But I've admittedly not gone back to evaluate the
results on most of them. I believe I might have had the focus less
than perfect, and I used only a 16 MP APS-c camera.

because that's worse and he mentioned using a camera anyway.

But like I said, it's really fast, and there are people out there that
say they got better results than with a scanner. One of these days
I'll go back and redo the ones I want, but I'll use a 24 MP camera,
and live view to get the focus right.

then they had a ****ty scanner or some other problem.

On 2015-08-11 12:40, android wrote:
Alan Browne Wrote in message:

Subjective opinion. All scanners out resolve prints by a factor of at
least 3 times and usually 6. There is nothing magical about VueScan.
I've been using it on PC's and Macs since it first came out.

Then you know it has one of the most powerful interfaces in its
category. That alone makes for a more controled
output with files
of higher quality.


The output can never be of higher quality than the original material.

Anything that contributes to the quality of the output, no matter how
"controlled" is only additive or subtractive - but never quite as good
as the original itself.

I'm not putting down VueScan. It's excellent s/w. But it is not magical.