Scanner Recommendation

On 8/15/15 4:51 PM, in article ,
"nospam" wrote:

In article , George Kerby
wrote:


BTW: Coolscans did not work with anything Mac since, I believe, OS9.

yes they do.

I meant with Nikon software. Vuescan will work the scanner, but without all
the bells and whistles that Nikon had.

In article , George Kerby
wrote:

BTW: Coolscans did not work with anything Mac since, I believe, OS9.

yes they do.

I meant with Nikon software. Vuescan will work the scanner, but without all
the bells and whistles that Nikon had.

http://www.nikon.com/news/2003/ls50ed.htm
Mac® OS 9 (9.1 or later), Mac® OS X (10.1.5 or later)

however, why would anyone want to use nikon's software? it's slow and
buggy and does not do as much as vuescan or other scanning apps.

On 2015-08-15 21:45:38 +0000, George Kerby said:

On 8/11/15 2:53 AM, in article , "RJH"
wrote:
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!

Not to pick a wound here, but did you not contact the photog for an original
print, before you are going to copy his/her work and not re-imburse? That
would be a lot less than the price of a flatbed if this is a one-time event.
Having it done by a processing lab would not be possible when I ran a camera
shop in the late 70s because, if the shooter's name was on the back of the
print and it would be a copyright violation. Times may be different now, who
knows?

The photographer has probably been dead some 50 to 75 years.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

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. 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!
--
teleportation kills

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.

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.

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.

Oh no....
--
teleportation kills

Alan Browne Wrote in message:
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.

Not really. Please see my last response to nospam.
--
teleportation kills

nospam Wrote in message:

complete nonsense.

And that is what we've learned to expect from you... :-p
--
teleportation kills

Alan Browne Wrote in message:
On 2015-08-12 01:43, android wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

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.

Unless you're going for a raw dump the software controls the format ofigi
the scan file.

Format is not content. Content can't have anything better than the
original.

Well... The original is that that you scan! How the data from the
scanner is written to file is determined by the software you
use.
--
teleportation kills