Scanner Recommendation

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?

--
Cheers, Rob

In article , 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.

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

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.

after you scan everything, you can sell it o the next person, which
will make your net cost effectively free (and you might even turn a
profit).

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , 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.

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

agreed

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.

coolscans are old and yet expensive now if you want one you should make
sure that it works properly out before paying

here's a list of dedicated filmscanners that seem to be in your
pricerange:

http://tinyurl.com/nrev2b5

you can get flatbeds cheap on the auctionsites if you want to try out
your "m o" and software. Vuescan from hamrick.com supports lots of
elderly scanners including coolscans. there's a list on their site.
--
teleportation kills

In article , 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?

I have the Epson V750 Pro and I love it. It has film holders for 35 mm negatives
and slides, medium format and 4x5 as well as a 8x10 film area guide.

It's awesome, and with dual lenses have a maximum resolution of 6400 DPI.

Fully supported by Macs.

--
Sandman

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.

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.

--
Sandman

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!


--
Cheers, Rob

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!

If it's only one print, but of quality and high sentimental value then
your best bet probably find a professional service in your area.
--
teleportation kills

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.

--
Sandman

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 02:48:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , 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.

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

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.

My Epson flat bed V700 seems to do OK for negatives, not that I've
used it very much.

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.

after you scan everything, you can sell it o the next person, which
will make your net cost effectively free (and you might even turn a
profit).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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%2Fsites%
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.

--
Sandman