Scanners?

I

imported_Aurora40

New member
I take film photos and want to be able to scan them. I had an HP 2200c scanner because it was cheap ($49) but I returned it because the pictures were very pixely. I have to shrink them a bit in order for it to be less noticeable. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had some advice. I'm thinking about trying the HP 3500c now. I've used some of the old 5c and 4c classes of HP scanners at various other jobs and they always did a good job. So I was surprised when a new scanner (albeit a cheap one) did such a poor job. I guess the technology hasn't changed too much and a quality CCD is still a quality CCD. I'd like to spend under $200, though, and preferably around $100.
 
That's funny that you would stick to film so you could scan them. You could just invest in a good printer and still be able to have hard copies of your photos. I've got a scanner for some of the film pictures that I take, but I run into the same problem. Its tough to find a good scanner that won't give you grainy looking photos. Its almost better to just get a good printer and a good Digicam. I still keep a film camera around for my wife so she can scrapbook stuff. The digicam is so much eaiser though... I guess she isn't ready to enter this century yet. ;)
 
Hi, Ejant:



when done taking Digi-foto's, can't you put the ones you want a hard-copy of on a CD and take them to a fotoshop place?

I know that Kodak has such a feature , could be cheaper than a foto-printer.:nixweiss



Just thinking out loud



Christiaan:wavey
 
Aurora40 said:
I take film photos and want to be able to scan them. I had an HP 2200c scanner because it was cheap ($49) but I returned it because the pictures were very pixely. I have to shrink them a bit in order for it to be less noticeable. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone had some advice. I'm thinking about trying the HP 3500c now. I've used some of the old 5c and 4c classes of HP scanners at various other jobs and they always did a good job. So I was surprised when a new scanner (albeit a cheap one) did such a poor job. I guess the technology hasn't changed too much and a quality CCD is still a quality CCD. I'd like to spend under $200, though, and preferably around $100.
Click to expand...

This is just another option as I still like my 35mm.

Most shops will offer a scan of your photos on CD when you get them developed - some for very cheap like Superstore in Canada here.

The quality is excellent and it doesn't clog up your hard drive.

I still think digicams have a way to go in technology and price so even the techno weenie I am I have still opted for the old fashion route.
 
Deemo, those photo CD's are about $8 per roll of film here. So after 15-20 rolls of film, I could have a nice scanner. Plus, the scanner can be used to scan magazines or service manuals if necessary (which I would do with some frequency). Also, I don't scan every picture I take. Just ones that I want to send somewhere. So it doesn't fill up my hard-drive. I don't need to keep the scanned images because I have the actual photo.



man... 4 replies and not one recommendation... this place is falling apart. ;)
 
Having used scanners for several years, I know what Jngr and ejant are talking about. Some pics can look very grainy and highly pixellated on a cheap scanner.



With that said, stay away from Visioneer. To me, their scanners embody the issues I have just outlined.



The best scanners I have used are:



HP ScanJet 4400Cxi (An example of a scanned shot from the 4400 is here: http://www.autopia.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=103&papass=&sort=1)



Umax Astra Series



Epson Perfection 1250/1650



All three will give you excellent imaging without the graininess and can be gotten under $200.
 
I just bought an HP 4570c and so far I'm happy with it. It was $199 from CompUSA but comes with a $30 gift card. Here is an example of the scanning differences using the same picture on the original 2200c I bought and the one I now have. For some reason the scanners had a hard time with this one. This first one was scanned on the 2200c that I returned. Noticed how pixely it is (especially on the fence), and how the tires are bluish. Only in this picture did tires come out looking like that:



http://photo.starblvd.net/aurora402002/2-1-1.jpg



And this is the same photo on the 4570c. It looks much better, although this picture still came out worse than others:



http://photo.starblvd.net/aurora402002/2-1-2.jpg



They were both scanned at 150 dpi, so that's not the reason one is sharper. I tried up to 600 dpi on the 2200c and it was still just as pixely and blue-tired, only a lot larger.



P.S. Do any moderators know why
 
That looks nice Nightbird. So far the 4570c is cutting it. If I start to notice it can't handle some things, I'll try out the Epson. This HP did come with a slide adapter. I guess I figured that a negative would be more likely to be grainy since it is so small. I'll have to try it out I guess.



How much was your Epson?
 
Try the slide adapter and show us the result.



About the price, I bought mine without the slide adapter (my mistake) and I paid $150 CAN, 6 month ago.

I am not sure if I should recommend my scanner but I like the Epson scanner. Maybe, try the Epson 1650 or 2450.



As I said, I need to "work" on the image I scan to get something nice. Basically, with Photoshop, I use the "unsharp mask" filter, Setting the Black and White Points, ...



For some tips on image scanning, check:

http://www.scantips.com/



HTH



Jn
 
Ok, I tried out the negative scanner. It works great. You are right, it is sharper than the photo. It isn't a huge difference, though. Looking at the photo on paper, you can see how some of the detail is softer. The softness is from the photo, not the difference in scanning. Here is a shot from the negative scanner:



http://www.autopia.org/gallery/data/500/2657frt14.jpg



I can put up one from the photo, but it's just slightly softer. I noticed it in the wheels mainly. I too use the unsharp mask on scans. It's subtle but it helps. The negative scan seemed to need less color correction than the photo scan did. I guess I'll start scanning photos that way.



Here it is scanned from the photo. Actually, above the widow looks a little more pixely in the negative one. But the wheels look better. I scanned the negative at 600 dpi and didn't have to resize it. The photo I shrunk, so perhaps I need to scan the negative at a higher dpi for the door to be better.



http://www.autopia.org/gallery/data/500/2657scan.jpg
 
I have a UMAX AstraNET iA101 scanner. Works pretty good, too. I don't know what it costs retail, my brother has a growing computer firm and I bought it through him at cost.



Personally, I think the best scanned pics I get are the ones off the Picture CD I get at Wolf Camera. It is noticably superior to the Kodak Picture CDs they used to have. Superior resolution and color saturation and they are virtually indistingiushable from the actual print from the negative.
 
I know you said you want to stay around $100 - 200 but if you want a good scan go a bit higher end like the Epson Perfection 2450. It produces amazing scans.

Dana
 
Doomed said:
I know you said you want to stay around $100 - 200 but if you want a good scan go a bit higher end like the Epson Perfection 2450. It produces amazing scans.

Dana
Click to expand...



Thanks, but I'm pretty happy with the HP 4750c. Plus, I bought it about 4 months ago, so I can't exactly return it anymore... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top