 pcmlphotography.com - Pamela C.M Lammersen  Contact Pamela C.M Lammersen Pamela C.M Lammersen's Gallery |
scanners Hello all, I am just curious what others are using for scanning their work. I use a traditional camera then scan the photos to upload them to the internet etc. I have problems with the scaned image not being as clear and crisp as the original print. I guess that leads to 2 questions: 1/what brands have you had good/great results with for scanning prints. 2/any suggestions besides a better scanner (duh! :-))to help with better results in the interm. look forward to your answers and everyone have a wonderful day -Pamela
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
I have used my Epson 2450 and gotten very nice scans - not as crisp as scanning the negatives with a film scanner, but certainly acceptable for e-mail and monitor display use. If you are scanning ink-jet prints, though, then that can be the problem - while your eyes cannot see the tiny dots, the scanner can, and this can come across as unsharpness. You might want to check to see if your photo processor is using ink-jet technology (there are some systems that do that).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
hello pamela, i use the epson 4180 photo scanner to scan my photos.they come out just like the photo and maybe just a little crisper.about 200 bucks and comes with negative holders I haven't used yet. hth, sam
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pat Worster |
Pamela how about getting your images put on a CD when you have them processed then you don't have to scan.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pamela lammersen |
thank you Bob and Samuel for your imput on the 'Epson' range of scanners, I have been looking at them previously and will check them out again. Thank you Pat re your suggestion, I have tried having the images put on cd but I am unable to edit them if needed is the problem. I appreciate you help guys glad to hear there are some systems that work fine. Just wanted imput before I purchase. -pamela
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bob Cammarata |
I've been using a Nikon Coolscan 4000 ED for several years and it does a nice job with my fujichrome slides. It works well with negatives also. As mentioned, you will get better scans from negatives or slides than from prints.
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Hi Pam; I use a Lexmark 3350 printer/scanner all in one unit. It works well, but I've seen better.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael H. Cothran |
Pamela, In a nutshell, there are two basic types of "home" scanners available - Flatbed (which is what all the Epson's are) and Dedicated CCD Film Scanners. The latter will give you much better scan results than the all purpose, one-size-fits-all flatbed scanners. Better film scanners today will scan @ 4000 ppi, more than double that of the best flatbeds. Nikon seems to have the best variety of film scanners, but Minolta and Microtec are worth looking into. FYI - The finest scans that one can get are from commercial Drum Scanners, but these units are too expensive for even most well-to-do professionals. Better photo labs usually offer drum scanning, but usually cost in the $30-$50 range PER SCAN. Expensive, but the quality AND FILE SIZE are the best possible.
|
|
|
|
||
|
pcmlphotography.com - Pamela C.M Lammersen Contact Pamela C.M Lammersen Pamela C.M Lammersen's Gallery |
thank you all for your imput there is some great info here from all of you. I have a good start for my new scanner. :-) have a wonderful day everyone
|
|
|
|
||
|
Greg D. Leeah |
does anybody know if you will get better quality from a film scanner than with the walgreens photo CD? im not sure if they film scan or use flatbed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I had a roll of film developed at Walgreens and ordered the CD along with the prints. The images on the CD were 1200x1600 pixels, or about 2.2 Megapixels. Good for printing a 4x6 at 300dpi. Needless to say, I was not impressed.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||