# Can someone recommend a good scanner?



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2015)

Can someone recommend a good quality scanner for not only documents, but also for pictures, 35mm film and slides?

I have some old photos I want to scan and use PS to repair some of...etc.

What's a good scanner?

I've been looking at the Canon CanoScan 9000F MKII Color Image Scanner, and wondering if this is a good choice to make?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## dcm (Mar 12, 2015)

Depends on how many you plan to scan and the sizes. I have a few thousand old family photos, negatives and slides I am scanning for archival and sharing with family members. I also have 10K+ film images of my own. 

I looked at Canon's offering a few years ago and chose to go with the the Epson V750 (12 slides, 4 35mm film strips, medium format, and large format). Canon's tray capacity/support was more limited. The Epson supports Digital Ice to eliminate dust/scratch from film/slides - Canon's FARE is similar. I am quite happy with the decision for my high volume scanning. If my volume was less I would have considered Canon's offering.

The V750 has a few better features than the V700. Looks like the V850 trays hold fewer slides and film strips at a time and have a similar feature delta over the V800, but they are otherwise similar. I use Firewire on my V750, doesn't look like they now offer it on any of these models now. They do say USB 2.0 High speed. I might have upgraded if USB 3.0 was available on the V800s since I'm less than half done.

I use VueScan to do my scanning. It has the best combination of workflow/features for my purposes. YMMV


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 12, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Can someone recommend a good quality scanner for not only documents, but also for pictures, 35mm film and slides?
> 
> I have some old photos I want to scan and use PS to repair some of...etc.
> 
> ...



I picked up a used Epson V700 doe $100 locally about a year ago. Its good for scanning photos and larger format negatives, but for 35mm slides, its just OK. A dedicated slide scanner might be better if you have a large number. You can probably find a used slide scanner, finish your job and resell it. I have only a few hundred old slides that were never really great, so my V700 is fine for those. I've a ton of old 120 B&W negatives from the 1940's that it does very well with.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2015)

dcm said:


> Depends on how many you plan to scan and the sizes. I have a few thousand old family photos, negatives and slides I am scanning for archival and sharing with family members. I also have 10K+ film images of my own.
> 
> I looked at Canon's offering a few years ago and chose to go with the the Epson V750 (12 slides, 4 35mm film strips, medium format, and large format). Canon's tray capacity/support was more limited. The Epson supports Digital Ice to eliminate dust/scratch from film/slides - Canon's FARE is similar. I am quite happy with the decision for my high volume scanning. If my volume was less I would have considered Canon's offering.
> 
> ...



Wow..that's VERY nice!!

It appears the new version of that is:
http://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-V850-Pro-scanner/dp/B00OCEJMG8

That is a bit rich for what I"m needing right now, I don't need to do a lot of volume, but I do want quality. I was hoping for something in the $200-$300 range if possible.

I was looking at something like this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00AGV7TQG
vs what appeared to be a comparable Epson:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002OEBMRU

I had an old, cheap-o Epson NX430 that went tits up after only a short lifetime, and was a bit hesitant on the Epson brand....reviews of many of theirs seemed to say "flimsy"..but then again, you're talking a whole magnitude of level higher in price and quality too I'm guessing.

Hmm.

I want something to give me a nice quality, but no need for heavy volume...and hoping to not break the bank on price either. 

Thanks for the reply...and look forward to yours or any other folks' suggestions!!

C


----------



## kphoto99 (Mar 12, 2015)

To add a question, does anybody makes a scanner similar to Epson v600 and up that has a network interface.

I have an office scanner (not good enough for photos) that can send the scans to FTP, email, or USB stick, but I would like a photo scanner that does the same. I don't need ICE features.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 12, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> To add a question, does anybody makes a scanner similar to Epson v600 and up that has a network interface.
> 
> I have an office scanner (not good enough for photos) that can send the scans to FTP, email, or USB stick, but I would like a photo scanner that does the same. I don't need ICE features.



So far, it seems only the cheaper ones are network/wireless capable....


----------



## LDS (Mar 13, 2015)

dcm said:


> I use Firewire on my V750, doesn't look like they now offer it on any of these models now. They do say USB 2.0 High speed. I might have upgraded if USB 3.0 was available on the V800s since I'm less than half done.



Firewire is dead, even Apple moved to Thunderbold and now USB-C. I'm not sure a scanner is so fast in scanning data and processing - especially at higher res - it can take advantage of USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt speeds... guess USB 2.0 is enough, older model offered fireware also because USB 1.x was really too slow even for a scanner.


----------



## LDS (Mar 13, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> A dedicated slide scanner might be better if you have a large number. You can probably find a used slide scanner, finish your job and resell it.



What dedicated slide scanner to look for, for good results? Are there compatibility issues with later OS - driver availabilty, etc.?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 13, 2015)

I'm still using a Epson Expression 1600 from 2000 on Firewire, so I can certainly commend Epson on durability, at least in their pro line.

One thing I would recommend is picking up Silverfast as your scanner software. It's so much more sophisticated than what comes in the box. The way it works is that it does a quick prescan, then it gives you all of the tools you're used to for RAW processing. You make your adjustments and then run the final scan giving you perfect results. I've used it for over 15 years now and it's well worth the cost.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> I'm still using a Epson Expression 1600 from 2000 on Firewire, so I can certainly commend Epson on durability, at least in their pro line.
> 
> One thing I would recommend is picking up Silverfast as your scanner software. It's so much more sophisticated than what comes in the box. The way it works is that it does a quick prescan, then it gives you all of the tools you're used to for RAW processing. You make your adjustments and then run the final scan giving you perfect results. I've used it for over 15 years now and it's well worth the cost.



Thank you.
Is the "Silverfast" software only for the Espon, or will it work with the Canon scanner(s) I'm considering as well?

Thanks in advance,

C


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 16, 2015)

cayenne said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still using a Epson Expression 1600 from 2000 on Firewire, so I can certainly commend Epson on durability, at least in their pro line.
> ...


It works for most major scanners and is priced according to the difficulty it takes to create the scanner interface. Here's the product page:

http://www.silverfast.com/product/en.html


----------



## hgraf (Mar 16, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> One thing I would recommend is picking up Silverfast as your scanner software. It's so much more sophisticated than what comes in the box. The way it works is that it does a quick prescan, then it gives you all of the tools you're used to for RAW processing. You make your adjustments and then run the final scan giving you perfect results. I've used it for over 15 years now and it's well worth the cost.



Which version? They list three versions, and have a matrix comparing the versions, but they don't describe the differences.

For example, do I need "SilverFast Multi-Exposure", or "Expert Mode"?

Which version do you have?

Thanks


----------



## LDS (Mar 17, 2015)

hgraf said:


> For example, do I need "SilverFast Multi-Exposure", or "Expert Mode"?



It looks multi-exposure is something interesting- it should improve DR if your scanner supports it, but really features should be explained better, and the site graphic itself is a bit "outdate" and finding tech info not so easy.

Is this software is worth its price, especially from the plus version onwards, when used with some lower end scanner? I don't question its performance with high-end ones, for example I have an Epson 2400 Photo, and often I was not satisfied by Epson software result scanning slides - sometimes are OK, sometimes they are not, luckily a demo is available, hope it will allow for a good test before buying.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 25, 2015)

Ok, I'm getting ready to pull the trigger.

It would appears that the consensus here is for Epson over Canon.

I'm looking at either 

Epson:
http://www.amazon.com/Epson-Perfection-Negative-Document-Scanner/dp/B002OEBMRU

or this

Canon:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AGV7TQG

So, I'm trying to decide. I'd originally been leaning to the Canon...since my last all-in-one that crapped out on me was an Epson...but I'm now leaning towards the Epson standalone.

Any more thoughts before I pull the trigger between these two?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## hgraf (Mar 25, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Ok, I'm getting ready to pull the trigger.
> 
> It would appears that the consensus here is for Epson over Canon.
> 
> ...



I have the Canon, and I don't have the Epson, so I can't comment on "better".

That said, I find the Canon is fantastic. It's quick, the scans are exactly what I was looking for. Works great for non photography work to. The autoscan button scan a documents straight to PDF, very useful.

TTYL


----------



## cayenne (Mar 25, 2015)

hgraf said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I'm getting ready to pull the trigger.
> ...


Does it seem a pretty solid built unit?
How about the software that comes with it? I've heard gripes and complaints about that..do you use what came with it, or just import straight into Photoshop, or what?

Also, are you using Windows or OSX? I'd heard that some users had problems when they upgraded OSX to Yosimite and it broke the drivers being used with the Canon.

Thanks in advance!!

cayenne


----------



## greger (Mar 26, 2015)

I bought the CanoScan 9000F mark ll on sale at London drugs 6 months ago and I really like it. Upgrading my iMac's
Operating system caused the scan to printer button and scanner software to no longer work. I can still use the scanner
Program to scan to PDFs and then print. Haven't tried to scan negs or slides yet but am sure it will work flawlessly.
I would do a Google "Canoscan 9000 F mark ll problems" and see what others have to say. I hadn't found any bad reviews in the short time I looked.


----------



## hgraf (Mar 26, 2015)

cayenne said:


> Does it seem a pretty solid built unit?
> How about the software that comes with it? I've heard gripes and complaints about that..do you use what came with it, or just import straight into Photoshop, or what?
> 
> Also, are you using Windows or OSX? I'd heard that some users had problems when they upgraded OSX to Yosimite and it broke the drivers being used with the Canon.
> ...



1) I consider it pretty solid, and very well built.
2) I only use the software that came with it. Works well enough for my purposes (35mm and 120 neg film scans, have done a few 35mm slides as well). 
3) I save the scans as lossless compressed TIFFs, often in full 16bit, and load those into LR for post. Sometimes I do go to PS from there for the odd thing (i.e. dust spot that wasn't automatically removed, spot from bad drying, or crease in a negative).
4) Mac, whatever the latest OS is. Honestly with my Mac I've never paid much attention, when it says there is an OS update, I just update, have never had a problem, might have been lucky there.

TTYL


----------



## cayenne (Mar 26, 2015)

Ok...after much consideration and research (much of it here, THANK YOU).

I pulled the trigger on the Epson V600...should be here this weekend. I seemed to think that both of the units were similar in functionality and fidelity...the Epson *might* have some edge on some qualities, but way really pushed me over...was that Epson seems to have better driver compatibility across operating systems AND different versions of the OSes....

So, looking forward to getting the unit in this weekend!!

Thanks to all!!

C


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 25, 2016)

Cayenne, are you happy with your purchase?


----------



## cayenne (Jan 25, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Cayenne, are you happy with your purchase?


So far, yes!!!


----------



## chrysoberyl (Jan 25, 2016)

Excellent! And did you pick up Silverfast?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 25, 2016)

I'm sure I have a reputation as a leach, always trying to extract information. If it's any consolation, I am slowly learning and asking fewer dumb questions! :-[

Reading this thread reminded me of my aborted attempt to get my negatives into digital after buying an Epson Perfection 4490 Photo. I only have about a 100 rolls of 36 that maybe half would be scanned. From my maybe 50 conversions I found it tedious and was not pleased with my inability to minimize dust on the negatives. I live in a house with a parrot. Also the holders seem less than ideal.

Then I bought a printer scanner and put the Epson in storage and now I'm wondering if it is worth retrieving it and trying again or alternative?? I'm sure one of you may have a quick answer that would help me to get back on track with this worthy endeavor. Back in the day I was not engaged in any photo forums as I should have been and was just getting into my first DSLR.

Jack


----------



## cayenne (Jan 28, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Excellent! And did you pick up Silverfast?



No on the Silverfast at this point...but still considering it....

Just need to find time to research it a bit more...

Thanks!!

C


----------



## pwp (Jan 28, 2016)

Just to throw in a curve ball, lot's of photographers have had huge success with camera scans.

Camera Scans: I've bookmarked a bunch of links on the subject ready for when I have a quiet month and have the motivation to get started on digitizing far too many transparencies and negatives. Done right, the results can be compelling, plus the benefit of generating a nice chunky RAW file (vs scanner)

In no particular order:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/11/11/using-a-dslr-to-scan-negative-film-by-stefan-schmidt/
http://petapixel.com/2014/02/11/neat-diy-projector-rig-lets-digitize-15-slides-per-minute-automatically/
http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/camera-scanning
http://thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf
http://petapixel.com/2014/03/30/reflectas-latest-35mm-scanner-digitizes-your-negatives-at-an-insane-10000-dpi/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PetaPixel+%28PetaPixel%29
http://lensvid.com/gear/scanning-slides-using-a-dslr-the-fast-way/
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21877.0
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/scannerless_digital_capture_and_processing_of_negative_film_photographs.shtml
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html
https://luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/CameraScanning.pdf

-pw


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 28, 2016)

kphoto99 said:


> To add a question, does anybody makes a scanner similar to Epson v600 and up that has a network interface.
> 
> I have an office scanner (not good enough for photos) that can send the scans to FTP, email, or USB stick, but I would like a photo scanner that does the same. I don't need ICE features.



Fujitsu makes wonderful scanners and have a stand alone network module as well as scanners with built in network.

If you have to ask the price, they are not for you.

I do have a couple older Epson Photo scanners that have the capability to do slides. Epson has no drivers for windows 7 64 bit, but third party drivers work well.

I have yet another Epson photo scanner that does do windows 7 but is sitting due to my now having the V700.

You can have one of the older ones if you pay for packing and shipping. I'd like to send them to a good home.

Photo scanners light slides from the rear rather than reflecting light off a mirror behind the slides. They also have holders to hold slides in place. Those with a large backlight can also handle large format negatives. Mine handled 120 negatives from the 1940's just fine.


----------



## pwp (Jan 28, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Fujitsu makes wonderful scanners and have a stand alone network module as well as scanners with built in network.
> If you have to ask the price, they are not for you.


Interesting. Did a quick search "Fujitsu Film Scanners" but there's too much, mostly links to Frontier!
Which Fujitsu scanner is worth following up on?

-pw


----------



## dadohead (Jan 29, 2016)

cayenne said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent! And did you pick up Silverfast?
> ...



Forget Silverfish. VueScan beats the pants off every other scanner driver. The interface is, uh, crude, and the quirks take some getting used to, but the results are outstanding. And you never have to worry about an OS upgrade breaking your scanner. Buy the Pro version and you get updates free for life. Not connected to Ed, but a very happy user for over 15 years with just about every make and model scanner you could name.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2016)

pwp said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Fujitsu makes wonderful scanners and have a stand alone network module as well as scanners with built in network.
> ...



Although I've had two Fujitsu scanners and have one right now, I see that they are really concentrating on business and industrial equipment, and don't offer any photo scanners any longer, if they ever did.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 29, 2016)

If you are wanting a flat bed scanner to digitize medium format or even large format, Epson is about your only choice. The more expensive models like the V700 will scan large format, while the lower end units scan 35mm and medium format.

None of these are really in the pro range, you get enthusiast for $200-$800. The higher end photo scanners run around 2K, and drum scanners are out of mortal reach. ($30K)


----------



## pwp (Jan 30, 2016)

Just for the exercise I set up the 5DIII on a boom over a lightbox with the L 100 f/2.8is macro, straightened it all up and copied a couple of mounted 35mm transparencies and a Tri-X B&W negative. I learned a lot just doing this and can immediately see areas for refinement. The results beat the pants off cheapie Frontier scans and also scans from a flatbed Epson Perfection V750.

So just for the exercise I cranked in a lot closer and followed the process used in this Petapixel article: 
http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/

If you couldn't be bothered clicking through, you do multiple cropped shots of the transparency and then stitch them together in LR. This is awesome, with a six shot pano of a tiny 35mm transparency, the result rivals a drum scan. This is obviously more time consuming than a single shot, but for those special images it's well worth the time. I only did one, it was my first go and it took me less than ten minutes to shoot and another ten minutes to run the pano process in LR and tidy up in PS CC. 

My early lessons were to use Manual exposure, custom white balance and to use live view (tethered) to focus on the grain and to shoot at f/11. Once you've got a workflow going you'd do plenty per hour. I've been putting off doing this for years. ??? Give it a try!

-pw


----------



## cayenne (Feb 1, 2016)

pwp said:


> Just for the exercise I set up the 5DIII on a boom over a lightbox with the L 100 f/2.8is macro, straightened it all up and copied a couple of mounted 35mm transparencies and a Tri-X B&W negative. I learned a lot just doing this and can immediately see areas for refinement. The results beat the pants off cheapie Frontier scans and also scans from a flatbed Epson Perfection V750.
> 
> So just for the exercise I cranked in a lot closer and followed the process used in this Petapixel article:
> http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/
> ...



WOW..that was a really amazing article!! Thank you, very interesting!!

I plan in the near future to get the canon 100mmL macro lens...and this and other fun projects are on my short list to play with once I get it!!

Cayenne


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 6, 2016)

I picked up the Epsom V600 and am I disappointed! Reduced down to 4"x6" size, the scans are much noisier than the photo. The trouble shooting guide says nothing to resolve this problem. I had expectations of getting at least the same quality. Was I just foolish to expect that?


----------



## dcm (Feb 6, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> I picked up the Epsom V600 and am I disappointed! Reduced down to 4"x6" size, the scans are much noisier than the photo. The trouble shooting guide says nothing to resolve this problem. I had expectations of getting at least the same quality. Was I just foolish to expect that?



Need a bit more information. Was source print or film? How old? What software/settings? An image would be helpful. 

I've scanned thousands of negatives, slides, and prints over the past several years with film sizes ranging from 8mm to MF and prints to 8x10 - some dating back to the Civil War. My V750 has handled it all, but it took a while to fine tune my process to produce the best images and account for a variety of factors.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 6, 2016)

dcm said:


> chrysoberyl said:
> 
> 
> > I picked up the Epsom V600 and am I disappointed! Reduced down to 4"x6" size, the scans are much noisier than the photo. The trouble shooting guide says nothing to resolve this problem. I had expectations of getting at least the same quality. Was I just foolish to expect that?
> ...



I've done a bit with a Canon 9000F, which is in the same league as the Epson V600, and have gotten acceptable results; however, it did take a few hours of fiddling to get the settings right. What are you scanning? It sounds like you're scanning a printed photo. If so, the original represents the maximum quality you'll achieve with the scan -- there's only so much grain to be acquired by the scan. Have you searched the Web for the techniques others have used? (I'd offer my suggestions, but I was scanning negatives)


----------



## JMZawodny (Feb 7, 2016)

I knew one that was very good back when I was on Babylon 5. I'm not sure she is still seeking work however.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 8, 2016)

Thanks for the offers to help. I am scanning at 3600 dpi, but have tried 300, 600, 1200 also. All look substantially worse than the photos, consistently. I am comparing the photo and the image at the same size, BTW.

The device will not scan at higher dpi, although those are listed as available as options. It says enough memory is not available, even when 200 mb is available.

This device goes back; degradation of image quality was not what I expected after all the on-line research I did.

But if anyone has additional input...I'll be grateful!


----------



## Kuja (Feb 8, 2016)

For my 35mm film "scans" I'm using a cheap East German Pentacon slide copier, 
together with a Pentax 100mm macro lens at F11 (reverse mounted for better correction). 
Canon MT-24EX is used for back lighting with manual power setting.
The Camera is 5Ds, I shoot RAW, process in DxO RAW converter, and the results are outstanding!

This is the unit (I have a M42 vesion), there are plenty of them on eBay:


----------



## dcm (Feb 8, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks for the offers to help. I am scanning at 3600 dpi, but have tried 300, 600, 1200 also. All look substantially worse than the photos, consistently. I am comparing the photo and the image at the same size, BTW.
> 
> The device will not scan at higher dpi, although those are listed as available as options. It says enough memory is not available, even when 200 mb is available.
> 
> ...



So its a print, not an image. Does the print have any texture or is it glossy and smooth? Some of the finishes (pebble, matte, etc. ) have a texture on the surface or the paper that does not scan well. Depending on the tool you use, you can reduce the effect. Does the scan look good on the screen? Also depends on your output path, it could be something on the print side. 

You might print one of the many test charts available on the net using photo paper (smooth, glossy). Then scan, print, and compare as a baseline both on the screen and printed. 

I believe scanning is inherently a somewhat lossy experience, you can never get back exactly the pixels that you printed. You do your best to minimize it while scanning and improve it in post. 

Here's a 100 year old family photos scanned from black and white prints, then processed in LR. These were each scanned at a higher resolution and downsampled, then exposure/levels adjusted. They look much better than the originals, even without attempting to fix the flaws, tears, etc. that have occurred over the years. If you pixel peep the first one you will notice the fabric pattern in her dress and the texture of the paper. Or the bokeh in the third one. 

Edit: I used VueScan to create DNGs and processed them in LR.


----------



## pwp (Feb 8, 2016)

*Re: Can someone recommend a good scanner?*

If you're cashed up to the tune of $1699 and feeling brave there is always the Film Toaster.

I saw this gadget over at Petapixel. It's a camera scan device that looks a lot like a toaster!
http://petapixel.com/2016/02/06/the-1699-filmtoaster-helps-you-digitize-most-film-formats-with-your-digital-camera/

This opens up the area of purpose made gadgets to facilitate camera scans. There must be tens of thousands of home made setups around the planet ranging from Frankenstein-esque to simple and very clever. 

This is an area of opportunity.

-pw


----------



## chrysoberyl (Feb 9, 2016)

Thanks, DCM. I am convinced now that the Epsom is just not the right device and that the correct device will be much more expensive. What device did you use?

I very much enjoyed viewing your restored images!


----------



## dcm (Feb 9, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks, DCM. I am convinced now that the Epsom is just not the right device and that the correct device will be much more expensive. What device did you use?
> 
> I very much enjoyed viewing your restored images!



Epson V750. I went to the top of the line at the time - I wanted the infrared scan for negatives and anti-reflection coating only available with the 750. It was well worth the additional cost.


----------



## tolusina (Feb 9, 2016)

Interesting topic with a variety of suggested solutions.
But no arguments. Is this really CR?

Anyways, an eBay search for "slide duplicator" turns up a plethora of interesting devices, many look readily adaptable, some look to be worth much more than asked just for the macro focusing rails.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=film+duplicator&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR5.TRC2.A0.H0.Xslide+duplicator.TRS0&_nkw=slide+duplicator&_sacat=0


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 10, 2016)

tolusina said:


> Interesting topic with a variety of suggested solutions.
> But no arguments. Is this really CR?
> 
> Anyways, an eBay search for "slide duplicator" turns up a plethora of interesting devices, many look readily adaptable, some look to be worth much more than asked just for the macro focusing rails.
> ...



A function of the participants! Rather boring thread - right? Or no? All I care about is that each thread has good humour!  A little information is nice too.

Jack


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 10, 2016)

chrysoberyl said:


> Thanks, DCM. I am convinced now that the Epsom is just not the right device and that the correct device will be much more expensive. What device did you use?
> 
> I very much enjoyed viewing your restored images!



Many people have successfully scanned prints, as you're trying to do. The scanner you have is decent, and there's no reason to believe it can't give you a reasonable result. I suggest you search more widely on the Internet for someone who has done what you're trying to do. Here's a thread you might find useful: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2830205


----------



## dcm (Feb 14, 2016)

Here's a simple exploration of scanning a print. A bit long but its mostly images. Rather than compare a print from a scan to the original print, I compared the scan of a print from a image to the original image, in this case a grayscale ISO 12233 test chart in jpg format. Color adds another dimension that I decided to skip. You can try something similar to see how your scanner and software behave.

Here's the original image, the image with clipping highlighted, and a 1-1 for later comparisons. Note the histogram - the dark border (not black) is the spike towards the left, and the hump in middle is a result of the antialiasing for text and lines. The 1-1 shows a fine diagonal line in the center of the rings.











I printed from LR to a Canon MP640 on both high gloss photo paper and matte paper to show how different surfaces affect printing and scanning. I scanned on both the MP640 and Epson V750 at 300dpi, 600dpi, and 1200dpi in VueScan. The resulting DNGs were 25MB, 101MB, and 404MB. The JPGs were about 7MB, 26MB, and 94MB, varying a bit . I also did a 2400dpi scan for yucks, 1.6GB.

Using VueScan allowed me to compare scanners since I used the same settings for both. There was little/no difference in scans between the MP640 and the V750 so I'll just show the MP640 here. Today most scanners are capable of high quality scans from prints. In my experience, the big difference is the film handling capabilities which is where the V750 shines for me.

First let's look at the scans from the glossy and matte paper at 300, 600, and 1200. The printing and scanning process converts from digital to analog and back so we expect some loss and noise in the process. Note these images all capture the faint diagonal line in the center of the rings. The matte paper produced results similar to faded 100 year old photos I've scanned. It also shows the affect of a different surface which absorbs and bleeds more than the high gloss.




















I also downsampled the 600dpi and 1200dpi scans to 300dpi in VueScan for a more direct comparison. Heres to 300, 600/2 and 1200/4 scans in glossy and matte. From these scans it appears the additional scan resolution didn't gain anything noticeable after they were normalized to the same resolution. It also didn't seem to matter whether VueScan or LR did the downsampling.




















A quick check of the histograms on the 300dpi scans showed the glossy scan was close to the original, the matte scan not so much. The histograms were consistent across different resolutions for the same type of paper. Here's the original, gloss, and matte histograms.



 


 




A little correction to the gloss and matte scans in post can get the historgrams close to the original image with similar clipping. You could do something more elaborate, but PP wasn't the point of this post.











And the resulting 1-1s - original, gloss, and matte. The gloss is image is pretty close, the matte image less so.











Overall I'd say the scanners and software did a pretty good job with the round trip comparison. The difference in quality was largely the paper in this case.


----------



## msatter (Feb 14, 2016)

Just a quick tip. If you have old 'silvered' pictures which shine to much when being scanned you can use a polarization sheet in from of the light source and polarization filter on the camera to almost suppress the shine.
This method is mainly used for reproductions of paintings but can also be used in other items.


----------

