# Which scanner.......?



## JPAZ (Aug 21, 2016)

I've been reading reviews and have gone through 3 threads on this site but have a question. I recently received a lot of old family photos. These exist as Polaroids, old portraits, cut pages from yearbooks / newspapers and piles of snapshots, all without negatives. I plan to digitize these pictures. Many are fading or scratched and there are quite a few that are just terrible exposures. This also is making me consider the boxes of old film images I have from my own efforts that I probably should organize and digitize as well, some with negatives and some without.

I have an old HP flatbed document scanner (HP 6200c) that I use with Vuescan to create TIFF files for editing but it just does not give me the IQ I need. Some images are "beyond repair" but with PS and LR, I've been able to make others passable. I will probably never print any of these any larger than 8.5 x 11 inches. All of this has led me to think about a better scanner. Given the number of images for which there are no negatives, I am thinking about a flatbed scanner but want the ability to use negatives when available. I could, I suppose, get both a negative / film scanner and a flatbed, but that is not realistic.

I looked at the Canoscan 9000F ii, but think I'll go with the Epson -V600 vs. V800 vs. V850. My question: I am familiar with the specifications of each. In the real world of use, will I notice a significant difference in the IQ with any of these devices? Will a V600 "suffice" for my needs? It is quite a bit more capable than what I've got now. Or should I get the V800/850? Except for software and some film holders, the only difference between the V800 and V850 that I see is an "anti-reflective coating" on some of the components. How much does this affect what I'll see in the final image? 

Any thoughts and information is appreciated.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 21, 2016)

JPAZ said:


> I've been reading reviews and have gone through 3 threads on this site but have a question. I recently received a lot of old family photos. These exist as Polaroids, old portraits, cut pages from yearbooks / newspapers and piles of snapshots, all without negatives. I plan to digitize these pictures. Many are fading or scratched and there are quite a few that are just terrible exposures. This also is making me consider the boxes of old film images I have from my own efforts that I probably should organize and digitize as well, some with negatives and some without.
> 
> I have an old HP flatbed document scanner (HP 6200c) that I use with Vuescan to create TIFF files for editing but it just does not give me the IQ I need. Some images are "beyond repair" but with PS and LR, I've been able to make others passable. I will probably never print any of these any larger than 8.5 x 11 inches. All of this has led me to think about a better scanner. Given the number of images for which there are no negatives, I am thinking about a flatbed scanner but want the ability to use negatives when available. I could, I suppose, get both a negative / film scanner and a flatbed, but that is not realistic.
> 
> ...



I scan often and use a 9000 II and a 850... the 850 was needed for large format negs. I process and develop all my own film large format and medium format... BW, C41 or E6 in addition to bleached 100C polaroids. I use Richard labs and Find labs Noritsu and Frontier scanning when the workload is heavy or client critical. Pricey but quick.

The 9000 II is a perfectly fine scanner and I think provides just as good if not better scans... the question should be based on if you need large format scanning and want to spend under 200 or almost 900$. If you shoot 8x10 or 4x5... Epson. Cost isn't an issue and you have money to burn... Epson. Medium format or 135 only... Canon.

In this thread you see images scanned from the 850, 9000 II and a Noritsu. The 800/850 will allow large format scanning and that is about the only difference I've seen between any of them. Scan to TIFF and avoid any of the canned software going straight to your preferred digital workflow.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=30368.15


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 21, 2016)

FYI - I actually own an Argus C3 that my Dad gave me. I actually used it in the early 70's shooting mostly Tri-Ex (as I recall) that I developed in a tank in my closet


----------



## Pookie (Aug 21, 2016)

JPAZ said:


> FYI - I actually own an Argus C3 that my Dad gave me. I actually used it in the early 70's shooting mostly Tri-Ex (as I recall) that I developed in a tank in my closet



Nice... currently shooting mostly with a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II but own a Hassy 503, Horseman 45f, Linhof 6x17, Leica M5, and a Polaroid 600SE. Too many boring 135 to list...

I'm rapidly considering dropping most of my digital for my personal work. Only Canon's I have are for business... 5D3's and 1DX. Those and the 645z mainly for weddings and commercial...

Good ol' Tri-X... old school but I'm more of an Ilford shooter now. Why in your closet... use a Patterson or JOBO and move out to the kitchen


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 21, 2016)

So I am very close to pulling the trigger on the V850. Worth the difference in price over the V800? I know "worth" is an arbitrary term.


----------



## Pookie (Aug 21, 2016)

JPAZ said:


> So I am very close to pulling the trigger on the V850. Worth the difference in price over the V800? I know "worth" is an arbitrary term.



I'd say they are a wash... a friend has the 800 and I have an 850. Never really looked closely but on the surface not much of a difference. I do like the wet scan option for both the upper end models though.

With picture scanning though you should look into some ANR glass or the images will pick that artifact up more when placing them directly on the glass. Looks horrible and is almost impossible to correct.


----------



## LDS (Aug 21, 2016)

JPAZ said:


> I recently received a lot of old family photos. These exist as Polaroids, old portraits, cut pages from yearbooks / newspapers and piles of snapshots, all without negatives. I plan to digitize these pictures.



I've recently made copies of images took between 1916 and the 1950s. First I attempted to use a scanner, but I wasn't happy with the results, especially with some that have a glossy surface, or used papers with a visible texture, due to the lack of lighting control - IMHO the direct light of a scanner may not be the best in such situations.

I got better result using the classic "repro" setup, macro lens, lights on both sides of the original, and the camera mounted on a rail to achieve the best framing and focus (manual focus using LiveView and the magnifier).

Texture and reflection can be controlled positioning the lights properly, and/or using polarizers. I used an X-Rite ColorChecker at the beginning of each session, to get the proper color correction (white balance but not only) quickly and consistently.

Some little issues to keep flat some borderless originals, a clean glass sheet in these situations helped.


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 21, 2016)

Pookie said:


> Why in your closet... use a Patterson or JOBO and move out to the kitchen



Pretty much 100% digital now. Somewhere in the boxes of photos I have some B&W 8 x 10's I made in a friend's darkroom in about 1978. Ansel Adams I am not! But digital and LR gives me a fighting chance. After all, this is a hobby (albeit an expensive one).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 21, 2016)

When I was researching scanners for slides, I read a couple of articles saying that for scanning hard-copy pictures as you are then you do not need the high-falluting tech of the top level flatbeds. And given the possible quality of the images (_"These exist as Polaroids, old portraits, cut pages from yearbooks / newspapers and piles of snapshots,"_) I would question this further.
Based on that I would seriously consider I would get something like the V500 or V600 and save yourself some money.

You need to consider that a challenge with negatives is that the reproduction ratios (size of the negative compared to size of the print or on screen) is much higher for negatives than for scanning printed images and this is why there is so much care taken when scanning. You can get away with a less high-tech solution for scanning prints. One comment I found was that a $100 cheapo was as good as anything but how true that is I have not put to the test but this was before all-in-one scanners/printers came to the fore and those may have muddied the waters


----------



## JPAZ (Aug 24, 2016)

Given the amount of reflective scanning involved plus the ability to scan negatives and slides that are in my boxes, I pulled the trigger and the Epson V850 should arrive tomorrow.


----------

