If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
In article , android
wrote: For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have that much info to begin with compared to a negative. I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on prints. no software can fix a ****ty scanner. No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to file. you can't get water out of stone and you can enhance it all you want in photoshop. you don't need scanner software to do that. In this case it's free to try. It could be the case that the disappoing results that the OP got steams from crappy soft! no. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
On 2015-08-11 12:36, android wrote:
nospam Wrote in message: In article , android wrote: For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have that much info to begin with compared to a negative. I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on prints. no software can fix a ****ty scanner. No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to file. Then it's not a scan. It's added art. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
In article , android
wrote: For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have that much info to begin with compared to a negative. I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on prints. no software can fix a ****ty scanner. No one said that. However, good software can enhance the output to file. you can't get water out of stone and you can enhance it all you want in photoshop. you don't need scanner software to do that. Photoshop only mangles existing files. The scannerware produces the equivalent of the cameras raw files. complete nonsense. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
On 8/11/2015 12:34 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2015-08-11 12:18, nospam wrote: In article , android wrote: For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have that much info to begin with compared to a negative. I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on prints. no software can fix a ****ty scanner. True. And no scanner can get more detail out than what is in the actual print. There is also the flip side of the coin. A high quality scanner may reveal all the defects and scratch marks in the negative, causing a lot of work to remove. -- PeterN |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
On 11/08/2015 16:29, nospam wrote:
In article , RJH wrote: Most photos I have are 'normal' size, and certainly within A4. This was to extract one face from a small group, so an A4 scanner would be fine. what happened to the pile of negatives? They're still there. The scanner plan was not just for photos - negatives too. Really, if I wanted to do this on an industrial scale, I'd use the work photocopier, which seems to be at least as good as my scanner. then you have a ****ty scanner. Or a good copier. I work in an architects' department, so maybe it's unusually good. I've only used to to archive magazines to pdf though, so not sure of its photo copies. -- Cheers, Rob |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
In article , PeterN
wrote: For scanning a print that won't do any better than the s/w provided with the scanner. The real issue is that a print contains about 200 dpi of information (or 300 or so if B&W) so a small print just doesn't have that much info to begin with compared to a negative. I disagree: Good software can boost that that you can get out of your hardware. I have four packages of scanner software on my Mac and among of those Vuescan is clearly the winner. Even on prints. no software can fix a ****ty scanner. True. And no scanner can get more detail out than what is in the actual print. There is also the flip side of the coin. A high quality scanner may reveal all the defects and scratch marks in the negative, causing a lot of work to remove. not if you know what you're doing, it doesn't. and you can always just blur it and pretend you had a ****ty scanner. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
In article , RJH wrote:
Most photos I have are 'normal' size, and certainly within A4. This was to extract one face from a small group, so an A4 scanner would be fine. what happened to the pile of negatives? They're still there. The scanner plan was not just for photos - negatives too. ideally, you should get two scanners, one designed for prints and one designed for negatives, but a hybrid might suffice if you're not picky about the results. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 11:29:46 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Sandman wrote: 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. he said he has a pile of negatives. a negative scanner is the correct choice for negatives, not a flatbed scanner with an adapter. also, scanning film is very time consuming. don't waste your time doing it with substandard equipment. do it properly. and as i said, if you buy used and resell it when done, the net cost is basically zero. Why is no one bringing up the idea of setting up a rig, and using a FF DSLR to photograph the negatives? It is very fast, and I did it with my negatives. But I've admittedly not gone back to evaluate the results on most of them. I believe I might have had the focus less than perfect, and I used only a 16 MP APS-c camera. But like I said, it's really fast, and there are people out there that say they got better results than with a scanner. One of these days I'll go back and redo the ones I want, but I'll use a 24 MP camera, and live view to get the focus right. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
In article , Bill W
wrote: Why is no one bringing up the idea of setting up a rig, and using a FF DSLR to photograph the negatives? It is very fast, and I did it with my negatives. But I've admittedly not gone back to evaluate the results on most of them. I believe I might have had the focus less than perfect, and I used only a 16 MP APS-c camera. because that's worse and he mentioned using a camera anyway. But like I said, it's really fast, and there are people out there that say they got better results than with a scanner. One of these days I'll go back and redo the ones I want, but I'll use a 24 MP camera, and live view to get the focus right. then they had a ****ty scanner or some other problem. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Scanner Recommendation
On 2015-08-11 12:40, android wrote:
Alan Browne Wrote in message: Subjective opinion. All scanners out resolve prints by a factor of at least 3 times and usually 6. There is nothing magical about VueScan. I've been using it on PC's and Macs since it first came out. Then you know it has one of the most powerful interfaces in its category. That alone makes for a more controled output with files of higher quality. The output can never be of higher quality than the original material. Anything that contributes to the quality of the output, no matter how "controlled" is only additive or subtractive - but never quite as good as the original itself. I'm not putting down VueScan. It's excellent s/w. But it is not magical. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Recommendation for 35mm scanner | Jonathan Sylvestre | Digital Photography | 15 | February 5th 06 11:36 PM |
Recommendation for a photo scanner | [email protected] | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 1 | February 3rd 06 05:44 PM |
epson (or others) flat bed scanner vs film scanner | Albert Ma | Digital Photography | 1 | October 30th 04 03:39 AM |
Recommendation: Digitize collection: decent 35mm/aps negative scanner (or prints?) | Johan | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | October 8th 04 11:52 PM |
Scanner recommendation | Ian Pollard | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 3 | August 12th 04 10:13 AM |