Re: flatbed scanner advice

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <V5Sts.91266$>,
    "Michael D. Berger" <> wrote:

    > I need a scanner primarily for old photos, but also for general
    > paperwork. I am thinking of an Epson 700. Any suggestions?


    The V700 or V750 (which I am using) is *excellent*.




    --
    Sandman[.net]
     
    Sandman, Dec 4, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Nick Fotis Guest

    On 04/12/2012 10:28, Sandman wrote:
    > In article<V5Sts.91266$>,
    > "Michael D. Berger"<> wrote:
    >
    >> I need a scanner primarily for old photos, but also for general
    >> paperwork. I am thinking of an Epson 700. Any suggestions?

    >
    > The V700 or V750 (which I am using) is *excellent*.


    Personally, I own a V500 (a middle-range model), which has scanned all
    kinds of films, photos and paperwork.

    I used it on XP computers, don't know how well it works on other
    operating systems (but I suspect it works pretty well - I remember their
    CDs had versions for XP/Vista and MacOS).

    If you are using a platform like Windows 7 or Linux or the latest OSX,
    you might want to check at their site for drivers etc.

    Personally, I am pretty happy with my V500. Scanned thousands of photos
    in the last 4 years with it, and it's still working nicely.

    The V700 is overkill, needed only if you scan large format
    negatives/slides in quantity.
    For typical printed photos, the V500 (or V600) is more than enough.

    For film scanning, estimate the V500 to scan at 2400 DPI with good
    quality, and the V700 at 3200 DPI.

    Cheers,
    N.F.
     
    Nick Fotis, Dec 4, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Nick Fotis Guest

    On 05/12/2012 00:23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    >> For film scanning, estimate the V500 to scan at 2400 DPI with good
    >> quality, and the V700 at 3200 DPI.

    >
    > Less DMAX than film scanners, so trouble for intense slides. Does
    > decently for negatives unless they're REALLY dense. With the film
    > holders may hold 35mm negatives as flat as the film scanner does, too,
    > which has been the big problem getting good scans on most flatbeds.


    Personally, I have scanned 35mm slides and printed these in glossy
    magazines without any apparent quality problems (half-page prints, but I
    suspect the quality would be pretty good in full-page prints)

    Also, note that I use the metal film holders from www.betterscanning.com
    - these include anti-Newton glasses and keep very flat the film.

    N.F.
     
    Nick Fotis, Dec 5, 2012
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 6/12/2012 6:55 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:
    > On 05/12/2012 00:23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >
    >>> For film scanning, estimate the V500 to scan at 2400 DPI with good
    >>> quality, and the V700 at 3200 DPI.

    >>
    >> Less DMAX than film scanners, so trouble for intense slides. Does
    >> decently for negatives unless they're REALLY dense. With the film
    >> holders may hold 35mm negatives as flat as the film scanner does, too,
    >> which has been the big problem getting good scans on most flatbeds.

    >
    > Personally, I have scanned 35mm slides and printed these in glossy
    > magazines without any apparent quality problems (half-page prints, but I
    > suspect the quality would be pretty good in full-page prints)
    >
    > Also, note that I use the metal film holders from www.betterscanning.com
    > - these include anti-Newton glasses and keep very flat the film.
    >
    > N.F.


    I don't think that you need all the Dmax that film scanners offer for
    scanning to print media, blacks block up.
     
    Rob, Dec 5, 2012
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Rob Guest

    On 7/12/2012 6:46 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Rob <> writes:
    >
    >> On 6/12/2012 6:55 AM, Nick Fotis wrote:
    >>> On 05/12/2012 00:23, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> For film scanning, estimate the V500 to scan at 2400 DPI with good
    >>>>> quality, and the V700 at 3200 DPI.
    >>>>
    >>>> Less DMAX than film scanners, so trouble for intense slides. Does
    >>>> decently for negatives unless they're REALLY dense. With the film
    >>>> holders may hold 35mm negatives as flat as the film scanner does, too,
    >>>> which has been the big problem getting good scans on most flatbeds.
    >>>
    >>> Personally, I have scanned 35mm slides and printed these in glossy
    >>> magazines without any apparent quality problems (half-page prints, but I
    >>> suspect the quality would be pretty good in full-page prints)
    >>>
    >>> Also, note that I use the metal film holders from www.betterscanning.com
    >>> - these include anti-Newton glasses and keep very flat the film.

    >>
    >> I don't think that you need all the Dmax that film scanners offer for
    >> scanning to print media, blacks block up.

    >
    > I don't understand; what do you mean "scannin to print media"? Do you
    > mean scanning *from* print media? If so, then yeah, you don't need the
    > exposure range, because the media doesn't give you that much range.
    >



    Making a scan for the printing industry to use. Magazines and
    newspapers. You can't have black blacks they block up when printed.
     
    Rob, Dec 6, 2012
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Nick Fotis Guest

    On 06/12/2012 21:45, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > I had to resort to a drum scan (from a lab; I don't have that level
    > equipment!) but I've got a 24x36 print from 35mm tri-x up on my wall
    > that looks wonderful. So magazine page size is really pretty small.


    I suppose that you mean 24x36 inches, right?
    Because our magazine has nearly the same size (in centimeters).
    I feel that scanning with the V700 would approach very much the drum
    scans (I am not a specialist in the latter, though).

    > Flatness helps (or, more to the point, lots of equipment doesn't give
    > very good flatness, so equipment that does is useful).


    Note also that the metal mounts are less irritating to use, compared to
    the plastic ones by Epson
    (of course, even the plastic mounts from Epson are wonderful compared
    with other companies).
    Personally, I had the worst experience regarding usability with cheap HP
    scanners which offered film scanning more as an afterthought.

    > You know what else helps? Fluid ("wet") mounting. See
    > <scanscience.com>. I'm just starting to work with it, but the
    > improvement really is very much like the examples they show on their
    > site. (For when you need the VERY best scan, of course; often you
    > don't.)


    I don't use wet mount, because (sooner or later) you will end up with
    fluids inside your scanner (especially your platen glass).
    And it is not easy to repair a scanner with that problem, as far as I know.

    In general, I do not feel it's worth the bother and the mess to play
    with wet mount.
    Note that I am working extensively after the scan with the photos,
    retouching scratches and fungus damage (many of these are more than half
    a century old).

    N.F.
     
    Nick Fotis, Dec 8, 2012
    #6
  7. Nick Fotis <> wrote:
    >I don't use wet mount, because (sooner or later) you will end up with
    >fluids inside your scanner (especially your platen glass).
    >And it is not easy to repair a scanner with that problem, as far as I know.
    >
    >In general, I do not feel it's worth the bother and the mess to play
    >with wet mount.
    >Note that I am working extensively after the scan with the photos,
    >retouching scratches and fungus damage (many of these are more than half
    >a century old).



    The main reason for using wet mount is to avoid Newton's rings which
    are very difficult to get rid of in post processing.
     
    Anthony Polson, Dec 8, 2012
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Peter Jason

    Re: flatbed scanner advice

    Peter Jason, Nov 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    388
    David Taylor
    Dec 4, 2012
  2. ray

    Re: flatbed scanner advice

    ray, Nov 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    220
  3. James Silverton

    Re: flatbed scanner advice

    James Silverton, Nov 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    273
    James Silverton
    Nov 30, 2012
  4. Rob

    Re: flatbed scanner advice

    Rob, Nov 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    232
    Whisky-dave
    Nov 30, 2012
  5. philo 

    Re: flatbed scanner advice

    philo , Nov 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    222
    philo 
    Nov 30, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page