Photo Scanner Experience?

[colinc]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Something worth mentioning is that if you have not scanned negs before and are using 35mm or smaller any amount of effort you make in cleaning the negs before scanning will save a huge amount of work.

Dust is a major menace with small formats, as is dirt in general. Negs can be washed [don't make the water too hot] and should dry without drying marks if you put a little washing up liquid in the bath to reduce surface tension.

Cheers, Colin

[donworth]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

I kinda lusted after the V700 for a while but it was 3x the price of the V600. I didn't have any large format negs and liquid mount transparencies didn't excite me much. :-) But my hero, Maggie Taylor, had a V700 so I thought I wanted one. But settled on the V600 and I've been happy with it.

[Kim]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Perhaps you compared V700 with V600? I have an Epson V500 Photo. I think it is an earlier model than the V550 and V600 but similar. In any case, it does an excellent job with all three-- prints, slides and negatives.

Haha...yes. I was comparing the V700 to the V600. The statement made no sense with the typo!

[John M. Leggett]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

I looked at the V600, but the difference in price between that one and my V600 was significant, and I didn't think the extra features would be used enough to justify the extra expense. I haven't really scanned negatives or slides yet. If I ever get finished with the prints I'll see how the V600 handles negatives.

Perhaps you compared V700 with V600? I have an Epson V500 Photo. I think it is an earlier model than the V550 and V600 but similar. In any case, it does an excellent job with all three-- prints, slides and negatives.

I have several hundred prints (and their 116 negatives) that came from my father who used an old Kodak box camera beginning in the 1920s up to 1960 when he passed. I scan prints at 600dpi as I've found that a higher dpi doesn't seem to enhance anything other than defects. At first, I also scanned negatives at 600dpi but found the resulting images much better than the prints. So I tried 1200dpi with the negatives and got even better results. Some negatives are even better at 2400dpi. I've settled on 600dpi for prints and 1200dpi for negatives as the results are acceptable to me. Any possible improvements just aren't worth the time and energy fiddling around with various other settings.

In addition to the items mentioned above I have hundreds more prints/negatives plus several thousand slides. The V500 also does a very good job with slides using the 'holders' that enable scanning several at a time. A dedicated slide scanner might be faster. But it means buying another piece of equipment that costs more than a V500 and probably won't make better scans unless it is very expensive.

[Pete F.]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

I've used a Cannon MP620. I found how to scan negatives to make positives by accident. The problem is this won't work with El Capitan. I tried everything even calling Canon. It was a big help with the negatives from the 1930's. I wrote down some steps if it will help anyone. I have a HP 5660 now and no negative scanning procedures can be found. Just my contribution. Pete

[Kim]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

I have an Epson Perfevtion V700 Photo which does both negatives, slides and paper prints works very well slides yield smaller copies ... I have even printed glass plate negatives

I looked at the V600, but the difference in price between that one and my V600 was significant, and I didn't think the extra features would be used enough to justify the extra expense. I haven't really scanned negatives or slides yet. If I ever get finished with the prints I'll see how the V600 handles negatives.

[Kim]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

My biggest concern about the Epson FastFoto is that it feeds the photos through a mechanism. I'm sure not going to be very happy if it "eats" one of my precious family photos from the 1920s! And the fact that it uses a CIS sensor, with the attendant issues I discussed above - the shadowing of any texture or wrinkles in the paper in particular. And, while most photos don't require scans of more than 600 dpi, I like having the option to go higher when I'm scanning three dimensional heirlooms like pocket watches and Civil War medals and ribbons (which, you obviously aren't going to be able to feed through a scanner anyway). There are trade-offs for any scanner - usually portability/convenience, speed, quality, and price. Unfortunately you can never come up with one product that optimizes along all of those dimensions so I've chosen to focus on quality and let the others go where they may. :-)

I completely agree with you. I have my doubts about feeding my older photos through this scanner and I also like having the control over scan resolution. For the most part I scan at 600 dpi, but I change the dimensions for the output so the long side is at least 6 inches. I figure this is fine for my snapshots. But for my older 'heritage' photos that were taken back before taking a photo was a regular thing, I do like to scan at a higher resolution. Like I said, if they drop significantly in price and I still have tons of snapshots to scan, I may consider it, but for now, my v600 is just fine.

[donworth]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

My biggest concern about the Epson FastFoto is that it feeds the photos through a mechanism. I'm sure not going to be very happy if it "eats" one of my precious family photos from the 1920s! And the fact that it uses a CIS sensor, with the attendant issues I discussed above - the shadowing of any texture or wrinkles in the paper in particular. And, while most photos don't require scans of more than 600 dpi, I like having the option to go higher when I'm scanning three dimensional heirlooms like pocket watches and Civil War medals and ribbons (which, you obviously aren't going to be able to feed through a scanner anyway). There are trade-offs for any scanner - usually portability/convenience, speed, quality, and price. Unfortunately you can never come up with one product that optimizes along all of those dimensions so I've chosen to focus on quality and let the others go where they may. :-)

[Rikki]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

I agree, Terry. I've been reading a bit more, and while it is fast, it is also costly, and it doesn't do Polaroids because they are 'too thick'. That makes me wonder how some of my 40s era portraits would hold up as they seem to be on thicker paper. The speed might still be nice for my 70s-80s-90s snapshots, especially since it could do backs and fronts at once...but I have to wonder what the quality of the scans is compared to a flatbed Epson. I'm going to hold off....at least until next year when maybe they will drop in price.

I have an Epson Perfevtion V700 Photo which does both negatives, slides and paper prints works very well slides yield smaller copies ... I have even printed glass plate negatives

[Kim]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Kim thanks for the speedy reply and sharing your experience. As you may have noted, I'm going the Epson V600 route as you have done. I saw that higher speed new model in my rummaging around, but the cost is a tad rich for my project.

Thanks again for your help.

Terry

I agree, Terry. I've been reading a bit more, and while it is fast, it is also costly, and it doesn't do Polaroids because they are 'too thick'. That makes me wonder how some of my 40s era portraits would hold up as they seem to be on thicker paper. The speed might still be nice for my 70s-80s-90s snapshots, especially since it could do backs and fronts at once...but I have to wonder what the quality of the scans is compared to a flatbed Epson. I'm going to hold off....at least until next year when maybe they will drop in price.

[donworth]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

If I can salvage prints from many old negatives for which I'd lost hope, that alone may justify the purchase.

Oh yes! If you have negatives to scan you're golden! Scan them with at least 2400 dpi. I have a whole lot of negs I've been meaning to get around to scanning to replace the scans of prints that I have.

Don

[Terry Smith]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Kim thanks for the speedy reply and sharing your experience. As you may have noted, I'm going the Epson V600 route as you have done. I saw that higher speed new model in my rummaging around, but the cost is a tad rich for my project.

Thanks again for your help.

Terry

[Terry Smith]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Bob White thanks much for alerting me to the Qroma solution. Wow! Talk about a "no boundaries" solution. I think a more conventional solution (which will take the flatbed route) is a better bet for the file types and archiving I have in mind. Meanwhile, I'll be watching for an IPO when that nifty Qroma system "makes it big."

Terry

[Terry Smith]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Your reply is extremely helpful, donworth, and so were your very interesting image comparisons. These Reunion forums are a wonderful resource -- valuable experience delivered with a generosity and enthusiasm that is quite unique.

I've bagged the copy stand idea (an old Bogen 22A enlarger support). There's now a V600 on a shipping dock somewhere with my name on it. I'm sure the results on my shoebox prints will be excellent. I'm skeptical that its slide copying will match (or exceed) the quality I've managed to extract with my camera lash-up, but I will be pleased to be proven wrong. If I can salvage prints from many old negatives for which I'd lost hope, that alone may justify the purchase.

Again, thanks.

Terry

[Kim]

Re: Photo Scanner Experience?

Looks like Epson has a new 'fast foto' scanner. A little expensive compared to a flat bed, and may not do as well on some photos...but I'm going to have to consider it. It looks like I could accomplish a lot very quickly with this one.

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Landing/fastfoto-picture-scanning-software.do?UseCookie=yes&iref=us_homebanner_fastfoto_pos1