Photo Scanner
-
i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S. it gets 2700dpi and ran me around $300 on eBay. it's at the cheap end of the range but it gives really nice results as long as the negatives/slides are reasonably exposed (has trouble distinguishing extrememly subtle dark shading, but a bit of Photoshopping can usually bring out enough detail to make the image work). i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap) so a dedicated film scanner is a must. it also works for negatives, so i use it for any B&W stuff i shoot. i don't even get prints made any more - just scan and print the ones i need with my basic HP932C. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: have an Acer ScanWit 2720S I completely forgot about film scanners :-O Here I am flat-bed scanning in prints, ugh! :-D Thanks for the heads up. That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it. Plus it would save me plenty of money and time in the long run. Awesome, almost the capabilities of a digital camera in that respect then. This news makes me a lot happier, thanks Chris :) Chris Losinger wrote: i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap I am still new to all of this and just getting my head around negative film (the one in the canister just so that I am sure I am getting my terms right :) ) so forgive me if this question is a bit daft; What camera do you use to take slide film?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
I use this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005MEMQ/qid=1040065352/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/002-4574651-3940054?v=glance&s=electronics[^] One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. :) Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
-
Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that digital quality will never get closer to analogue? I certainly do not think that is true. Digital will equal and then surpass analoge eventually. There is just so much more you can do with an active CCD/CMOS than with chemical film at the time of the shot. Currently price and pixels per inch are the problems with digital, but heck that will be overcome as always. I was thinking earlier today how digital could really banish contrast problems from photography. Sure you can get density filters to take those sunshot pics, but unless you craft your own density filters for each and every shot, it will be a tradeoff situation everytime. But with a digital I can just imagine how the CCD itself outlines and then adapts the sensitivey of clusters of pixels according to the light coming in. That would be fantastic, a lot more like the human eye than film is. Dan Bennett wrote: What makes you think that good professionals do not already use digital for some of their work? I am sure some do for certain shots. But for the ultimate shots digital simply is not close. Remember you are probably thinking only of 35mm film vs. digital. Pro-pro-photographers use film which is quite huge, way bigger than 35mm. It is cumbersome and you can't just use a 35mm SLR of course. But with that film you get so much "information" in that you can blow up your prints hugely without seeing the grain of the photo. Try and blow up a 35mm shot beyond a certain size and you will see graininess. So when your work needs to hang in a gallery with prints measured in feet and not centimetres and with people being able to peer in really close, you need large film. I don't know of any digital cameras that go that large.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Agreed on both points. For 35mm I think digital is definately not too far off. For larger formats there is still no competition. The professionals I was thinking of were more the news photographers. I think most people think fashion photographers using larger formats when they think of a professional. On the subject of built in filters, the Canon G3 has a built in neutral density filter so I guess someone at Canon is thinking along the same lines as you!:)
-
Chris Losinger wrote: have an Acer ScanWit 2720S I completely forgot about film scanners :-O Here I am flat-bed scanning in prints, ugh! :-D Thanks for the heads up. That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it. Plus it would save me plenty of money and time in the long run. Awesome, almost the capabilities of a digital camera in that respect then. This news makes me a lot happier, thanks Chris :) Chris Losinger wrote: i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap I am still new to all of this and just getting my head around negative film (the one in the canister just so that I am sure I am getting my terms right :) ) so forgive me if this question is a bit daft; What camera do you use to take slide film?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it FYI, i think they changed their name from Acer to something else. Paul Watson wrote: What camera do you use to take slide film? my N80. but, if a camera can shoot negative film, it can shoot slide ("positive", "reversal", "transparency") film. the difference is in the processing, not the exposure. only oddball things like infrared film need non-typical cameras; infrared needs special cameras because it needs a camera body that doesn't use an infrared frame counter internally, like most mid-range SLRs use. nearly everything else can be exposed on 99% of the cameras around. depending on how serious you get, you may one day find yourself looking at a print from the photo lab and saying "hmm. i don't remember the sky being quite that color...". that's when you realize that the person/machine who made that print made a decision about the color balance, brightness and/or contrast of your image. and if that bothers you (as it does me), you may decide to try slide film. because with slide film, the image on the film is the one you took and nobody else had anything else to do with it. the only differences between the image you saw and the image on the slide are: 1. your own technical abilities and 2. the film's capabilities. - there's no post processing - the slide is the film. i like slide film :) the only negative film i use anymore is black and white film, because they don't really make black and white slide film. and when i do this, i just have the labs develop the film and print a contact sheet (no prints). then i scan the shots i like. it's a lot cheaper that way. but.. i apologize, as this is probably too much info for you right now :) -c
-
Agreed on both points. For 35mm I think digital is definately not too far off. For larger formats there is still no competition. The professionals I was thinking of were more the news photographers. I think most people think fashion photographers using larger formats when they think of a professional. On the subject of built in filters, the Canon G3 has a built in neutral density filter so I guess someone at Canon is thinking along the same lines as you!:)
Dan Bennett wrote: The professionals I was thinking of were more the news photographers. OIC. Yes I can imagine that high-end digital is becoming quite a boon to photojournalists. Being able to see if you got the shot (because you cannot exactly ask Zanzibar to throw another coupe so you can get that picture you missed) and being able to email off the shot as you take it almost must be critical for them. Imagine being in the middle of some African country and updating your Reuters boss in New York via your digi-cam plugged into a satelite phone :-D Dan Bennett wrote: the Canon G3 has a built in neutral density filter so I guess someone at Canon is thinking along the same lines as you Sweet, I better patent my idea quickly :) So what photography do you do? You seem to know more than me :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
I use this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005MEMQ/qid=1040065352/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/002-4574651-3940054?v=glance&s=electronics[^] One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. :) Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
Jon Sagara wrote: I use this Jon Sagara wrote: One cable for Power and USB Cool thanks for the link, will check it out. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
I use this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00005MEMQ/qid=1040065352/sr=1-14/ref=sr_1_14/002-4574651-3940054?v=glance&s=electronics[^] One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. :) Jon Sagara When I want something, I just go out and buy it. That makes me a go-getter. -- My sister
I have that one's bigger brother, the N1240U. Jon Sagara wrote: One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. I agree, I really like the single cable, and slim design, but it does seem a little flimsy at times.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
I can levitate birds... -
Paul Watson wrote: That Acer has some good reviews, I will look out for it FYI, i think they changed their name from Acer to something else. Paul Watson wrote: What camera do you use to take slide film? my N80. but, if a camera can shoot negative film, it can shoot slide ("positive", "reversal", "transparency") film. the difference is in the processing, not the exposure. only oddball things like infrared film need non-typical cameras; infrared needs special cameras because it needs a camera body that doesn't use an infrared frame counter internally, like most mid-range SLRs use. nearly everything else can be exposed on 99% of the cameras around. depending on how serious you get, you may one day find yourself looking at a print from the photo lab and saying "hmm. i don't remember the sky being quite that color...". that's when you realize that the person/machine who made that print made a decision about the color balance, brightness and/or contrast of your image. and if that bothers you (as it does me), you may decide to try slide film. because with slide film, the image on the film is the one you took and nobody else had anything else to do with it. the only differences between the image you saw and the image on the slide are: 1. your own technical abilities and 2. the film's capabilities. - there's no post processing - the slide is the film. i like slide film :) the only negative film i use anymore is black and white film, because they don't really make black and white slide film. and when i do this, i just have the labs develop the film and print a contact sheet (no prints). then i scan the shots i like. it's a lot cheaper that way. but.. i apologize, as this is probably too much info for you right now :) -c
Chris Losinger wrote: FYI, i think they changed their name from Acer to something else That explains it. I saw the identical model-name and specs but the label said Beng, not Acer. Chris Losinger wrote: my N80. but, if a camera can shoot negative film, it can shoot slide LOL, I knew my question was daft. I was thinking of slides as in the finished "print" in it's little plastic holder and being run through a projector. Was wondering how that fit into my camera :-D Chris Losinger wrote: that's when you realize that the person/machine who made that print made a decision about the color balance, brightness and/or contrast of your image Wow, so many links in the chain to a good photo that one needs to think of. Some other friends also recommended that I find a reliable and quality photo developer, not just the usual tourist joint. Chris Losinger wrote: the slide is the film. Ahhh, now I get it. But obviously there are gotchas involved with slide film, or we would all be using it and not the easy negative film, I assume. I think I will do some googling on slide film :) Chris Losinger wrote: i just have the labs develop the film and print a contact sheet (no prints). then i scan the shots i like Hmmm. Back up a bit. I take a negative film canister, put it in the camera, take my shots and then pop the canister out. Now before I can put it through one of those slid/film scanners I must first get it developed? [Edit] NVM this question. Sometimes I am not the sharpest tool in the toolbox. Of course it needs to be developed. Developing basically just "sets" the negative so that it can be exposed to more light without changing. Duh :) [/Edit] But as you say, without the actual prints it is a lot cheaper. More googling :-D Chris Losinger wrote: but.. i apologize, as this is probably too much info for you right now No apologies needed at all Chris. I really appreciate you taking time out to explain some of these things. Don't feel the need to answer all my questions and tell me if I get annoying :) Just that so much opens up when you dig below the surface and get a bit serious about things. With photography or programming, same thing happens. :)
-
I have that one's bigger brother, the N1240U. Jon Sagara wrote: One cable for Power and USB. Very thin. It's a beautiful thing. I agree, I really like the single cable, and slim design, but it does seem a little flimsy at times.
Bruce Duncan, CP#9088, CPUA 0xA1EE, Sonork 100.10030
I can levitate birds...Bruce Duncan wrote: but it does seem a little flimsy at times. Yeah, I guess it depends what you want to do with it. Scan images or thump lazy co-workers over the head with it. My HP ScanJet ADF is perfect for the latter, big mother trucker, solidly made. Shitty scanner though... :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: FYI, i think they changed their name from Acer to something else That explains it. I saw the identical model-name and specs but the label said Beng, not Acer. Chris Losinger wrote: my N80. but, if a camera can shoot negative film, it can shoot slide LOL, I knew my question was daft. I was thinking of slides as in the finished "print" in it's little plastic holder and being run through a projector. Was wondering how that fit into my camera :-D Chris Losinger wrote: that's when you realize that the person/machine who made that print made a decision about the color balance, brightness and/or contrast of your image Wow, so many links in the chain to a good photo that one needs to think of. Some other friends also recommended that I find a reliable and quality photo developer, not just the usual tourist joint. Chris Losinger wrote: the slide is the film. Ahhh, now I get it. But obviously there are gotchas involved with slide film, or we would all be using it and not the easy negative film, I assume. I think I will do some googling on slide film :) Chris Losinger wrote: i just have the labs develop the film and print a contact sheet (no prints). then i scan the shots i like Hmmm. Back up a bit. I take a negative film canister, put it in the camera, take my shots and then pop the canister out. Now before I can put it through one of those slid/film scanners I must first get it developed? [Edit] NVM this question. Sometimes I am not the sharpest tool in the toolbox. Of course it needs to be developed. Developing basically just "sets" the negative so that it can be exposed to more light without changing. Duh :) [/Edit] But as you say, without the actual prints it is a lot cheaper. More googling :-D Chris Losinger wrote: but.. i apologize, as this is probably too much info for you right now No apologies needed at all Chris. I really appreciate you taking time out to explain some of these things. Don't feel the need to answer all my questions and tell me if I get annoying :) Just that so much opens up when you dig below the surface and get a bit serious about things. With photography or programming, same thing happens. :)
Paul Watson wrote: But obviously there are gotchas involved with slide film 1. it is less tolerant of over/under-exposure than negative film. no big deal, just get it right when you shoot. :) 2. there's no print, so it doesn't make for good photo-album fodder. but you can scan and print if you want a paper copy. 3. it's more expensive than negative film (supply/demand, i guess). developing is more expensive, but overall you save money because you don't get prints. 4. finding a place to develop it might be hard. i have to have mine mailed away for processing. there are a couple of places who can do it locally, but they're a 30 minute drive for me, so i just mail the stuff out. yep, there are drawbacks... so, you have to really want the benefits. of course you can still have fun with negative film; and you can get really good results from it, too. it's just a matter of how much control you want over the whole picture-taking process. Paul Watson wrote: Some other friends also recommended that I find a reliable and quality photo developer, not just the usual tourist joint. yep, if for nothing else than to make sure they don't drop your negatives on the floor and step on them. -c
-
Bruce Duncan wrote: but it does seem a little flimsy at times. Yeah, I guess it depends what you want to do with it. Scan images or thump lazy co-workers over the head with it. My HP ScanJet ADF is perfect for the latter, big mother trucker, solidly made. Shitty scanner though... :rolleyes:
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous i think that line's from Tricky's "Tricky Kid". http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/61914D0B7FD3EA6F482568B2001FD3AE[^] yayyyyyy Tricky! -c
-
Paul Watson wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous i think that line's from Tricky's "Tricky Kid". http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/61914D0B7FD3EA6F482568B2001FD3AE[^] yayyyyyy Tricky! -c
Chris Losinger wrote: _i think that line's from Tricky's "Tricky Kid". http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/61914D0B7FD3EA6F482568B2001FD3AE_ LOL. I must forward that on to Shog9, he gave me the sig.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S. it gets 2700dpi and ran me around $300 on eBay. it's at the cheap end of the range but it gives really nice results as long as the negatives/slides are reasonably exposed (has trouble distinguishing extrememly subtle dark shading, but a bit of Photoshopping can usually bring out enough detail to make the image work). i shoot primarily slides (Fuji Sensia 100, FYI, since it's really cheap) so a dedicated film scanner is a must. it also works for negatives, so i use it for any B&W stuff i shoot. i don't even get prints made any more - just scan and print the ones i need with my basic HP932C. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S One last thing :) What SCSI adapter do you have? Just realised I do not have SCSI in my box yet. ta
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i have an Acer ScanWit 2720S One last thing :) What SCSI adapter do you have? Just realised I do not have SCSI in my box yet. ta
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Paul Watson wrote: What SCSI adapter do you have? the scanner came with a generic SCSI card. i just dropped it in and forgot about it. many scanners these days can handle USB, tho. it's probably worth going USB, if you can. -c
-
Paul Watson wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous i think that line's from Tricky's "Tricky Kid". http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/SongUnid/61914D0B7FD3EA6F482568B2001FD3AE[^] yayyyyyy Tricky! -c
Interesting... Tricky rocks, but i was actually thinking of The Presidents of The United States of America's song "Naked and Famous" (shortened sing365 URL[^]")... wonder who had it first? [edit] according to the dates on that site, Presidents of the USA was out in '95 vs. '96 for Pre-Millennium Tension, so the prez have it (yay!) unless they both copied it or it came up independantly... (quite possible - this is music afterall ;))
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Interesting... Tricky rocks, but i was actually thinking of The Presidents of The United States of America's song "Naked and Famous" (shortened sing365 URL[^]")... wonder who had it first? [edit] according to the dates on that site, Presidents of the USA was out in '95 vs. '96 for Pre-Millennium Tension, so the prez have it (yay!) unless they both copied it or it came up independantly... (quite possible - this is music afterall ;))
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
looks like PotUSA might have it. that album came out in 95, while Tricky's Pre-millennium Tension came out in 96. damn, i love a good bit of research. :) -c
-
looks like PotUSA might have it. that album came out in 95, while Tricky's Pre-millennium Tension came out in 96. damn, i love a good bit of research. :) -c
Chris Losinger wrote: damn, i love a good bit of research. yeah :) And, i now know Tricky has new album out! :-D
---
Shog9 Atheists are boring. They only talk about god. - peterchen, “Atheists are idiots”
-
Dan Bennett wrote: The professionals I was thinking of were more the news photographers. OIC. Yes I can imagine that high-end digital is becoming quite a boon to photojournalists. Being able to see if you got the shot (because you cannot exactly ask Zanzibar to throw another coupe so you can get that picture you missed) and being able to email off the shot as you take it almost must be critical for them. Imagine being in the middle of some African country and updating your Reuters boss in New York via your digi-cam plugged into a satelite phone :-D Dan Bennett wrote: the Canon G3 has a built in neutral density filter so I guess someone at Canon is thinking along the same lines as you Sweet, I better patent my idea quickly :) So what photography do you do? You seem to know more than me :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
I have a basic Pentax SLR and a Canon G1 digital but am not that serious about it - mostly holiday photos. I've really enjoyed digital photography (so the SLR is pretty much unused now). The G1 is not SLR but has a similar range of manual controls and features. The main things it lacks are a through lense view finder (you can use the LCD for this) and the ability to change lenses (filters can be used with an adapter). The biggest advantage of digital for me is that I can experiment as much as I like and get instant feedback. As you've said before, the up front costs of digital are very steep - I'd like digital SLR but it is way too much at the moment.
-
Got my photos developed today and was looking forward to getting them onto my PC, but now I realise the scanner I have is just not up to the job. Simply not rich enough, washes out some colours (especialy in high contrasts shots) and on high settings introduces artifacts. It is old though so one should not complain. So has anyone tried one of those dedicated photo scanners? Any good? How do you scan in your film prints? I have not asked, but do photo labs do professional scanning of film print? thanks :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaShog9 wrote: Everybody just wants to be naked and famous, Paul.
Some photo-labs in SA will put digital versions of your prints onto a CD for an extra R30 or so. Then save the scanner money for a CP shirt or something. :rolleyes: Cheers, Simon "The day I swan around in expensive suits is the day I hope someone puts a bullet in my head.", Chris Carter.