Looking for User Feedback on Scanner Choice

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:55:25 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or Canon 9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only interested in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use. They will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.

Funnily enough I’ve just read a scanner review which covered those two scanners..

I’m interested in these two because they support scanning transparencies of 4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to scan, enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

So here’s a quick run down:

The Canon software is better than the ER[pson software, and easier to use, *but* Epson also gives you Silverfast SE software which is better than either.

Image quality from both scanners was about the same. No discernable difference.

The Epson printer is much quicker than the Canon both for flats and for film.

Overall, and they tested seven flatbeds, the Epson came out on top.

Hope that helps.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

I have not used the Cannon so I can’t comment on it, but I do have the Epson 3200 and it does a very good job with 4 X 5 transparency and negative film. A dedicated film scanner will do a much better job on 35mm film. "Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or Canon 9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use. They will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to scan, enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

"Ben Hopson" wrote in message

I have not used the Cannon so I can’t comment on it, but I do have the

Epson

3200 and it does a very good job with 4 X 5 transparency and negative

film.

A dedicated film scanner will do a much better job on 35mm film. "Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or Canon 9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use.

They

will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to scan, enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

Thanks to you and Hecate for the info. I came across some reviews on Epinons and I’ve also had a chance to see, but not use, both scanners. It looks like the Epson will be my choice.

"Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or Canon 9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use. They will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to scan, enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

One related question: I’ve decided on the Epson 3200 but know nothing about the software bundled with the scanner. There are two versions, one featuring SilverFast Ai 6c and the bundles SilverFast SE 6a with the scanner for $200 less than the Pro version. Since I will be using PhotoShop, should I care about the bundled software? I am posing this question in relation to the transparency material I will be scanning. I’d hate to save a couple of bucks up front only to discover I sacrificed quality. On the other hand, if I don’t need to spend the extra money, I’d just as soon not waste it. The money could certainly be spent on another hard drive, etc.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:54:20 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

"Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or Canon 9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use. They will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to scan, enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

One related question: I’ve decided on the Epson 3200 but know nothing about the software bundled with the scanner. There are two versions, one featuring SilverFast Ai 6c and the bundles SilverFast SE 6a with the scanner for $200 less than the Pro version. Since I will be using PhotoShop, should I care about the bundled software? I am posing this question in relation to the transparency material I will be scanning. I’d hate to save a couple of bucks up front only to discover I sacrificed quality. On the other hand, if I don’t need to spend the extra money, I’d just as soon not waste it. The money could certainly be spent on another hard drive, etc.

Silverfast is an excellent piece of software, much better than anything the printer manufacturers put out. However, I’m not sure what they’ve left out in the Se version. I suggest you go and look at the two different versions:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast/en.html

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

You can also download trial versions, I believe, which would allow you to take a look.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:54:20 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

"Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or

Canon

9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use.

They

will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning

transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to

scan,

enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

One related question: I’ve decided on the Epson 3200 but know nothing

about

the software bundled with the scanner. There are two versions, one

featuring

SilverFast Ai 6c and the bundles SilverFast SE 6a with the scanner for

$200

less than the Pro version. Since I will be using PhotoShop, should I care about the bundled software? I am posing this question in relation to the transparency material I will be scanning. I’d hate to save a couple of

bucks

up front only to discover I sacrificed quality. On the other hand, if I don’t need to spend the extra money, I’d just as soon not waste it. The money could certainly be spent on another hard drive, etc.

Silverfast is an excellent piece of software, much better than anything the printer manufacturers put out. However, I’m not sure what they’ve left out in the Se version. I suggest you go and look at the two different versions:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast/en.html

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

You can also download trial versions, I believe, which would allow you to take a look.

I’ve been to the website. Both sound nice and the Se to Ai comparison sounds like PSE vs PS. I guess the real question is how much do these SilverFast products duplicate what PhotoShop does?

I can’t use the SilverFast products with my scanner to check them out as my current scanner does not scan transparency material. It’s a chicken and egg thing: until I get the new scanner, I can’t test the software and the new scanner comes bundled with the software, but only one version. Right now, I’m leaning towards the less expensive package as the hardware is the same and ultimately PhotoShop will be driving the scanner.

In article <p6rqb.2593$>,
says…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:54:20 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

"Major Malfunction" wrote in message

I have my choice of scanners narrowed to two models, Epson 3200 or

Canon

9900F. The software coming with these is a moot point, I am only

interested

in user feedback on the quality of the hardware and the ease of use.

They

will be used for scanning both flat art and transparency materials.
I’m interested in these two because they support scanning

transparencies

of

4×5 inch. I have a large collection of negatives and slides in various formats from 35mm to 4×5 and these two will handle the job without any additional adapters, etc. I’m planning on using Adobe Photoshop to

scan,

enhance and restore my film archives. Any user

One related question: I’ve decided on the Epson 3200 but know nothing

about

the software bundled with the scanner. There are two versions, one

featuring

SilverFast Ai 6c and the bundles SilverFast SE 6a with the scanner for

$200

less than the Pro version. Since I will be using PhotoShop, should I care about the bundled software? I am posing this question in relation to the transparency material I will be scanning. I’d hate to save a couple of

bucks

up front only to discover I sacrificed quality. On the other hand, if I don’t need to spend the extra money, I’d just as soon not waste it. The money could certainly be spent on another hard drive, etc.

Silverfast is an excellent piece of software, much better than anything the printer manufacturers put out. However, I’m not sure what they’ve left out in the Se version. I suggest you go and look at the two different versions:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast/en.html

http://www.silverfast.com/show/silverfast-se/en.html

You can also download trial versions, I believe, which would allow you

Another option is to look at the shareware scanning software called Vuescan. Costs about $50 and you can try it first.
For scanner software the most important issue is to be able to capture all the info in the scan. You can fiddle with the epson scan software to do this pretty well for both transparencies and negatives. Then do you editing in photoshop.
I have a series of tips on my web site about optimizing the workflow from scanned originals.
Follow the tips link on my home page.
—
Robert D Feinman
Landscapes, Cityscapes and Panoramic Photographs
http://robertdfeinman.com
mail:

Another option is to look at the shareware scanning software called Vuescan. Costs about $50 and you can try it first.
For scanner software the most important issue is to be able to capture all the info in the scan. You can fiddle with the epson scan software to do this pretty well for both transparencies and negatives. Then do you editing in photoshop.
I have a series of tips on my web site about optimizing the workflow from scanned originals.
Follow the tips link on my home page.
—

My question is: How much will VueScan, or SilverFast, duplicate the functionality of PhotoShop? I’m new to this quality level having previously used a UMAX Astra 610P with Corel PhotoPaint DCE and later PhotoShop Elements 2. When I found PSE2 superior to CPP-DCE, I dropped it. Now I need a new scanner to scan transparency material, something my Astra cannot do.

FWIW, I’m leaning towards the less expensive Epson 3200 package as I can upgrade to SilverFast 6i for less than the price difference between the two Epson packages.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:16:22 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

My question is: How much will VueScan, or SilverFast, duplicate the functionality of PhotoShop? I’m new to this quality level having previously used a UMAX Astra 610P with Corel PhotoPaint DCE and later PhotoShop Elements 2. When I found PSE2 superior to CPP-DCE, I dropped it. Now I need a new scanner to scan transparency material, something my Astra cannot do.
FWIW, I’m leaning towards the less expensive Epson 3200 package as I can upgrade to SilverFast 6i for less than the price difference between the two Epson packages.

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

Hope that answers your question 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:16:22 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

My question is: How much will VueScan, or SilverFast, duplicate the functionality of PhotoShop? I’m new to this quality level having

previously

used a UMAX Astra 610P with Corel PhotoPaint DCE and later PhotoShop Elements 2. When I found PSE2 superior to CPP-DCE, I dropped it. Now I

need

a new scanner to scan transparency material, something my Astra cannot

do.

FWIW, I’m leaning towards the less expensive Epson 3200 package as I can upgrade to SilverFast 6i for less than the price difference between the

two

Epson packages.

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.
Hope that answers your question 🙂

Yes, that does! Thank you very much. I will start with the SilverFast SE and evaluate VueScan. It sounds like PhotoShop is great for after scan manipulation, but falls short for controlling the scanner. That’s where these other programs come into play. Is that a correct assumption?

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:16:22 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

My question is: How much will VueScan, or SilverFast, duplicate the functionality of PhotoShop? I’m new to this quality level having previously used a UMAX Astra 610P with Corel PhotoPaint DCE and later PhotoShop Elements 2. When I found PSE2 superior to CPP-DCE, I dropped it. Now I need a new scanner to scan transparency material, something my Astra cannot do.
FWIW, I’m leaning towards the less expensive Epson 3200 package as I can upgrade to SilverFast 6i for less than the price difference between the two Epson packages.

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

PS has tools that a scanner sw does not have, such as making selections for corrections, and many more. What tools does a scanner sw have that can’t be done in PS to make a "noticeble difference"?

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 12:39:48 GMT, "Major Malfunction" wrote:

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.
Hope that answers your question 🙂

Yes, that does! Thank you very much. I will start with the SilverFast SE and evaluate VueScan. It sounds like PhotoShop is great for after scan manipulation, but falls short for controlling the scanner. That’s where these other programs come into play. Is that a correct assumption?

Yes, exactly. There’s nothing you cannot do to an image after you’ve scanned it, but when scanning your are dependent on the twain driver and software that comes with the scanner.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:06:45 GMT, wrote:

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

PS has tools that a scanner sw does not have, such as making selections for corrections, and many more. What tools does a scanner sw have that can’t be done in PS to make a "noticeble difference"?

What you are talking about is after scan. What I am talking about is getting the best scan possible. That is dependent on the twain driver and the scanning software, not on what you can do to the scanned image after it is scanned into PS. You will find that most people will use good scanning software to get the most they can out of the image first, before PS manipulation.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:06:45 GMT, wrote:

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

PS has tools that a scanner sw does not have, such as making selections for corrections, and many more. What tools does a scanner sw have that can’t be done in PS to make a "noticeble difference"?

What you are talking about is after scan. What I am talking about is getting the best scan possible. That is dependent on the twain driver and the scanning software, not on what you can do to the scanned image after it is scanned into PS. You will find that most people will use good scanning software to get the most they can out of the image first, before PS manipulation.

By "getting the best scan possible", do you mean during the scan? What controls do users have during a scan on a desktop scanner? I think VERY little, and correct me if I’m wrong. A scanner sw can improve how a scan looks only after the scan is captured, and so can PS.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:13:50 GMT, wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:06:45 GMT, wrote:

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

PS has tools that a scanner sw does not have, such as making selections for corrections, and many more. What tools does a scanner sw have that can’t be done in PS to make a "noticeble difference"?

What you are talking about is after scan. What I am talking about is getting the best scan possible. That is dependent on the twain driver and the scanning software, not on what you can do to the scanned image after it is scanned into PS. You will find that most people will use good scanning software to get the most they can out of the image first, before PS manipulation.

By "getting the best scan possible", do you mean during the scan? What controls do users have during a scan on a desktop scanner? I think VERY little, and correct me if I’m wrong. A scanner sw can improve how a scan looks only after the scan is captured, and so can PS.

Try looking at the silverfast web site and the vuescan website.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote:

On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:13:50 GMT, wrote:

Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:06:45 GMT, wrote:

OK, to answer that question – it does make a difference, and the difference will be noticeable. PS is good at raster manipulation and good at printing, but it’s not really a scanning application.

PS has tools that a scanner sw does not have, such as making selections for corrections, and many more. What tools does a scanner sw have that can’t be done in PS to make a "noticeble difference"?

What you are talking about is after scan. What I am talking about is getting the best scan possible. That is dependent on the twain driver and the scanning software, not on what you can do to the scanned image after it is scanned into PS. You will find that most people will use good scanning software to get the most they can out of the image first, before PS manipulation.

By "getting the best scan possible", do you mean during the scan? What controls do users have during a scan on a desktop scanner? I think VERY little, and correct me if I’m wrong. A scanner sw can improve how a scan looks only after the scan is captured, and so can PS.

Try looking at the silverfast web site and the vuescan website.

Silverfast or Vuescan may be very capable sw for improving a scanned file, but they DO NOT control how a scanner operates DURING a scan..

A desktop scanner has a fixed light source that cannot be adjusted before and during a scan (one exception may be the Nikon 4000/8000 which offer a very limited LED adjustment). Any stretching of a scan’s dynamic range and making other corrections are done by sw on the scanned digital file after the scan is captured. Only high end drum scanners, such as the one below, offer a variable light source which can be used *during* a scan.

"Adaptive Light Source. As the first scanner to incorporate an adaptive light source, FlexTight scanner is able to scan dark originals with detailed shadow areas, which were not possible to scan from other scanners. Unlike conventional scanners that use software only highlight settings, FlexTight scanners actually adapt the light source to match each original and automatically suggest the required light intensity. This permits the scanner to fully utilize its dynamic range, capture all shadow details and preserve color fidelity throughout the image, without stretching image data and causing unnecessary amplified noise."