What is the best scanner for the digitally ignorant??

[David Vickery]

Hello Ya'll, I know that there is a lot of information here on the forum about this topic, but I know nothing about digital imaging and every time I try to read through all of it my eyeballs start to hurt and then I get crosseyed and my brain starts to vibrate in a bad way and then I have to go lay down for awhile. And I've already tried drinking plenty of beer while sorting through it and even that doesn't help.

My only interest in a scanner is to scan 4x5 transparencies and maybe some B&W prints to be viewed on a website. I will not be doing any digital printing or manipulation of any kind--I only want to put decent quality images on a website. So what is the cheapest, easiest machine and software to do this with??

Thanks for your input. David

[Larry Gebhardt]

Get a used Epson 2450 or 3200. They are cheap, good, and easy to find on ebay. It will do what you need it to, and even allow scans good enough to print at smaller sizes.

[Leonard Evens]

The Epson 4870 will do it, but it may be overkill for what you have in mind. Microtek also makes such scanners, but I don't know if one that can handle 4 x 5 is less expensive.

[Kevin Gulstene]

Your answer may be that it is cheapest and easiest to have someone else do it - at least if you're talking about 10 or 20 images and you are fussy about the results.

If the quality of the results are important then you will likely find that no inexpensive scanner will directly provide you a result you are happy with and you will want to change the image ( correct colors, change densities, etc ). As soon as you do that you are on the slippery slope and no amount of beer ( or probably money ) will be enough to get rid of the head aches.

Most pro labs will do a very good job of scanning, spotting and color correcting for you. You might want to try that first.

[Peter Witkop]

I've got a Microtek 5900, which I bought for the same purpose you're looking for. It'll do a max of 4x5 film, and letter size prints. It'll do scans good enough for the web (maybe an 8x10 print or so), but it's slow, has a tendancy to have a dark band through the image, and the software is horrible. Works better as a reflective (print) scanner. I have access to a epson 4870 at school that I use most of the time instead of the microtek, better quality scans, better software (some don't like the epson software, but it beats the microtek by miles), and the scans work great for smaller size prints (I've done up to 13" wide with good quality, wouldn't go any bigger though). Esspecially if you're not planning to use it to make prints, a used 3200 or 2450 would be perfect.

Peter

[Jeff Rivera]

If you can find one, an Acer 1240ut USB scanner is perfect for what you want to do. Don't pay more than $50 for it. Otherwise, the Epsons are the way to go.

[Ted Fullerton]

To further comment on the Microtek 5900, it can be a good deal (mine was $150 US) and I've used it to get excellent results from B&W and color negatives at 4x5 as well as prints.

You mentioned transparency scanning, however, and that leaves a lot to be desired. I just spent a week in the advanced panels of the software that comes with the scanner as well as a trial version of Silverfast's AI scanner software. After trying many strategies, from color-curve manipulations to merging separate scans in photoshop, I've concluded that the 5900 just doesn't have the wherewithall to do a good job on transparencies.

-Ted

[Ralph Barker]

I think scanning is rather like swimming, David. One either needs to expend the effort to do it reasonably well, or one will be "disappointed" with the result. ;-)

Combining 4x5 format and transparencies, along with prints, sets your scanning bar fairly high, insofar as the need to master the technology goes. If the technology really makes your eyes roll, and you're looking at a fairly small volume of work to be scanned only for (low-resolution) web display, having your lab, or some other service, do the scanning may be your best option. Just give them the display-size specs, and let them worry about the technology and the multiple associated learning curves.

[Guy Tal]

I agree with Kevin and Ralph - if you can't take the time to learn how to do it *well*, your best bet is to have a lab do it for you. No scanner will give you perfect (or even good) results straight out of a chrome/neg without additional digital processing and adjustment.

Guy
Scenic Wild Photography (http://www.scenicwild.com)

[Eric Evans]

I use a Imacon 646 and love it . It is expensive to buy but worth the cost because of the results it produces . I have used flatbeds but find them lacking in scan quality when print output is beyond 8x10 .