Canon 8800F scanner for 8x10 fine art B&W prints

[Jerry Bodine]

As a "wet" photographer firmly intrenched only in b&w traditional printing, and lacking much knowledge or interest in the digital world, it's apparent now that in order to get fine art images in front of folks I must be able to put them in some digital form such as CD's or for a website. So I need a scanner only for 8x10 b&w prints that can maintain as much of the quality of the gelatin silver prints as possible. The prints are enlargements from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives as well as 8x10 contact prints. After brief research on my own, it seems that a fairly inexpensive flatbed should do OK, but I'd like input from the more experienced. At this point I'm considering the CanoScan 8800F for around $200 (limited by fixed income retirement). In case it's a factor I'm using Windows Vista on a new pc. Thanks in advance for comments, and please note that I'm digitally dunced.

[D. Bryant]

As a "wet" photographer firmly intrenched only in b&w traditional printing, and lacking much knowledge or interest in the digital world, it's apparent now that in order to get fine art images in front of folks I must be able to put them in some digital form such as CD's or for a website. So I need a scanner only for 8x10 b&w prints that can maintain as much of the quality of the gelatin silver prints as possible. The prints are enlargements from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives as well as 8x10 contact prints. After brief research on my own, it seems that a fairly inexpensive flatbed should do OK, but I'd like input from the more experienced. At this point I'm considering the CanoScan 8800F for around $200 (limited by fixed income retirement). In case it's a factor I'm using Windows Vista on a new pc. Thanks in advance for comments, and please note that I'm digitally dunced.

Before you purchase anything, be sure you can obtain the correct driver for Windows Vista.

Don Bryant

[D. Bryant]

As a "wet" photographer firmly intrenched only in b&w traditional printing, and lacking much knowledge or interest in the digital world, it's apparent now that in order to get fine art images in front of folks I must be able to put them in some digital form such as CD's or for a website. So I need a scanner only for 8x10 b&w prints that can maintain as much of the quality of the gelatin silver prints as possible. The prints are enlargements from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives as well as 8x10 contact prints. After brief research on my own, it seems that a fairly inexpensive flatbed should do OK, but I'd like input from the more experienced. At this point I'm considering the CanoScan 8800F for around $200 (limited by fixed income retirement). In case it's a factor I'm using Windows Vista on a new pc. Thanks in advance for comments, and please note that I'm digitally dunced.
Sorry one more comment. If you only wish to scan 8x10 prints and smaller you can spend much less than $200 for a scanner.

Look for an Epson 2450 or Epson 3200. Those can be had for as little as $50 in great condition and will produce excellent ouput for scans from prints.

Don Bryant

[Peter De Smidt]

Pretty much any scanner should be able to do a good job. Lenswork magazine used to make outstanding prints in the following way. First, they'd find the best print that they could. Next, they'd make a 600 spi (samples per inch) scan of the print. Finally, they made an image setter negative which they contact printed onto ilford MG FB paper. The results were superb. My point is simply that it's not that hard to make a really good scan of a print. It only need to be 600 spi, and any scanner ought to be able to hand the limited range of tones. You might want to buy a new scanner locally, although check online prices to make sure you're not paying to much. That way you can return it easily if there's a problem. The biggest issue with inexpensive scanners is manufacturing defects.

[Lenny Eiger]

As a "wet" photographer firmly intrenched only in b&w traditional printing, and lacking much knowledge or interest in the digital world, it's apparent now that in order to get fine art images in front of folks I must be able to put them in some digital form such as CD's or for a website. So I need a scanner only for 8x10 b&w prints that can maintain as much of the quality of the gelatin silver prints as possible. The prints are enlargements from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives as well as 8x10 contact prints. After brief research on my own, it seems that a fairly inexpensive flatbed should do OK, but I'd like input from the more experienced. At this point I'm considering the CanoScan 8800F for around $200 (limited by fixed income retirement). In case it's a factor I'm using Windows Vista on a new pc. Thanks in advance for comments, and please note that I'm digitally dunced.

You don't even need a scanner. Presumably you have a lightbox - and a point and shot digital camera. For web and email use, that's all you need... Save yourself $200...

Lenny

[james zhou]

Jerry,

I have been looking for a LF scanner for 5 years, I first brought the Microtek f1800 that scans 8x10. It has a few problems. First, it has a glass, which the negative sits on, that gives Newton rings! I then made a glassless frame myself, got rid of the rings, but the scan quality is just not that good, poor shadow details and blown highlight. I later went to read some old issues of the View Camera magazines which tested different scanners. It turns out the the F1800 only has a D-Max of 2.1, less then half of the claimed 4.8. The conclusion? you get what you paid for. I have recently brought a used Fuji FineScan 2750 with "only" 3.7 D-max, but it gives much better result. My lessons are don't expect a consumer scanner will deliver magic. All that resolution and D-max claims are just sales pitch. To reveal the smooth gradations of the B&W negative, you need the professional scanner.

[Peter De Smidt]

James,

Jerry is scanning prints not negatives.

[Kuzano]

The points been made. If you are only planning on scanning prints, why pay for a scanner that has film capabilities (transparencies and negatives)? Your paying at least half the money for technology (moving light head over the film, pacing the scan head) that you will never use.

You can get a new Epson V100 which has excellent print scanning capabilities for $100 new.

Others have mentioned this as well, listing other scanners that DO NOT do film. Narrow your search to the tool for your need and save half your budget.

Besides that, the Canon scanners have been panned a bit on their image quality, BUT mostly on the film scanning side.

[Jerry Bodine]

All good information. I'll give some more thought to whether I may want to scan negs or transparencies at all in the future. Thanks for your help.

Jerry

[james zhou]

James,

Jerry is scanning prints not negatives.

Thanks! I need some rest!