Scanner for scanning prints

[kjsphotography]

What is a good scanner to scan final prints with? The scanner I have now is old and not very good and has trouble picking up the details in the highlight and shadows.

Any recommendations?

Thanks,

kev

[Armin Seeholzer]

I'm really happy with my Epson 750 works much better then my epson 1640 pro did!
Much more in the shadows and highlights then my old one had.
Armin

[Tim Lookingbill]

Any used or refurbed Epson, Microtek or Canon made in the last two years would suffice. I got my Epson 4870 refurb for $200 at the Epson store. Scans 35mm negs pretty good but prints are even better and more color accurate with very little editing.

[Brian K]

Kevin, if you're going to scan prints and want the best repro you need to scan as large a print as possible given the low resolution that B&W prints have to begin with. I would suggest that you look at the oversize Microtek scanner, I think it's called the 1000 or 10000XL. I have the prior model the 9800xl and find that it has a pretty good dynamic range.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Depending on how the prints you're scanning were generated, size wouldn't matter anyway. You'ld have to examine your prints under a loupe and see what you're scanner is going to pick up which can pick up everything seen and unseen to the naked eye.

If you're prints are off an inkjet the scanner WILL pick up the dithered dot pattern no matter the size of print so the bigger the print the better. However a Noritsu digital lazer print has a finer dithered pattern closely resembling what you'ld get off an optical enlarger only with more definition. 8x10's off a Noritsu would be ideal but the digital image used to generate such a print shouldn't have any interpolation artifacts because even that can be picked up by even a cheap consumer flatbed I mentioned earlier.

A Frontier print from my experience prints actual pixel shapes from the image pixel for pixel instead of a dithered pattern and this will show up as well in a scan so you'll have to use 8x10's as well.

I scanned off my Epson 4870 a 300lpi print from a waterless Komori sheetfed commercial press and it picked up all four CMYK angled dots with no moire pattern. Zooming in on the scan I captured more than I wanted.

[Brian K]

Print size matters when you are scanning B&W photographic prints. A B&W silver print has a resolution of 6 lp/mm. In other words it's low resolution, far lower than the negative from where it was made. If you scan an 8x10 print to say 4000 pixels wide, and you scan an 11x14" print to 4000 pixels wide you'll see that the scan made from the 11x14" print will appear sharper and have better detail.

[Tim Lookingbill]

I haven't scanned prints that large. I'm assuming then that these larger prints have been optically enlarged from a small negative. Or are these contact prints off 11x14 negatives? Something has to be enlarged. It's the method by which they've been enlarged that would determined what a scanner captures.

A flatbed scanner's resolution isn't going to make that much of a difference scanning that size a print. It's the enlargement method used to come up with the print is the main thing that needs to be considered. And a print's dynamic range or dmax isn't much over 2.0 to begin with no matter what printing method.

I came by this strictly through observation back in '98 with my first flatbed, a 600ppi Agfa Arcus II, scanning old '60's 5x7 pro portrait shots that I was restoring. I was pulling incredible amounts of detail I hadn't seen by eye. But scanning more modern and cheap 110 4x4 family photo prints brought a lot of grain and noise.

[Bruce Osgood]

Another take on the question.

I've narrowed my search down to two scanners to scan 8X10 B/W prints for Web viewing. They are the Epson 4990 - photo, or the Microtek i800 - photo.

I shoot 35mm and 4X5 negative film and do not think in terms of scanning negs for viewing or printing. I like to make 8x10 prints prepairing for a larger final print, but will use the 8x10 for scanning for web viewing.

The secondary use of the scanner would be to scan a neg for filing purposes, much like the 35mm contact sheet of an entire roll.

Do any of you have 'hands-on' experience with either of these machines and can you suggest one over the other?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Bruce,

From what I've researched on the web on scanners they all have there plus's and minus's. Either one would work for you as well as the others mentioned. Your workflow habits should determine your choice. Quality is a given on all modern flatbeds.

However, if enlarging from scanned 35mm film I'ld advise getting a dedicated film scanner like a Nikon. Flatbeds do good scanning anything over 35mm for enlarging to 8x10.

You have three choices of scanning software to get the job done...Silverfast, Vuescan and the scanner's original software.

There is quite a lot of info and reviews on many scanners old and new if you do a search on the web. Getting what you see is what you get scanning prints is a no brainer for all modern flatbeds.

[Bruce Osgood]

Tim,
Thank you for the insight. I have a copy of Photo Shop installed on the computer that I don't think I would change just now.

[Ted Harris]

A quick alert here .... HP has announced a new range of photo scanners. They are already for sale in Europe and are hitting the street in the US next week. The price points will be very attractive and the lowest price one might be perfect for print scanning. I have one here and am testing it now. Stay tuned for more information.

[DPICNY]

Hello,
Is It Better To Scan A 8x10 Print And Then Enlarge It What Are The Benefits Of Doing This ?

[kjsphotography]

Thanks for the responses. Yes I am going to scan my exhibition prints and just need a high quality scan so when it is on the web I can pick up the detail in the print to show the potential buyers.

Mictotek? Cool I will check them out.

Thank again,

kev

[kjsphotography]

Ted,

Can those scanners go up to 11x14 or would you have to scan in sections and put back together again?

Thanks,

Kev