View Full Version : What type of photo scaner do you use

2006-Jan-12, 11:39 AM
I was looking at some of the photos tonight and I was wondering what type of scaner you all used, and what you wold recommend for someone on a budget.

2006-Jan-12, 11:50 AM
I take digital pictures...

2006-Jan-12, 12:06 PM
Same here re digital pictures. For pictures taken before 1998, I use a Canon D1250U scanner (http://computing.kelkoo.co.uk/b/a/ps_339068/115401.html) to digitize prints and negatives. It is set up so that 120 as well as 35mm film can be captured. Cost about $80.00 US. Very pleased with the results.

Only thing is, I'm not sure if it's still available in the US.

2006-Jan-12, 12:10 PM
I use digital camera. I have a Canon ImageCLASS MPC190S. Its both a scanner and printer in one machine.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-12, 12:14 PM
If I have my film developed and photos printed, they throw in
a CD with the scans for a few buck extra.
For other stuff I use a dirt-cheap flatbed (IIRC 50, made in China),
which is slow but works perfectly well.
All I need is patience.

2006-Jan-12, 12:37 PM
Canon LIDE20.

it's okay.

2006-Jan-12, 01:17 PM
Our photography is all digital now too, a Canon Exilm, I think 4 mega pixels. Very nice, and with the 1 gig card can actually take a few minutes of good video too.

For archiving the old family photos, we have an Epsom Durabrite 4600 scanner/printer/copier. It works very well, and after rebates cost $80! That floors me because the previous machine purchased 4 years ago, that was no better was $400.

This stuff has made photography and archiving such a breeze. Everything is integrated, super convenient, and so easy to use.

2006-Jan-12, 01:22 PM
I use a scannner...

2006-Jan-12, 01:55 PM
Funny digression.

One of the cool things about the digital is that I can let the kids shoot away without it costing a penny. They take a boatload of pictures, then we put the camera in the cradle and watch the show on the PC. I eventually delete most, store a few, and they love it.

So a couple days ago they took a bunch of them and their pets. I'm browsing them and find a couple of their mice, ON THE BLADE OF THE CIELING FAN! Creative little buggers, and thankfully they did not hit the switch. I had a great out loud laugh at their naivete of capturing their little escapade without realizing dad was going to see it.

(Hey, let's put the mice on the fan. Hee-hee, this is so fun. Oh! Dad's coming, get him down - NO NO not with the switch! Quick, hide the mice. "Here Dad, we're done with the camera.")

Could be onto something here. Whenever I need to know what they are REALLY doing, just let them take the camera with.

2006-Jan-12, 09:25 PM
Could be onto something here. Whenever I need to know what they are REALLY doing, just let them take the camera with.

:naughty: :D

2006-Jan-12, 09:58 PM
My HP printers also scan. Seems to work well enough. They have lots of models and some are quite reasonably priced.

2006-Jan-12, 10:04 PM
If you just want to scan stuff for the web, I think you can get a decent scanner for under $100. But if you want to do a lot of that, I'd recommend (as others are) getting a digital camera.

2006-Jan-12, 11:28 PM
Thanks for the replies all.

I have a digital camera, but it's a point and shoot, so any astrophotos I take in the future will be on film. I'm looking more for a way to get all of my old prints scanned in but I can't seem to find a scanner that gets a consistently good rating.

I'm a bit dejected that it seems to be mostly Canon stuff. I hate Canon with the power of lemons. But this is 100% based on 6 of 6 printers/photocopiers I've had/worked with ranging from utter garbage to periodically useful. When I looked up information on scanners before, I just ignored them completely. Any driver/support issues with a cannon scanner from anyone?

paulie jay
2006-Jan-13, 09:58 PM
Although I use a digital camera, I still use a scanner for other applications. I use a Canon "CanoScan 8000F". Though it's not really a budget scanner.

2006-Jan-13, 10:13 PM
I use a Epson perfection 1670 (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=35836299)

I've scanned about 1000 old slides with it. :)

Lord Jubjub
2006-Jan-14, 02:47 AM
I just bought, this last week, a Canon CanoScan 8400F to scan in my parent's old negatives. It works quite well--it can scan up to twelve 35mm negatives at one swipe.

2006-Jan-14, 11:30 AM
--it can scan up to twelve 35mm negatives at one swipe.

Mine scans two at a time. :(

2006-Jan-14, 11:46 AM
Well I generally take digital photos (Camera - Kodak DX6490 or Cell Phone - Hyundai TX115C) but I have a scanner too, an AcerScan 320U (though this is about 3 years old.)

2006-Jan-14, 01:48 PM
Camera - Kodak DX6490...

Small world...I have the same camera. :)

2006-Jan-15, 01:29 AM
Small world...I have the same camera. :)

Cool. What do you think of it? My two major complaints are that you need to run the software to pull images off of it rather then just pluging it in as an external drive (though once the software runs it does act as one), and the battery being non-standard (though the charge lasts a very long time I have discovered.) Otherwise I love it.

2006-Jan-15, 02:42 PM
Cool. What do you think of it?

The only complaint I have (and it's not really a complaint with the camera itself), is that since I bought it (in March of '04), Kodak seems to be going out of it's way to "rub my nose" in it. In other words, every time I see a new 'version" of this camera it makes me sick. Not only have they increased the megapixels, they've halfed the price.

I "almost" wish I had waited to buy it.

edited to add...I actually do have a complaint with the camera, itself. As of late, I can't download using the cord that comes with it. I've been "getting around" that problem by taking the memory card and using a reader to download pictures to my computer.

OH...and I've never been able to "run down" the battery completely...including the night at a concert when I took 400+ pictures!

Tim Thompson
2006-Jan-15, 05:52 PM
I have lots of old pictures to scan, a few thousand, probably, and at least as many 35mm slides. I finally settled on an HP Scanjet 4890 (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?storeName=storefronts&landing=photo_scanner&category=scanners&subcat1=see_all&catLevel=2&product_code=L1952A%23B1H) flat-bed scanner; I got it from MacConnection (http://www.macconnection.com/home), but it's not in their catgalog or on their webpage at the moment (they are constantly changing anyway). It's less than US $200 in any case.

It has a "transparent materials adapter" for scanning 35mm slides, or other transparencies, such as strips of film negatives, and will scan legal size documents. It will handle resolution as high as 4800 x 9600 dots perinch (DPI), which is way more than any ordinary purpose will need, with 24 bit color depth (maybe even deeper but I can't remember).

It works great on the old pictures & documents, but I recommend against using any flatbed scanner for 35mm slides, if you want really good results. The flatbed scanners can't get proper focus, so the scanned images come out slightly fuzzed. I've seen this on my scanner, and I've heard the same complaint from other people trying to scan slides. If slides are what you need to scan, and you want it done right, you just have to get a real slide scanner. They are more expensive, say about US $600 and up, but that's what you need to do.