Scanner Dilema

[Midnight Moocher]

I have just undertaken the large project of scanning all my family photos which are dated from the present all the way back to 1987.
Let's just say, it's gonna take a while.

I have bought a good digital camera, and no longer use traditional film, so there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I plan to
later move the photos to DVD.

I have already started scanning photos at a resolution of 300dpi, using my 5 year old 'Genius ColorPage-View Scanner'.

The problem is the scanner. Whilst it sometimes produces some lovely scans of certain pictures, it has difficulty re-producing other
photos as closely as I would like. Usually darker or faded photos.

I use Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to edit scanned photos so that they are as much like the original picture as possible. As I previously
said, some photos come out great but others not even Photoshop can help.

As it's a big project, I want to get it right. I don't want to be scanning all those photos if there is a better scanner out there.

I was wondering if anyone here could suggest a scanner that re-produces the photos great, including darker parts of a picture
(shadows,etc.) exactly as they are on the actual photo?

Please note, I'm not looking for a excessive dpi resolution scanner. 300dpi (in good quality) is enough for me.

 

[MCheu]

I have just undertaken the large project of scanning all my family photos which are dated from the present all the way back to 1987.
Let's just say, it's gonna take a while.

I have bought a good digital camera, and no longer use traditional film, so there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I plan to
later move the photos to DVD.

I have already started scanning photos at a resolution of 300dpi, using my 5 year old 'Genius ColorPage-View Scanner'.

The problem is the scanner. Whilst it sometimes produces some lovely scans of certain pictures, it has difficulty re-producing other
photos as closely as I would like. Usually darker or faded photos.

I use Adobe Photoshop 7.0 to edit scanned photos so that they are as much like the original picture as possible. As I previously
said, some photos come out great but others not even Photoshop can help.

As it's a big project, I want to get it right. I don't want to be scanning all those photos if there is a better scanner out there.

I was wondering if anyone here could suggest a scanner that re-produces the photos great, including darker parts of a picture
(shadows,etc.) exactly as they are on the actual photo?

Please note, I'm not looking for a excessive dpi resolution scanner. 300dpi (in good quality) is enough for me.

Before you go out and buy a new scanner, here's a couple of things you
can try. These are hints and tips I got for my scanner (an older
300dpi parallel Mustek), so they might not apply to newer scanners

Did you allow the scanner to go through its "warm-up" first prior to a
scan? The light tube used in most scanners will usually produce an
ok scan even if you bypass the warmup procedure, but sometimes doing
this can result in poor lighting conditions for the scan. This makes
the scan look darker than it should, and the contrast and hue might be
off too.

Did you place the photo in the centre of the scanner bed? or did you
place it in a corner. Putting the photo in the corner makes aligning
the image easier, but the sensor is most sensitive in the middle, and
the light source is brightest there too (not sure if this is related).

 

[Midnight Moocher]

Your post made me look-up the scanner manual.

There wasn't much there except the two following things.

One: the scanner is a 24-bit colour. After a little look around, I found that modern scanners have 48-bit colour. Should I assume
that this is a considerable improvement?

Two: There is a Descreen filter which is used to eliminate the moire patterns (wavelike lines) in images. It states 'you should
notice that scanned images usually come with wavelike patterns and banding lines. As long as the scanning resolution is not set very
high, you can apply this function to remove those annoying effects.'

Do new scanners eliminate moire patterns and banding problems all together?

I tried placing the picture in the centre of the scanner and found there was some improvement. The only problem with this method is
that each photo would need to be scanned individually rather than placing 4 or 5 in at the same time.

 

[Mike Walsh]

Your post made me look-up the scanner manual.

There wasn't much there except the two following things.

One: the scanner is a 24-bit colour. After a little look around, I found that modern scanners have 48-bit colour. Should I assume
that this is a considerable improvement?

The signal coming out of all scanners is 24 bit. The higher color depth internal to the scanner is used to correct for nonlinear response of the image sensor and can make a big difference in dark areas of the document. The internal color depth should be more than 24 bit but does not have to be 48 bit. I get good images from my HP 30 bit scanner.

Two: There is a Descreen filter which is used to eliminate the moire patterns (wavelike lines) in images. It states 'you should
notice that scanned images usually come with wavelike patterns and banding lines. As long as the scanning resolution is not set very
high, you can apply this function to remove those annoying effects.'

Do new scanners eliminate moire patterns and banding problems all together?

I have not seen moire patterns or other such artifacts on newer scanners. I don't know if it is because of the scanner quality or if these artifacts are corrected by default.

 

[Midnight Moocher]

Thanks for that.

I have been given a link to http://www.scantips.com/, and it's proving to be very detailed.

The signal coming out of all scanners is 24 bit. The higher color depth internal to the scanner is used to correct for nonlinear

response of the image sensor and can make a big difference in dark areas of the document. The internal color depth should be more
than 24 bit but does not have to be 48 bit. I get good images from my HP 30 bit scanner.

I have not seen moire patterns or other such artifacts on newer scanners. I don't know if it is because of the scanner quality or

if these artifacts are corrected by default.