Jump to content

ian_dunross

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>Thanks for the suggestion, Larry. Can you be more specific about which settings you are referring to?</p>
  2. <p>I have an Epson V700, and its scanned results look nice. I've been mostly doing scans of prints from the 19070s and before.</p> <p>But the scanner broke recently. I have a HP G4050 gathering dust, which I had never personally used before. For these old prints, the quality themselves aren't great, but then again, I wouldn't want to lose any more detail from using a bad scanner.</p> <p>With the Epson, I was scanning at 48bit-depth at 600 DPI. For using the HP, I am hoping to use similar settings.</p> <p>Will there a noticeable difference between the two scanners? I imagine I have about maybe 2000-3000 more prints to scan, and then I'm done. Would it be worth it to get a new Epson?</p>
  3. <p>I know this has been asked before, but I'm curious if there are new answers given the advancements in tech.</p> <p>I have a lot of old 3x5 and 4x6 photos I need to digitalize. I can either use an Epson 750 flatbed scanner, which seems to produce very good quality scans<br> -or-<br> I could use my 5DsR with the 100mm Macro lens to photograph the prints</p> <p>Which would be better? And if I use the camera, how can I ensure an even lighting and that the picture is completely flat?</p> <p>Scanning seems to produce good results, but the tiff files are huge (about 300mb each at 600dpi), and even at 4 prints per scan, it's very slow</p>
  4. <p>That for all your responses! I've neglected this thread for the past 2 days, but have been catching up on all the posts this morning. Not sure if I fully understand what everyone has said though...</p> <p>I remember someone asking what the <strong>purpose</strong> of these scans are. These are old family photos, and I am scanning those for the purpose of preserving them in digital format (to archive them, view them later, prevent further degradation, etc)</p> <p>One of the reasons I wanted to do these scans in an unprocessed way is because I've always regretted the destructive edits I have to photos I took on digital camera. I am a novice at best in Photoshop and making adjustments to white balance, curves, saturation, etc</p> <p>So I want to avoid making these edits in the scanning software when I scan. What I want to know is whether I am missing out on anything that cannot be done later in Photoshop or Lightroom?</p> <p>If it's just a matter of "processing" them now or processing them "later", I'd rather leave it to later. </p> <p>Thanks again for all your responses!</p>
  5. <p>Thanks for all your responses! I haven't had time to read every one of them yet, but will this afternoon.</p> <p>I have one question though: What's a good resolution to scan at? Using tiff and 48bit color depth, some of the file sizes can be a bit overwhelming.</p> <p>800dpi - 372mb<br> 1200dpi - 828 mb<br> 2400dpi - 3.21gb</p>
  6. <p>Wouter, thanks for the response.</p> <p>I thought tiff is already a raw format file, same as DNG, PSD or NEF?</p>
  7. <p>I plan to do all my post processing work at a later date with Lr or Ps. Right now, I just want to gather the all the available data from my scanned photos.</p> <p>I am using an Epson V700 to scan 20-30 year old photos.</p> <p>In this context, is there anything I am missed out by using Epson Scan instead of SilverFast AI or VueScan? In other words, do they offer anything other than just post processing? Do they so anything "special" that I won't be able to do later in Photoshop?</p>
×
×
  • Create New...