Epson Perfection 3590 Photo

[tom_campie]

I am looking for a scanner capable of doing film and this one is REALLY well

priced (70 US shipped from Epson). I plan on using it to scan b/w negs and color

negs too. My main problem is I'm not sure how good the quality will be. The

website says it will be good enough to make 8x10 prints from the negative which

is just right.

 

My other option is to have my stuff scanned at Wal-Mart to a CD, but the scans

aren't THAT good (1818x1228).

 

If the Epson will give me better results, let me know because if so, then I'll

probably buy it.

 

Also, If any of you have this scanner, Let me know what you think of it!

 

Thanks guys

 

Tom

[dan_roche]

I'm not familiar with the model 3590 Epson scanner, but for what it's worth, I'm still using the same Epson 1200U Photo scanner that I bought back in 2001 and it continues to work flawlessly. It does a great job on transparencies and negs alike and doubles as a nice flatbed too. Forget about letting Wally World scan your pics. Get the Epson. I'm still happy with mine six years later.

[vrankin]

I'm an owner of a Perfection 3590. I actually get better 8 X 10's scanning 4 X 6 prints on the glass and resizing them, than scanning the negatives from the same rolls - even at the highest, RAM-gobbling resolution settings. I think lack of film flatness, and inaccurate focus are the culprits. A dedicated film scanner would cost many times more, but be worth it in the long run. For now I'm having my negs scanned out of state. The Wal-Mart scans here in town are grossly oversharpened and noisy. They're also set at 300 PPI for a 4 X 6 print.

[tom_campie]

Howard: The problem is that I'm trying to save some money this summer so sending my stuff away to get scanned would just be counterproductive if you ask me. That is why I'm trying to decide on this other option. Would you say that the 3590 is extremely noticeably worse or just slightly worse than the scanned print?

 

You see, I dont have a scanner at all right now so even if I went the print route this would help...

 

Thanks for the responses guys.

 

Tom

[vrankin]

Tom: You might get $75 worth of experience scanning with the 3590, but I'd guess that eventually you'd want something better. I've found from experience and reading many posts that one just has to have a good dedicated film scanner for 8 X 10 from 35mm. The Nikon Coolscans get the best posts here.

[geoff_foale]

Hello Tom. As Howard has mentioned, the Perfection 3590 scanner is really a standard scanner with an option for negatives or slides. It will produce reasonable results at 8 x 10 providing that you do a little work with suitable photo software. Obviously, a specialist film scanner will produce better results. It depends on what you require.

 

I find that with my 3590 film scans need quite a bit of pre scan tweaking and selection of the best scanning modes. This does take time and experience to get good results.

 

Your price seems too good to be true. I know that everything here, in the UK, is a lot more expensive but I've just checked the prices and the best I can find is 100 UK pounds for a new model. Some places are offering returned scanners for 60 pounds. Is your price correct and all inclusive?

 

Hope this helps a little.

 

Geoff.

[christopher_dold]

I've got one.

 

Seventy dollars sounds like a bargain, I think mine was about twice that in the UK.

 

The true resolution is supposed to be 3200 dpi which is better than the cheap scans from high steet processors. then resoltions above 3200 are supposed to be interpolated (I think). the image files are big enough that I've had to install an auxilliary hard disk. More RAM in the computer is handy as well.

 

The most annoying feature is the tendency to misalign the edges of frames. This can be overcome by selecting areas to scan.

 

3200 dpi works out around 400dpi when printed 8x10 which is a fair resolution.

 

It takes about six minutes to scan a frame at high resolution, but you can preview and decide which images to scan.

 

It's also a handy flatbed so I can scan prints, photocopy and take picures of small objects straight into a paint program without all that tiresome photography :-)

 

All in all, it's a handy little tool. Maybe not up to the standard of the professional scanners, medium format holders would have been nice.

 

The only comaprable machines I can think of are the Canon Lide series or one called Microtech (Mikrotek ?) which is less widely available.

 

You could probably scan a film in the time it takes to get to Wal Mart and back and save on fuel too.