Need tips on photo scanner

[SeaRide]

I just ordered a new scanner and it should arrive today at my house. It will be my 2nd one I think . I used to have a old scanner many years ago so I know how to use it.

My question is based on scanning 35mm negatives. Is it better to scan from 35mm negative than photo, yes? What about slides?

Any tips on scanning the negatives and slides? Will the image file come out the same if scanned from negative and photo? I think not but need to confirm this from you experienced guys.

TIA

[GWguy]

Originally Posted by SeaRide

I just ordered a new scanner and it should arrive today at my house. It will be my 2nd one I think . I used to have a old scanner many years ago so I know how to use it.

My question is based on scanning 35mm negatives. Is it better to scan from 35mm negative than photo, yes? What about slides?

Any tips on scanning the negatives and slides? Will the image file come out the same if scanned from negative and photo? I think not but need to confirm this from you experienced guys.

TIA

Well, here's the thing: a photo is large, and can be easily scanned without losing resolution. A 35 mm slide/neg is relatively small, and to get a good, decent, sharp image requires a very accurate and resolute scanner. I've also found that scanning from slides at a resolution that makes for a decent picture creates a document (.pct, .tiff, etc) that can be huge compared to scanning a 4x6 or 5x7 picture. Scanning from a picture scanner with a slide adapter isn't always the best either. There are small scanners made just for slides and negatives, and with ICE technology, do a pretty good job.

Not saying you shouldn't forge ahead, just be aware.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by SeaRide

it should arrive today at my house.

How have things gone so far?

I bought a scanner a few years ago so I could convert my old photos to a digital format. I didn't get very far because the process was time-consuming and the results were not as good as I'd hoped.

I did find that the results from scanning the negative were better than the print - which does make sense.

GW mentioned that one would need a highly precise scanner to accurately reproduce an image from a negative. My scanner seemed to do a pretty good job for me... and that was ~7 years ago. Certainly a new unit should be at least as good as that.

Next, if you scan the print you will inevitably transfer its imperfections. What happens when you make a copy of a copy? Then imagine copying (printing) it again. Flaws like creases, discoloration, paper texture, or errors imparted by the creation of that first print could be carried right along into your new file.

Scanning from the negative might create a considerably bigger file, but so what? Do you have no way to store the files on CD/DVD? Is your drive running low on space and you have a lot of photos to do? Unless those apply to you, that should not be a limitation.

I would say the primary consideration should be your plans for or use of the photos. Will you want to print them again later or keep them on your computer? If you might want to print them again, scan the negative; if you will only view them on the computer, it doesn't matter because your monitor's resolution is comparatively low anyway.