MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
It's a good scanner for the money. I just got mine last Friday, and I've been extremely happy with it so far. The scanning software that comes with it, however, is not what I would call "user-friendly." If you do wind up getting this scanner, you would be better off downloading Vuescan (it's only about $40USD) - it is much more intiutive and easier to use.
Aer Lingus From Ireland, joined May 2000, 1523 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2333 times:
Very good for the price. If ya plan to scan negatives you'll be disappointed with most films. Its superb at slides, very easy to scan them. The scanning software is perfect if not a bit difficult to get used to using but once you do its fine. Vuescan = Te Lazy Man's Tool
If you want examples just look at my pictures since October/November 2001. The link is in my profile
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 3, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2334 times:
Scanning from negs is quite possible. I've had good scans from Fuji NPH, Reala and even older Superia and Kodak Gold negs.
Neg scans will on average be more noisy (screeners will call it grain, but it's not, it's noise) than scans from slides but with tools like despeckle used selectively you can remove most of it (the noise is mainly in light blue and grey in the sky for some reason).
Most of my pictures are scanned using a Scan Dual II and Vuescan, with postprocessing in PS LE (supplied with the scanner) or Paintshop Pro 7.
MDL_777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2317 times:
I've actually had good results scanning from negatives using Kodak Supra film - you have to play with the levels more than with a slide, though. I find that with slides I have to make virtually no color adjustments.
Skymonster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
Good scanner... Every single one of my pics on the site is scanned with it. Loads of past comments on it in this forum - search the forum for the last year or so and you'll turn up loads. One thing... its noisy - loads of whirring and shaking!
Richie777 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
I agree with the comments made by Jwenting and AerLingus concerning scanning negatives. I was shooting Reala but recently experimented with slides (Provia 100F) which led to significant reductions in noise from the scans made with the Scan Dual II. In addition, I have found that negative scans require more work post-scan with Photoshop (or equivalent). Nevertheless I have been impressed by the quality of the Scan Dual II.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2272 times:
Well currently I've been shooting Reala. I'm going to the next step, slides.
However, I do have many shots taken on Reala, and a couple on Kodak Gold 100 when I was first starting. What do you all suggest I do when I edit my photos after the scan?
I currently have PaintShop Pro 7, and the Scan Dual II comes with Photoshop LE. What general step(s) do you recommend I take to improve the quality and reduce noise? Either way, I'll be moving on to slides from now on, so I won't have to worry so much about the quality issue.
Thanks for the feedback.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Richie777 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2001, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (10 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2265 times:
Generally I have found that my Reala scans have a reddish cast to them. Hence I change colour balance and sometimes brightness/contrast as required. Then I use unsharp mask with a typical setting of 100% (sometimes more), 0.5 radius, 10. Resize down to 1024x768 and then save as a JPEG with the minimal compression you can (image quality 9 will suffice in Photoshop). I do not use the despeckle option.
However, some of the scans still have unacceptable noise levels and usually end up in the recycle bin even though the print version looks good! Scanning slides seems to be a much better option in terms of quality and consistency. This produces noticeably less noise on the scans.