I am shooting prints too and a few of them are uploaded here most of them are rejected that is why i am considering to buy a scanner what can also scan the negatives. I have the same problem like Barrie in the previous reply. The pics come out with a very low quality when you use a normal scanner. I use a HP 3400C too and i can't wait for my new one.
Edwin scans prints, and although he seems to have found a method that works, and a lab that gives him nice, sharp prints, I have to say as a screener that you can definately tell the difference (sorry Edwin). If you can afford it, and you plan to be serious about this little hobby, I would urge you to get a slide/film scanner if you can.
I shoot prints, and I'm quite happy with them. I think the results are better then some people I know who shoot slides. Out of every 10, I get about 5 HQ, 4 passed onto Johan, and 1 rejected (usually a non-scanning reason) Although lately its been about 5 HQ and 5 "lost".
I only shoot prints too. That is what I use only and If I do get enough money I'll buy a negative scanner. I saw one that was cheap but I forgot what place it was or catalog. I use a HP scanner. Here are my photos I made
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
All of my 1165 photos in the database are scanned from prints and I think it works very well.
There is no problem to get nice quality scans from prints even if you use a flatbed.
Check the two examples below.
I too scan alot from prints. First you need to shoot with 100 ISO or less film. Second you need to find a good quality lab that will give you sharp prints. Most 1 hour labs will not do justice for your photos. I scan most of my prints with an HP S20. The S20 will also scan negatives. I have done test, scanning the same shot from a negative and also from the print and for me on my S20 there is no difference in quality. True maybe if I had a higher quality film scanner that might be different. Also I have my prints done at a pro lab that gives me fantastic results. If I was using a 1 hour lab, I would probably be getting better results from the negative.
I shoot using Fuji Superia 100 print film. I now have 335 pictures in the database. I have my processing done by Tony Best (AJ Best in the database). He always does an excellent job of them without chopping off tails and without washed out colours as done by so many photo processing labs nowadays. Its nice to have them individually printed rather than just pushed through a machine.
I scan from the negative using a Minolta Dimage Scan Dual film scanner (Cost £299 about 3 years ago). I also have an Agfa E50 flat scanner but the quality direct from the negative in the film scanner is by far superior to that from the print.
I've been shooting prints since I started our common hobby back in 1977 and although I've been watching this amazing site for quite a while I only started uploading some of my best pictures in the beginning of January this year.
Meanwhile I've got 113 pictures accepted and they have been viewed about 87.000 times (775 per photo), which I'm a little bit proud of.
I'm scanning my prints with a HP C6260A scanner, but I'm also considering buying a negative scanner.
All the best.
I also shoot exclusively prints. I have dozens of pictures from LHR, Montego Bay and other places. I do not have a scanner yet - I prefer a film scanner but that will be expensive. Once I can get a scanner I will try uploading some of my pix here.