Print

[Treefox]

I'm not sure, if I should even post this in this forum, but I would like to ask you all for tips on which scanner I should by. Mine has died and thus I'm currently unable to get any art uploaded or send it with mail, etc. I found scanners to be more expensive than I thought and all the reviews about them were rather biased.
Maybe you have some experience with a certain brand? I would be grateful for any help.  

[Multimedea]

My old reliable Lexmark PrintTrio hasn't given me a lick of trouble in the last six years. And now that I've said that, it'll probably break down tomorrow. The first one that I had was a cheap, crappy Acer that I wanted to toss out a window, then I had a used HP that was on its last legs. In the US at least, they're all pretty much at a comparable price point and reliability. HP does have a rep for decent quality.

[Treefox]

Oh, great! Thanks, Multimedea. Six years is a rather long time, indeed! My last Scanner (Epson) was used when I bought it, but I still think it should have lasted a bit longer. The power supply broke down and fixing it is sadly no option, as it would be too expensive. I'll go and check the Lexmarks!

[Foxeye]

I wish I had some insight to share as well, but all the scanners I've had had been fairly interchangeable. I tend to buy cheap scanners anyways, since I am usually only scanning sketches or lineart that I intend to alter in PS.

[Packless1]

I use a CanonCanoScan LiDE 35
No longer available, but there are newer models of this serie...
(http://www.canon.de/For_Home/Product_Finder/Scanners/Flatbed/index.asp)
I like the fact, that there's no external Power-Supply, you need just an active USB-Port... 

[Multimedea]

I wish I had some insight to share as well, but all the scanners I've had had been fairly interchangeable. I tend to buy cheap scanners anyways, since I am usually only scanning sketches or lineart that I intend to alter in PS.

I get a lot of use out of mine, both for art scans and for the OCR software that was bundled in with it. And I shan't say anything more than that. 

[Eregyrn]

I have a HP Scanjet G3010, which they don't make any more -- looks like the equivalent is the G3110.  It was basically the cheapest scanner I saw in Staples when I went in, about $100.  It's adequate.  It does basically what I want it to, I guess.

I remember back in the dim times (i.e. the mid-90s) when I got my first scanner, and I have this impression that you got more for your money back then.  Either that or I just had more patience learning how to use the thing.  I remember being able to tweak the image more with the settings before even hitting scan.  With my last two scanners, I feel like I haven't learned to do much of that.  I slap down the picture, I scan on the basic settings, and then I mess around with the result in Photoshop until I'm happy with it.  I don't know; maybe it's just that I'm more comfortable with the post-scanning process these days.  I guess it's a lot of extra work, but I don't even think about it.

But I'll say that it performs pretty well on the variety of things I use it for, which includes: scanning sketches (I use non-photo-blue pencil for sketching), scanning inked linework for clean-up and printing, and scanning hand-colored stuff (mostly I've tried it on colored pencil and Copic markers).

[Afke]

I have a HP scanjet 2100C, and I think I've had it for 10 years already. I think it was cheap too, but still works like a charm. I always change settings before saving the image of the scan, that's especially helpful when you scan pencilwork. I always read artist comments saying "Scanner ate my colors" and such, but I've never really had that problem, because I alter the image before saving. If you don't and try to up the contrast or something in Photoshop later, there's just not enough info in the image to do that properly. So my advise is to try and get one that allows you to alter settings before saving.

[Multimedea]

I always read artist comments saying "Scanner ate my colors" and such, but I've never really had that problem, because I alter the image before saving.

Yeah, I've never really understood that myself, since even the low-end scanners generally have some sort of software bundled in to allow you to do simple editing before the image is saved. Sometimes I almost want to say to someone who posts such a comment, "Well, why don't you rescan your image and tweak it it until it is 'right' and then post it."  

Though I usually only use my scanner's editor to boost contrast, change size, or make something grayscale to save on filesize. I've got 3 or 4 CG programs if I want to do anything fancier.

[Treefox]

Wooo! First, I'd like say thanks for all the feedback! This is fantastic!

I already checked on Lexmark scanners, but it seems that Lexmark is only selling multi-function devices in Germany. I'm not really looking for fax-copy-scan machine... Thanks again for the tip, though!
I also checked on Canon and HP and both are definitely reasonably priced. Currently I'm tending to buy the the Canon CanoScan LIDE 100.

Concerning color tweaking before saving a scanned picture, I always had the feeling that it only got worse. Could of course also that the software that came with the scanner wasn't so swell... I actually also never had much problems in scanning drawings. Just when it comes to colors... meh.

I remember back in the dim times (i.e. the mid-90s) when I got my first scanner, and I have this impression that you got more for your money back then.  Either that or I just had more patience learning how to use the thing.

I so agree! The first scanner I had was brilliant! The scan quality (in terms of color) and also the possibilities it gave you. Besides, that scanner never broke down, it just wasn't supported from Windows 98 on... I guess that tells something about how old it was. Maybe the resolution wasn't that good though.

So my advise is to try and get one that allows you to alter settings before saving.

I will look into that before choosing a new scanner! Thanks.

[Eregyrn]

To be honest, I've had a lot of good results when tweaking color after scanning (though sometimes iffy results, too)... but then I've never had a basic complaint, either, along the lines of "ugh! the true colors didn't come out in the scan!" (or "it ate the colors" or whatever; sometimes I'm not even sure what that means).  That's why I was saying that for the variety of things I've tried to scan, I've found even the basic, non-tweaked-before-scanning settings to work fine on the scanner I have. 

But another thing I've always wondered about folks who don't like the colors they get from a scan, or who don't play with the colors afterwards, is what resolution they're scanning on.  To tweak afterwards, my experience is that you have to scan on the highest resolution you can.  I never scan color at less than 200 dpi, more often at 300 dpi, and if I'm especially concerned, at 600 dpi -- even for pieces I intend for web posting in the end (which for me is all of them).  Scan high, tweak at high res, then at the very very end when you're happy, re-save at 72 dpi for web posting.  Scanning at low resolution just winds up with less information captured, so of course there isn't much to tweak to make better.

(Either that or, I suspect, those folks don't have access to much in the way of programs in which to do the tweaking afterwards, I don't know.)

[Foxeye]

Currently I'm tending to buy the the Canon CanoScan LIDE 100.

I have the 200 version of this, and I can say this for it: my cat tends to knock it off my desk, and it has survived the trauma pretty well. And of course it's awesome that it only needs the one USB cable.

[Treefox]

I usually scan at 300dpi. I like to have a basic picture with good resolution that I can make copies of to re-size for different uses. Maybe my know-how is just not sufficient in this area. For example, especially skin color tends to look strange. When scanned they often appear too yellow. When I try to tweak the picture and take some yellow out, it just looks bleached, but nowhere close to the original color.

(Either that or, I suspect, those folks don't have access to much in the way of programs in which to do the tweaking afterwards, I don't know.)

That is another point that would be definitely valid for me!

I have the 200 version of this, and I can say this for it: my cat tends to knock it off my desk, and it has survived the trauma pretty well. Smiley And of course it's awesome that it only needs the one USB cable.

The sole survivor of a cat trauma? Our cats usually only slept on the scanner but never kicked it off my desk. But sounds like a good quality test, indeed. And USB only is truly practical! Two more points for the Canon!

Now I'll do some software investigation.

[Afke]

Besides, that scanner never broke down, it just wasn't supported from Windows 98 on... I guess that tells something about how old it was.

I managed to keep finding updated drivers for my scanner so far -- I am still on XP though, but I recently formatted my PC and the drivers I downloaded before for XP didn't work anymore; there's still new ones out there though and I managed to reinstall it. Always give that a try!

[Treefox]

I bought the Canon CanoScan LIDE 100. It seems to be a fairly simple, but satisfactory scanner, and the price was just to good to let it pass by. The software does not seem to be so brilliant, but a friend of mine said that he could recommend some good freeware.
Thank you all again for the feedback and also on the tips on scanning in general!

[Windrider]

I am using a Umax Powerlook, professional model with a 12" x 17" scanning area.  It is a 1995.  Yes, you heard that right, 1995 - and beige.  I got it when I got my very first Power Mac, before Power Macs were G anything (it was also beige).  That one and two other Macs have come and gone since then but the Umax is still here and working (currently hooked up to a Mac Pro tower).

I can't speak highly enough of Umax and their commitment to a quality product and customer support.  Since I bought my scanner, there have been no breakthroughs in the optics technology of scanners, only in the software of their drivers.  So Umax is committed to keeping their old scanners on the job.  Within weeks of new OS upgrades, Umax has had new drivers available, not just for their newer models, but ancient ones like mine.  My longest wait was when I bought the Mac Pro.  There was no way to adapt the computer for a SCSI card (that is the biggest problem now with my old scanner - it is still SCSI).  In two months, Umax had come up with a SCSI to USB adapter and I was back in business.

After 15 years of service, I am just this year starting to see minor problems.  The transparency adapter finally quit, but not before scanning every negative in our entire family album (we are talking thousands of negatives).  Once in a while, I get odd lines in a scanned image now, but that is usually solved by rescanning.  The only service this scanner has had in all these years is a periodic taking apart and lubing of moving parts, which I do myself.

But...you get what you pay for.  Umax caters to professionals and they are pricy.  But when mine finally decides not to work with modern technology, I am getting another Umax.  So, yeah, I second those here who said that you got your money's worth in the old days, but I also think it has to do with the fact that ALL scanners back then were a little pricy.  As the market for the technology became larger, then "cheap" models became marketable.  When I bought my scanner, there were no "cheap" models, just expensive and more expensive!   

[Treefox]

Wow, I have never even heard of Umax.
I must say, that I did my first real scan with the Canon CanoScan LIDE 100 and I was veeery happy with the result. It was black and white, though.

[Windrider]

Canons have a good rep; I know many artists who use them.  Glad it is working out for you.

Yeah, I figured few people have heard of Umax, that is why I threw it out there.  Umax was originally one of the few companies Apple licensed to make Mac clones and they also made various Mac peripherals like scanners.  Back when I got my scanner, PC stuff was not very (at all) compatible with Macs, but ALL the professional artists, publishers, and printers had Macs - so companies like Umax had a niche market for their high-end scanners.  Remember that in 1995, non-professionals just didn't buy scanners.  Umax still is mostly known to professionals; they don't really have a "hobby" line or whatever you'd call it.

http://umax.com/index.jsp?worldwide=usa

Yeah... don't have a heart attack, the prices are scary.  LOL  To replace the scanner I have now with the 2010 equivalent would be $1700 (and no, I didn't pay that in 1995 - starving artist here!).  That is why I am so very thankful Umax supports their entire ancient product line!  I am hoping to keep this thing going until the next inevitable radical technology breakthrough that makes everyone buy new stuff.  Like when we got rid of boot-up floppy disks and dot-matrix printers - I had an Apple 2G then (also a Farrah Fawcett hairdo, but let's not go there).   

[Treefox]

That is why I am so very thankful Umax supports their entire ancient product line!

Now this I like very much! Rare to find a company that bothers with such kind of support!
Hm, I just checked their German page, it was offline... Does that mean that they don't sell Umax scanners in Germany? Almost looks like it. Too bad...

[Eregyrn]

Your mentioning this, Windrider, made me take a look at my first scanner when I was down in the basement recently.  Somehow, I never did get rid of it, and it's been sitting down there gathering dust for 7 years (and it hadn't been used for several years before I moved, too).  But... it's a Umax!  Probably from the same era as yours.

Let me ask you -- how do you still CONNECT it to your Mac?  I'm not actually sure whether I even have the cables for it any more.  (It would be just like me to have saved the scanner and not the cables.)  As I recall, one of the main reasons I switched from it was because it had SCSI cables, and my Macs stopped having SCSI ports.  Are there adapters?  I guess I should try to look it up on the web...

[Frozenleaves]

Hi Treefox,

I have an Epson Stylus DX5000 all-in-one printer (scanner, printer). It's already 4 years old, but I'm still happy with it. I can remember that I paid 70 GP (70 Euro) for it. The scan software is o.k. and really good in combination with a graphical software like PaintShop or Photoshop.

I think the successor model is the Epson Stylus SX218 (80 Euros) and a cartridge set (all 4 colors) together is about 40 Euros.
Another very good funktion is the possibility to copy pages without a computer.

Hope you will find a good one soon.

[Windrider]

Your mentioning this, Windrider, made me take a look at my first scanner when I was down in the basement recently.  Somehow, I never did get rid of it, and it's been sitting down there gathering dust for 7 years (and it hadn't been used for several years before I moved, too).  But... it's a Umax!  Probably from the same era as yours.

Let me ask you -- how do you still CONNECT it to your Mac?  I'm not actually sure whether I even have the cables for it any more.  (It would be just like me to have saved the scanner and not the cables.)  As I recall, one of the main reasons I switched from it was because it had SCSI cables, and my Macs stopped having SCSI ports.  Are there adapters?  I guess I should try to look it up on the web...

Yay, another Umax!  I bet yours is a Powerlook II, which was their most popular model back then.

Umax has two adapters on their website under Accessories, one for if your Mac has a PCI-X slot and one for if you have PCI-E slots.  Both are listed for Powerlook 2100XL (which is what I have) but will also work for Powerlook IIs and any Umax SCSI scanner.

If you have a PCI-X slot, you can install one of their SCSI cards and then use your SCSI cables (if you still have them).  This is what I did on my other Mac G-somethings.  The new Mac Pros have PCI-E slots instead and won't accept a SCSI card.  You have to get a SCSI to USB adapter, which costs quite a bit, but is still less than buying a new scanner.

Either way, the new driver for Macs using OS X and above is called SilverFast.

[Treefox]

Hey, Silber, thank you! I had an Epson before and wanted to try something different this time. I already bought a Canon and am quite content so far. Thanks for the tip!

[Razzle]

What "the scanner ate my colors!!!" means: (at least, when I've said it)

Ownership of a REALLY, REALLY BAD scanner -- it does not properly scan the picture in to begin with, and distorts the colors between paper and computer screen. If you have that problem, it might be because the paper isn't in direct enough contact with the scanner screen, and/or there's light filtering through from behind the paper. If you have that problem, stack about 10 pieces of blank white paper on top of the picture (behind it) to hold the picture itself down and blot out extra weird lighting.

...Of course, I haven't had that problem with any scanner purchased after around 2005.

OR, it could be that the image was saved as a .JPG rather than .BMP on an older computer. JPEGS on the pre-laptop computers I've owned have downgraded with each save, like copying a copy of a copy of a copy. The ones on this computer don't seem to change at all. In that case, I always saved a .BMP until absolutely CERTAIN I was done with all changes, then made a .JPG to upload onto the internet.

My scanner always comes from Wal-Mart, and is the cheapest or second-cheapest scanner-printer available (seems they no longer make just scanners.) This time around, it's the second-cheapest, and I'm happy with it. Color, Greyscale, and B&W settings for scan make it nice and simple for me to use. There's a lot of functions I don't even understand, let alone know the purpose for, but I suppose there *must* be a reason for them... maybe.

[Pyreite]

I use a PIXMA MP280 printer/scanner combo, and go for 300 DPI or variants of that when I scan in.  If the scanner eats the colour of your piccy, especially if it's hand-coloured, it's likely because the colour isn't dark enough.  The same is true for pencil sketches that are too 'light'.  The scanner can only pic up generally what it can 'see' and that will also depend on what settings you scan into the PC.  If you're going for pencil sketches to be scanned in you should be adjusting the scanner program to scan in in grayscale, the result will be better. 
 
 If you're trying to scan in colour you'd be better to scan the image in as a photograph, since the scanner will compensate for the millions of shades of possible colour.  You will likely afterward have to tidy the image up by reducing either dusts, scratches, or fuzziness, so you'll need a good photo-editing or painting program that allows you to do this.
 
 I use Photoshop CS3 for all of that. 
 
 Scanners can be temperamental but I'd suggest adjusting the scan-program settings and scanning in on various formats until you get something you like.
 
 ~ Pyre