Hey,

I looked around for a while and scanners appear not to be so expensive these days (normal ones, not for companies, just for normal people). I thought about buying a new one, but I don't really know how to decide.

This is what I figured out so far:
- They vary in design (not the looks, elegance is mostly irrelevant; but some are much thinner than others which, I would say, improves ease of use)
- Some have a power cable, some are powered over USB
- Most have USB 2
- Some come with useful software (which I suppose won't work on the Mac, but which may also not be necessary)
- Some have a longer warm-up time than others, while shorter ones are better, reviewers agree
- They do vary in image quality (some appear to be good at depths in images, some are more brillant)

Stuff like that. Correct? Anything else? I have found hardly any good reviews and being pointed to great reviews would be neat, too.

Just trying to buy a good one (this one?), thanks! Pete

[SVass]

http://www.macconnection.com/IPA/Shop/Product/Detail.htm?sku=11832021&cac=Result
is an inexpensive USB powered scanner ($85) that I use from Preview on MacBook Pros. Just load the Canon printer drivers from Apple, plug the scanner in and go.

No software that came with the scanner is required.

Run Preview
Under File select Import from Scanner CanoScan LiDE200
If there is a Hide Options Menu at the bottom of the page, select
Set Scan To to set folder to save results.
Turn off "Detect Separate Items" to get only one scan
Under Kind select either:
Color Millions or
Black & White (smaller file size) or
Text

Under resolution, select 300 dpi for high quality or 150 dpi (on-tenth the size for email)
Under format select first entry JPEG for compression (smaller file size) or
TIFF for very high quality
Select Scan

sam

[OreoCookie]

Personally, the only additional consideration I would make is whether you want to invest in a stand-alone scanner or an all-in-one printer/copier/scanner combo. If you get one of the latter, make sure that it includes an ADF (automatic document feeder). I'd probably go for the latter since they are only slightly more expensive than a scanner, e. g. Canon's PIXMA MX895 which has built-in network and wireless connectivity, a fax and it doubles also as a printer.

[SierraDragon]

The question is not answerable until we know

- What one intends to scan (film/slide types/sizes, color/b/w, photo prints, sizes, basic copier, etc.)
- What sizes - What volume of what.
- What usages (large top photo quality printing, magazine art submissions, stock photo submissions, three-dimensional product scanning like jewelry, web, A4 biz reports, photo archiving vs. photo databasing, etc.).

A change in any one of the parameters mentioned above will change the appropriate scanner choices by a lot. Even a seemingly simple specific project like "scan grandfather's photos" still requires answering the other questions above.

The good news is that very good scan quality is available very inexpensively today. If your output demands are simple, scan originals remain available and volume will be very very low you can start with a decent brand on-sale discontinued all-in-one inkjet printer (~$30-$60 USD on sale) from a big box office supply store. Then just throw it away when your demands get more complex, because the cost of inkjets is in the ink and paper.

Note that scanning is a slow process and time is money. If any real volume is intended or if the work is irreplaceable (like grandma's deteriorating hard copy photos) it makes sense to do the research to get the appropriate scanner for that specific work.

Note that hardware price is not the initial consideration. The answers to all of the questions above come first. E.g. a low volume of important images on film might be best scanned by a service bureau rather than investing in the scanning equipment and significant learning curve needed to output top quality. However service bureaus have their own issues, not the least of which is that originals leave one's possession, and for irreplaceable images that can be an unacceptable risk.

Given that this is a Mac site I recommend Epson as a scanner brand if you do choose to move into quality flatbed scanning. In the (Mac) graphic arts field the Epson V7xx series is particularly well respected for general purpose flatbed scanning. Many pros find they can get by with a single $500-$1000 USD Epson V700 where before we had a $3k Nikon 8000ED for medium format. a smaller $2k Nikon scanner for 35mm stack scanning, and an Epson for flatbed work. Canon quality is equally superb, but Epson historically just works better on Macs.

First though determine the intended usages. A $40 USD all-n-one may suffice for now, and scanner value just keeps getting better.

HTH

-Allen

Okay, I will try to specify a bit .

My mum has studied interior archictecture and worked in the field as a journalist for over 20 years, she also taught her subject at universities, or sub-subjects. She used a scanner quite a lot simply for 'communicating with others', sending pictures back and forth, asking questions, trying layouts on her own, sending via email a lot, but also sending off CDs, but that is some time ago as email attachments can now be bigger. She is also kind of a hobby 'visual person', she takes lots of digital photos sometimes, draws and paints on her own and often scans examples, prints them out, paints from there. She likes showing things to friends. She likes archiving photos and keeping a digital archive of what counts. (As for archiving, however, this is rather out of the debate: We have many slides, but we have an Epson Perfection scanner around which is several years old, but great at scanning slides. It's rather of a one-time-stunt, too, she would scan very much once for a few months, burn CDs (or equivalent) and throw away the slides for good. And we have a digital camera for a rather long time, so I don't know if analog photo archiving is really important, not that I knew of, but that may change).

I should mention that she is now over 60 (a bit), but continues to work and will probably to do so for a while as it is still fun, and the money is good, too. So it's a combination of stuff: Her design journalism work, her course preparation, doing hobby stuff.

This was my conclusion: We had a (very old) Agfa scanner for many years which we had grown rather attached to. It was not so fast, quality was okay (so-so, maybe sometimes) and the application to use it with was pretty comfortable. It no longer works with Mountain Lion and is ancient anyway - time for a new one and wherever I looked, they appear to be rather inexpensive, and to spend 100 € instead of 80 €, for instance, would be no problem as we had hoped we could keep it again for a few years and as scanning is done rather much, I'd say.
I thought about something like the Canon CanoScan 210 LIDE which appears to be fast, okay priced, good quality (not extraordinary, but apparently great for normal people), USB powered etc. etc. It seems a bit like an at-home-scanner and that's what I'm looking for. It should cope with being used a lot and I like the Z-hinge for scanning books very much.

This is where I am so far...

Thanks already! Pete


(I still wonder, if something like the 'Copy' button on those scanners works on a Mac; with a Windows PC, you just press this button on the scanner, the scanner figures out the settings it thinks are best for scanning, scans and sends of everything to the printer - so you press the 'Copy' button and magically get a copy, with the computer needing to be switched on. Does this work on a Mac?)

[SierraDragon]

Your usages as described are all over the place and you say "scanning is done rather much" but you do not specify volume or end use quality of what, or sizes of originals. So my recommendation is as above, just go from the V700 down the line of Epsons to suit your price and feature preferences. But first question is: What is wrong with the Epson Perfection you have now?

Note IMO "USB powered" is only a benefit for mobile workflows and should be avoided unless an a/c power adapter also exists. Also note "push one button" solutions are often adequate but very seldom optimize scan quality.

Note also that CDs are not long-term archival, and no scan is the equal of a quality film original. Smart is after scanning to archive the film which properly stored IS long term archival and is far, far better quality than scans from an old Epson Perfection unit. Multiple hard drives backup protocol is better and hella faster than CDs/DVDs for long term digital files backup.

-Allen

[SierraDragon]

Also note that some scanning can be replaced with DSLR photography. For instance I use a Nikon D2x with 105mm macro lens and a homemade light box to database 35mm and medium format film images. Very fast (unlike quality film scans) and the digital pic quality is adequate for most usages. The original film is archived for high end usages such as one-up prints.

-Allen