doremus

I now own a Epson perfection 4490 flatbed scanner 4800 dpi tied to a 64bit Mac. Its been fine for my bus docs. I plan to get involved with genealogy stuff. Part of that is to scan photos now in an albums. I have 400 slides as well. My mac is a 64 bit. Should I be happy with what I have or upgrade to Epson V550 or V600. (both 6400 dpi for the slidesor other. The 600 comes with Elements software ( my guess is that its an older version). Or buy software separately if so which ones? I would think that a 64 bit scanner is preferred but seems like Epson and Cannon are 48bit. Any recommendations on scanner and or software would be appreciated. Not looking to be a professional in touching but more basic with some older photographs

Preachdude Loc: Geneva, OH

My experience has been that the manufacturer supplies the best software for their scanners. I have the Epson V600 and have scanned hundreds of slides with it. I created my own mask for my medium-format slides. The software is quite versatile and user-friendly.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

The offer of Elements, a photo editing app, is just a marketing ploy to get you to buy. It has nothing to do with scanning. Epson or whoever will provide their own proprietary software to use with their scanner.

Kuzano

I used a Nikon Coolscan 40 ED, plentiful on eBay. Slides and neg strips. The software is XP era and not usable on 7, 8, 10. But VueScan drivers are included in all of them, and the scanner was superior to the Epsons I used. A 4490 and three V500's.

There's a fellow on eBay who restores and supports and sells Nikon coolscans and super coolscans.

His user ID is nikon_coolscan. He's reasonable and knows a hack to run the Nikon software, but the Vuescan software worked much better for me. He also sells the larger format Nikon scanners, but the prices on the coolscan and super coolscan are very reasonable.

Since then I have switched to a 24 Mp DSLR, and Macro Lens plus a slide copier bellows attachment. It's proven far better for me than the scanners I have used in the past as well as faster.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I've done thousands of scans with my V600 - great scanner. I use their software.

banjoboy Loc: Austin, TX

Newly purchased V600's no longer include PS Elements.

NBBPH Loc: Indiana

I have a Canon CanoScan 9000F and have used it successfully for prints, negatives, and slides. I use Photoshop and Lightroom for any adjustments to the photos. Straightforward with excellent results.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I like scanners for small volume work. But for working with albums that cannot be dissected, a copy stand with a dSLR or mirrorless camera and a good macro lens and appropriate light source is highly desirable. It is MUCH faster. And the quality can be as good, or better, than what you get with a scanner.

I also like using a camera and macro lens for copying Kodachrome slides and black-and-white negatives. The attachment was a quick copy of a negative I made in 1986 in Charleston, SC (with Ilford HP5+ film, ID-11 Plus developer, Nikon F3, 35mm f/2 lens). I made the copy with a rig I built out of scrap wood and junk parts I've gathered in my garage or darkroom since 1965. The rig is based around a Lumix GH4 and 30mm macro lens. The light source is a 5500K CFL lamp, diffused through a milky garbage can liner. The negative was held in the negative carrier from my old Omega B22XL enlarger. Of course, I exposed in raw, and inverted/processed in Photoshop ACR.

Download for maximum viewing effect. This prints to 10x13 with full detail. It's cropped quite a bit (I threw away a third of the original copy). There is detail in the stucco, there are four seagulls in the sky, and after not experiencing film grain in a while, I'm glad we have digital cameras!

(Download)

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

I think you mean 24 vs 48 bit color scanning. There are 64 bit "drivers" for scanners, but that has more to do with the OS. 48 bit color scanning is more quite sufficient for your purpose. 24 bit maybe not so good.

The other possibility is you are talking about 2,400ppi vs 6,400ppi.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

"48 bit scanning" produces a 16-bits per color channel image file. 24-bit scanning yields 8-bits per color channel. You can put a lot more brightness range and color subtlety in 48 bits!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind