4800 is a bit of a fake setting as the scanner uprezzes the file, it's not a genuine 4800 scan. I use 2400 and it's pretty good for larger prints up to a point, depending on negative size.
Really? Okay, I'll make to scans of the same negative, on at 4800, the other at 2400, and compare. I'll bet you are right
That's quite a ridiculous statement, I've seen bad scans from all models of scanners, plenty from Epson scanners, these are scans from my humble 9000F II, I don't see anything wrong with them at all. The last one is a 35mm shot taken with HP5 pushed to ISO 1600, so excuse me for not worrying about the quality I can get from this cheap scanner.I have yet to see an image from a Canon 9000f on line that looked any better than a consumer snapshot quality. If you were to present your Cannon scan to a gallery/magazine editor would they even consider it? scanned on an Epson it likely they would.
.
Here is a scan from my Canon 9000F - using Vuescan in this case:
View attachment 201887
It is important to note that the re-sizing necessary for Photrio makes it difficult to compare scanning results.
The only way to impress me is to present the same negative scanned its best on both scanners side by side. In the first photo the man's white shirt is blooming on his left sleeve, unknown if its exposure in the negative, processing, or the scan.
One way to test your scan is to open it in post such as Photoshop and see how far you can adjust it without blooming in the highlights or going total black in the shadows.
I play guitar, and many of these comments echoes what I hear in guitar fora, Gibson versus Fender. Each guitar does a different thing better, but neither of them do a thing without a player, and that's where the differences become apparent.
Same for me.Indeed Rob, I make no claim that the Canon is any better than an Epson, I wouldn't know, just that it's a lot better than people on here would have you believe, and I'm happy with mine.
The Canon Support site indicates that the scanner drivers are currently Windows 10 and OS-X 10.6 compatible. Same for the MP Navigator.
As I said, my current results are a lot better than when I started with it.
And the best test of any scanner is not how well it will handle correctly exposed negatives and slides but how well it handles 2 or 3 stops either side of correct.
Now, if I could only afford a drum scanner.
Would that be a framing hammer or a standard, smooth face claw hammer?
Just have to support this. Very happy with scans for 35mm negs and 6x6 negs. YouTube videos give great advice on how to use it as the instructions are not good.I'm not quite sure why people dis the Canon scanner, I have the 9000F ii, it's a great scanner for the price, I get pretty decent results from 35mm up to 6x9, and it has decent negative carriers and no problems with focusing, which the Epsons do have. I run it with Silverfast and have no complaints about what it can do, it's not slow comparatively speaking either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?