Thread replies: 17
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5
File: IMG_3110.jpg (15KB, 340x221px) Image search:
[Google]
15KB, 340x221px
Hi /p/
Recommend me a flatbed scanner that doesn't trim the edges of the image!
I've tried two scanner/printer combos at my workplace, and both of them trimmed 1-2 mm from the edges when I aligned the paper to the corner of the glass, so I had to place it slightly inwards. This meant that I could not get the paper perfectly straight, and had to correct the slight rotation error via post-processing...
Also it would be nice if it didn't suffer from banding.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 340 Image Height 221 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>
>>3003713
is it for photos and film? or just photos? Are you printing from scans or just archiving? if its for film how large are the negatives?
>>
>>3003725
OP didn't talk about film in first place
>>
>>3003725
It would be for archiving album artwork from CD's.
>>
>>
>>3003742
>any scanner that wasn't 30 dollars will not cut off the edges
That's what I would have assumed, but nevertheless both machines at work had this issue... (an epson and a samsung laser printer/scanner combo).
>>
>>3003751
don't buy a combo scanner. get an epson v550 or something if its that important to you
>>
File: DSC_6440.jpg (358KB, 673x1000px) Image search:
[Google]
358KB, 673x1000px
Not OP but I bought an Epson Perfection V39 for scanning negatives recently. They're coming out kind of fuzzy. Did I get the wrong scanner or are my settings fucked up?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 2400 dpi Vertical Resolution 2400 dpi Image Created 2017:01:16 19:47:04 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 673 Image Height 1000
>>
>>3003849
lol
>>
>>3003851
thank
>>
>>3003849
>V39
that scanner is a piece of shit and that photo was not exposed or developed properly
>>
File: FH000032.jpg (395KB, 1228x1818px) Image search:
[Google]
395KB, 1228x1818px
>>3003862
Here it is on a dedicated scanner.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.3.9600.17415 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2016:12:29 16:05:49
>>
>>3003874
holy fuk i have never seen a scanner make a photo look so bad. That is a nice shot. what is the second scanner you used?
>>
File: FH010034.jpg (295KB, 1818x1228px) Image search:
[Google]
295KB, 1818x1228px
>>3003878
I have no idea. I had it scanned at the same lab that develops for me. I bought my own scanner after getting a lot of scans back that were cropped wrong. See pic related.
I got tired of having to bring my negs back and wait 2 days for them to finish the work order.
>>
File: FH000032.jpg (723KB, 1199x1818px) Image search:
[Google]
723KB, 1199x1818px
>>3003878
properly leveled
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 1228 Image Height 1818 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2017:01:17 16:46:15 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1199 Image Height 1818
>>
>>3004349
>Lab tech doing the scans: "Wow, there must be something wrong with dudes camera. I can't find the frame edges because the negatives are so thin. Almost transparent, in fact"
>Lab techs co-worker: "No, he probably just fell for the hipster 'push it 3 stops for no reason' meme.
>>
>>3004351
with his arms outstretched (with his arms outstretched)
Thread posts: 17
Thread images: 5
Thread images: 5