Scanners

olmanjon

Can anyone reccommend a good quality scanner so that I can post pictures. Don't want to spend a fortune but would like to show better pics then my combo printer-scanner-fax gives. Thanks for any info, Olmanjon

newbiecollector

I recomend that you invest in a good digital camera. That does not have to be real expensive.

olmanjon

Like to keep to $200. Don't think I can get a good digital camera for that.

newbiecollector

I think you may be incorrect. There are others here more experienced than I am and hopefully they will chime in

Man

I agree with a little searching and some online coupon codes you can find a decent camera for under $200.


That said I use a Visioneer 9320 for all my scans it is 4 years old and works great.

They are up to the 9520 Link it is under $200 and if you search around you can find better deals.

coinpictures

Scanners just don't work well with coins, especially when it comes to capturing lustre or color. They're fine for quick-and-dirty pics, but if you're going to spend $200, you're better off getting a camera (if you budget was only $50, then a scanner would be your only option).

mrpotatoheadd

<< <i>Like to keep to $200. Don't think I can get a good digital camera for that. >>

I guess it depends on what you mean by "good". I took this picture:



with this camera:



They're currently selling (used) on eBay for 10 to 20 bucks.

lordmarcovan

Hewlett-Packard Scanjet G3010. Cost me $150-170-ish, I think?

Did all the pics for my love token set with it.

My old cheap $69 compact Canon wouldn't scan anything even the tiniest bit off the glass. For that reason, it would not scan slabs without blurring, because of that little bit of clear plastic between the coin and the glass. The HP Scanjet, on the other hand, will permit me to scan up to maybe a quarter-inch off the glass without much distortion, allowing me to do angled scans to capture toning and such. It washes out a little bit of the luster on bright coins, but this is par for the course with scanners.

Obviously, a camera is better IF you know how to use one properly. But you do not HAVE to use a camera to get good coin pictures.

For some like me, a scanner offers a nice easier option, where you don't have to play around with lights and positioning.
In many ways, a scanner is a great, low-learning-curve alternative for the novice or less-skilled photographer who just can't seem to get it right with a camera (like yours truly).

I can never get the lighting right when using my camera, except in natural sunlight, and even then, I get shadows. I shoot pretty good landscapes outdoors but indoors my pictures turn mediocre to awful. I think lighting is my Achilles heel.

For some reason, I have always been better with a scanner, so I went back to using one. I wanted a GOOD one, though, and this one fit the bill. I looked for something with a nice deep box on it, because though I cannot prove it has anything to do with image quality or depth of field, I had noticed that my very first scanner (an ancient Memorex with 16 or a zillion pins on the adaptor) had a deep box and made great scans, whereas the slim Canon I replaced it with had poor depth of field, as I mentioned. So I went back to a deep box and now I can scan slabs again and make nice images that often do not look anything like scans, once they've been cropped, matted, and so forth.




Here are a few samples of the HP G1030's work.
(After appropriate cropping and mounting with a photo editing program.)














Here are some with no fancy photo tweaking, just the way they came off the scanner.
Ancient coins, which are seldom flat and often have high reliefs, were very tricky on my old cheap Canon scanner, but not on this one...

(This Nero denarius washed out a little, but it is still an acceptable pic- bright coins are sometimes tough, as I mentioned.)


(Trajan denarius. Again, a little washed out but not bad- this coin is FAR more awesome in hand, though.)










(Not all bright silver ancients come out bad- the scanner captured the toning on this Gallienus.)


(Crispus bronze came out a little too dark. My background- a leather binder laid over the coin & scanner- was too dark colored for contrast.)


(But Vabalathus/Aurelian turned out just fine, partly thanks to the great desert patina I love.)





Finally, some scanned through slabs.
(All of these have been downsized and jpeg-reduced to upload on the forums- the originals were bigger and a bit better.)



(Sometimes you get a little rainbowy glare from the plastic, if it isn't a flat surface. Flat-on, though, no problem.)









So- whaddya think? Not bad for a scanner, eh? I'm no Phil Arnold or Mark Goodman or TwoKopeiki or any of those guys with the fantastic pictures, but I manage to hold my own.

kuhli

HP Photosmart C4280. All in one copier/printer/scanner, with slots for memory cards. Daughter got me mine for Christmas, spent less than $100 at staples.

Aethelred

If you are wanting to spend somewhere in the $200 range I would suggest a point & shoot camera with a good macro setting. With a camera you will have a lot more options with lighting ane be able to take much better photos than you could ever get with even the best scanner. Try looking on Amazon.com and get feedback here before you buy as I am sure you will find someone here who has used almost anything you might be thinking of buying.

LordM is pushing his scanner to it's limits in terms of the quality of image that can be obtained and (with all due respect) still getting a bunch of pics that look washed out. For the same money you can get a good little camera that will overcome this problem.

Here is a photo that was taken with a 2mp Nikon (and remember I have very limited skill as a photographer):

olmanjon

I am overwhelmed by the good fortunate that I was introduced to this forum by my B & M dealer(Smitty). Whenever I need some info you guys are right there to help me. I cannot thank you enough. In response to the HP photosmart, I do have a HP Photosmart c5180 and it just does not give anywhere near the detail of the coin photos and scans that I see on this forumn. I looked at Lord M's token pics and agree with him that they are pretty good quality. However, I am interested in getting good pics of my overdates to put on the forumn and I think I might need a little better quality than the scanner. However, this being said, Smitty uses an old scanner and has great pics of great detail. I don't know if this is just the scanner or the software that you talk about using to crop and inhance. I would love to have some more imput as far as makes and models of digital cameras are concerned and will keep looking before deciding to purchase. Thanks to everyone who has responded to my enquiry so far and who might respond in the future,
Olmanjon

olmanjon

I just looked at the info on the "Visioneer 9520 recommended by Man. Can you scan something and post it. Thanks, Olmanjon

lordmarcovan

<< <i>LordM is pushing his scanner to it's limits in terms of the quality of image that can be obtained and (with all due respect) still getting a bunch of pics that look washed out. For the same money you can get a good little camera that will overcome this problem. >>

That may be so, and I clearly stated myself that a camera is probably preferable in most cases, IF you know what you are doing with it. A scanner (a GOOD scanner) can be a good alternative without the learning curve or the lighting hassles, though.

Also, let it be known that I deliberately posted some of my not-so-good pictures as well as some of the better ones, in the interest of a full revelation on what the scanner can and can't do. I might be "stretching its limits", but maybe not. Of course experience counts, with the scanner as well as the camera. If you are gonna have to learn and practice either way, maybe the camera is the more versatile tool that you should learn.

As to the old scanner that made fantastic pictures, I had one of those in the old boxy Memorex which still sits in my shed. I lost the software for it, and its 16-pin (or however-many-pin) plug won't fit any of our more modern computers, or I might still be using it. If we have any technogeeks on here that would like an old scanner to play around with, I would part with it for the price of shipping.

I have a suspicion that the depth of field of the scans (or whatever the correct term is) has something to do with the depth of the box, though nobody has managed to answer that question for me, despite my asking on several forums and even asking a copier place locally. I've owned three scanners, and the two bulky ones with deep boxes made nice scans, whereas the slim, compact one was only marginally acceptable and completely unacceptable for anything not totally flat on the glass.

Aethelred

I want to be clear that I am not knocking you LordM, the results you are getting are as good as can be hoped for with a scanner. A scanner is much easier to use than a camera, but with a little effort even someone like me (lacking in even basic skill as a photographer & being colorblind) can get better results than I ever did with a scanner.

lordmarcovan

Ye Deade Kinge is only acting contritely because I bombarded him with phony French-accented Monty Python insults in a PM.



<< <i>Call my scans washed out, will you, you English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Aethelred-king, you and your silly English kiniggets.

I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. >>



How's THAT for an attitude adjustment?

lordmarcovan

He then responded by saying,



<< <i>Do this with your sissy scanner:
>>






Fact o' the matter is, I probably COULD, given the same coin. With the resolution set high enough, my scanner could handle that. I have used scanners to take closeups of tiny features like repunched mintmarks and other things of that nature.

But now I suppose I'll have to prove it. *Sigh*

OK, but gimme a while. I've been having problems with the laptop I usually run the scanner off of.

I suppose I could try looking for some of these past closeups, but I don't know if I still have any of them.



He called my scanner a "sissy scanner"... did you hear that? How cheeky!

olmanjon

Thanks for the replys guys and the pm's also. Birthday is coming up and my wife promised me a surprise so we will wait and see. Olmanjon

olmanjon

Oh, by the way I am leaving on a cross country drive to Seattle from NY so will be off line for a week, so if anyone else pm"s me have patience, I will get back to you. Thanks again, Olmanjon

Man

<< <i>I just looked at the info on the "Visioneer 9520 recommended by Man. Can you scan something and post it. Thanks, Olmanjon >>



Sorry about the late response here are a few from my old 9320.


Machine doubling.



Triple die clash.




Here's an edge picture I took from the scanner.

olmanjon

Just back from my Seattle trip. 2800 miles in 45 hours. My daughter and I took turns driving. Got on Interstate 90 in Victor New york and got off at Seattle, Washington. No stop lights between except where we got off to eat and fill up with gas.

Would like to thank you again for all the info. Looking forward to my gift on my birthday-the 27th. Will either post some pics or scans at that time. Olmanjon

GRANDAM

Hey Lord,

Is this your scanner?



This is an HP G3010 I found on eBay.

GrandAm