Epson flatbed scanner

The better models of Umax are successfully used by people at entry level in the graphics business. More sophisticated prepress will prefer the software and hardware of the Fuji, Creo and Screen Cezanne.

Although no graphic pro takes it seriously the boastful Umax claim that its scanners can come close to a drum scanner, this does not alter the fact that the Umax 3000 can certainly produce a good basic scan (albeit rather slowly, as in, very slowly).

Professional prepress service bureaus use Fuji, Cezanne, Creo , Heidelberg (picture at the left), and other serious scanners such as drum scanners.

Warning [!]: If you want to do professional quality scans, use a professional quality scanner. How many real professional graphics artists or digital imaging shops do you know who actually use a scanner they bought at WalMart or Office Depot?

heidelberg scanner

At FLAAR, however, we definitely prefer a prepress scanner of the quality of the Cezanne (Screen USA), Creo EverSmart series, Fuji. Admittedly, you do not need a $45,000 scanner for everyday use (the price of the scanner sitting next to me as I write this). You certainly do not need a drum scanner either, after all, anything over 3500 dpi sees just the grain of the film, so 3000 dpi is just fine. Nonetheless, we can do beautiful enlargements from a Fuji or Creo scan of a 35mm slide that simply are not possible from a cheap 1200 dpi flatbed.

But every week, sometimes every day, we get e-mails from people who really want to do a good scan, have a budget of around $1000 to $3000, yet are about to buy a cheap scanner because of its enticing price (and because you can get them everywhere, probably even at K-Mart or Walmart!).

Several people have told us they read "Epson scanners produce professional results". I have to bite my lip to keep from smiling. Yes, Epson Inc. has done wonders for funding most of the popular computer magazines in the USA with their full page ads which promise glorious results.

Nonetheless, Epson has served a useful purpose, of making digital hardware accessible to the average household. If you want a scanner for your children to practice on, then an Epson beats most entry level scanners.

Yes, it is true that a patient individual, with extremely good images, if they are exceptionally capable with Adobe Photoshop, that they can tweak a useable scan from any cheap scanner. Unfortunately, most images are only average before they reach the scanner, and few users of a cheap scanner have a full version of Photoshop to rescue their images.

But now you can indeed get an outstanding scan from an Epson flatbed scanner. The recommended Epson scanner is the Epson Expression 838XL or comparable (models change every year or so; hard to keep up). For 2004 Epson is coming out with a newer better model.

SilverFast scanner software works with this Epson scanner. The SilverFast software is so good that it turns the economical Epson scanner into a serious contender for the entry-level scanners from Umax. If you already got stuck with cheap bundled software with your scanner, at least get good software for it from SilverFast. Don't worry that the software costs more than your scanner; SilverFast is worth the investment. SilverFast also works on most Umax scanners and on the Nikon LS2000 and now on the unfortunately discontinued Polaroid 4000 as well.

The Epson Expression 838XL is especially good for scanning 3-dimensional objects or anything with texture (such as textiles).

But please don't waste your time trying to scan 35mm color slides, color negs, or B+W negs on a low price flatbed scanner (unless of course you don't care what the results look like since you are going to trash them in JPEG to squeeze them down to fit on the Internet anyway). If you need to scan 35mm color slides and then do color prints (or, like us at FLAAR if you intend to do large format enlargements on a wide format inkjet printer), then be sure you start off with a scanner with minimum 2400 dpi (if a flatbed) and a minimum of 2700 if a dedicated 35mm film scanner.

We suggest these minimums since these are the ranges of the common models of these classes of scanners. Yes, 3200 or 4800 dpi would be better, but those don't exist at economy mode. 1200x2400 is not a 2400 dpi scanner; it's 1200.

2700 is listed for toaster-shaped dedicated slide scanners because that is sort of the current standard. 1800 is not enough (so 1200 on a flatbed is even less adequate).

Then you get into the battle of specs on Dmax and all that. Nikon pumps up their specs by requiring multiple passes. You don't realize the time delay until you actually use the machine. We cover some of these aspects in FLAAR Reports on scanners, included in each Series available on wide-format-printers.NET. Or you can take the FLAAR course on digital photography and learn more there. A single page on the Internet can't hold all the information.

Does this mean the 4000 dpi Polaroid or the OEM clone from Microtek are better than the 2700 dpi from Nikon? No, because 2700 dpi is plenty for basic use at home or in a small office and especially for the Internet. Besides, the Nikon 2000 achieves a better scan than the Polaroid of Microtek .... there is more to quality than the measure of dpi...such as dynamic range (which is much better on the Nikon than on either the Polaroid or the Microtek).

Summary on 35mm slide scanning: if you want to print your 35mm color slide scans, get a Nikon 5000 (no, the extra DPI of the Polaroid 4000 is nice but 2700 is okay for entry level; those extra dpi are usually wasted anyway). You need 2700 dpi, that is enough when it is true dpi. We did not have luck with an earlier Microtek 35mm slide scanner and if you want a reliable low cost flatbed, chose a Umax or if you need a larger surface consider the Epson 838XL, naturally with SilverFast scanner software, silverfast.com.

Summary on entry level flatbed scanners: if you want to scan textures, anything 3D, or photographs (other than 35mm slides or negs) then the Epson Expression 836XL is to be recommended. We have to wait until we try one out ourselves, but Karl-Heinz Zahorsky indicated that we should expect to be pleasantly surprised with the quality of the Epson 836XL. He ought to know because he is the inventor/owner of LaserSoft Imaging, which makes SilverFast, the best scanner software for entry level and mid-range scanners, bar none.

If you want a professional prepress scan, and if you want to have a scanner that prepress people respect, opt for a Creo iQsmart. Of course if you want to turn your 35mm scans into 36 inch x 42 inch exhibit prints, then you want a Creo Evermart Select or their EverSmart Supreme flat bed scanner. If you buy a Yugo, you don't get a BMW or Lexus. Same in scanners. Microtek and Umax are the Ford or Chevy of scanners.

What about Agfa? Inside they are just a Microtek, same insides. Besides, Agfa no longer sells them. What about LinoColor? LinoColor software used to be the best, but SilverFast is now better for normal usage for entry-level (first time) users. Besides, LinoColor fizzled when Heidelberg dropped out of the scanner market. If you need full-featured pre-press scanner software, that of Creo is truly outstanding. Especially their version 2.5, which arrived by DHL from Creo -Europe the day this page was first written.

This page of comments was occasioned by receiving the umteenth e-mail which said "I tried an Epson U1200 Perfection and the scans were dismal on the transparencies ... I'm looking for help..." That is because cheap flatbed scanners are not intended for scanning transparencies. The Epson scanners are intended to scan pictures, snapshots, and at a resolution for placing on the Internet (namely 72 dpi).

This page attempts to save other countless people from making the same mistake as Ms Mallen. At the same time, since so many thousands of people come to these FLAAR web sites looking for help on what scanner to buy, we wanted to be fair to Epson, since their Epson Expression 836XL is stated to be a surprisingly good buy for its class. We look forward to getting one for evaluation. Here is an Epson scanner that seems to be better than Microtek or Agfa and possibly better than Umax or Heidelberg. Hard for us to tell since we have a LinoColor provided by Heidelberg and two other Umax PowerLook scanners as well.

Low-cost scanners are wonderful for home use, for doing scans to put on your home page on the Internet, or to send e-mail snapshots to your friends and relatives.

But if you are a serious photographer (or are working in that direction), if you have a serious camera then upgrade to a serious scanner. You don't use a point-and-shoot camera to take your photos, so don't use a cheap scanner to scan them either.

If you do use a simple point-and-shoot camera, all the more reason to get a better scanner to rescue your photographs.

If your scanner looks like the scanner on the right, then the ad agency can deservedly label their scanner as "professional" or "produces professional quality results."