on February 11, 2013
I tend to have about 3 scanners at any given time: a higher-end flatbed (for photos and film) and two economy models for my antiqarian book business, one newer with a 'good' glass surface (few, if any, scratches) and the second-newest one which usually has scratches, used for rougher items. In other words, I use scanners quite a bit and know a good one when I see it; and this new MKII version of the 9000F is quite good.
SPEED: The most important aspect of a scanner for someone who does a lot of scanning is speed: speed in warming up, speed in scanning in high-res. The 9000F MKII is excellent at both, better than my $700 Epson V700 (with one exception). The difference lies in the LED technology of the new Canon. My first thought was that LED may produce inferior results but this is certainly not the case, after analyzing the results. And because the LEDs don't need warming-up, 'warm-up time' is a thing of the past. The one exception in speed tests is scanning at high-res with Canon's FARE software turned on: very slow indeed. However, I personally always make raw scans and then batch-process them in Photoshop, so this is not a factor for me. With FARE turned off, the speed is very good, even in high-res.
SOFTWARE: The second most important aspect of a scanner is software, both the user interface and the correction software. Canon's UI software has always been inferior to Epson in that it is dumbed-down and kind of clunky in comparison to the customizable and fluid Epson UI. However, there are now big improvements in this area: I was amazed - really, amazed - at how well Auto Scan Mode works: excellent recognition, cropping, scanning and saving files in just one click. Scary good, really. Auto Document Fix (as opposed to photo fix with FARE) is also quite advanced and, for example, makes text as clear as possible - automatically. And while settings are fully customizable, as Epson's are, Canon still lags behind a bit, clearing your settings at times (Epson requires the user to reset, which is better). One software feature that, again, amazed me, was 'Gutter Shadow Correction': as a book dealer I often scan pages within books; this feature automatically recognizes the gutter shadow (the crevice between pages) and eliminates it. Wow.
QUALITY: Let's make this simple: today, even low-end scanners have incredible quality. You are getting what 5 years ago would be a $1,000 professional scanner. To get caught up in dpi and microscopic analysis of scan results is a bit too much when you're talking about a $170 scanner. The highest usable dpi for reflective media is about 3600; anything beyond that is useless (i.e., the scanner's dpi exceeds that of the photo you're scanning!). For film - certain, high-res film - maybe 4800dpi comes into play. Beyond that, get a film scanner - that's why God invented them. To expect the Ferrari of imaging devices for $170 is a bit much. This is why I've always had a separate photo scanner in addition to lower-end scanners for other uses. The 9600 dpi CCD sensor on this scanner is superb. This 9000F MKII has tremendous image quality; don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
One unexpected feature is the fact that the scanner includes not only 35mm film capability, but medium format as well. On the downside, Canon no longer bundles Photoshop Elements with the scanner.
As for new bells and whistles, the major differences between the original 9000F and the MKII (aside from the improved optical quality) are the external 'EZ Buttons': touch a button for instant copy/scan/email/pdf functions.
All in all, an excellent scanner and well worth the money.
on September 16, 2013
I bought the CanoScan 9000 F Mark II scanner in March, 2013 for $179.00 and use it primarily to scan 35 mm and 120 mm film. So far I have scanned over 1,000 frames. I have uploaded low-resolution images to the Amazon site (11/26/13.. Amazon has deleted these images), and have provided (below) links to high-resolution scans. Rather than taking my word, or anyone else's, on the quality of this scanner, look at the images it has produced and judge for yourself. The links will take you to my photography web site. To view an image at a higher resolution, click on the "sizes" icon at the far-right bottom of the page; the "original" option is the highest resolution available.
This and the five photos that follow were shot on 120 mm Fuji Velvia (transparency) film in October 1980.
This and the seven photos that follow were shot on 35 mm Kodak Ektachrome (transparency) film in 1977.
3.Key West [...]
35 mm Kodak Ektacolor (negative) film shot in 1974.
4.Santa Barbara [...]
120 mm Kodak Vericolor Professional (negative) film shot in 1988.
5.Biscayne Bay [...]
35mm Kodak Kodacolor II (negative) film shot in 1972.
For the money, I don't think you could buy a better scanner; however, the software, could be better.
The Canoscan offers three programs for scanning film: Auto Scan, Custom Scan and Scan Gear. It also comes with another program, Image Garden, for cataloging and filing images. I am currently using Adobe Lightroom to do this and do not care to switch.
To run Auto Scan you simply push the auto button on the scanner. The scanner detects whether you are scanning film, photos or documents, automatically selects the resolution and file format and sends files of each image to your computer. In regard to film, the Auto Scan will scan only 35 mm film in the JPEG format at 1200 dpi. If you want a TIFF format and / or a higher resolution, you must activate the Custom Scan or Scan Gear from your computer. The auto and custom scan programs will scan only 35 mm film while the Scan Gear program scans 35 mm and 120 mm formats and lets you make corrections on a low-resolution preview. I generally use Scan Gear for all my film scans because I can select which frames to scan from the preview; the other programs scan every frame.
For the most part, the programs work OK, but are far from perfect. Each program requires you to designate a folder on your computer that will store the scanned images. If you create different folders for each program you will get triplicate files of the same images no matter which program you use.
While the scanner's uncorrected output is pretty good, a serious photographer would probably want to make post-scan adjustments using more specialized software such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop. The Scan Gear program can make useful adjustments, such as flip or rotate, but does a terrible job on the finer adjustments such as color balance, exposure and contrast.
The scanner's ability to output "TIFF" files rather than just "JPEG" is a real advantage. The TIFF format is uncompressed meaning that it captures more information than JPEG and thereby allows a wider range of corrections (assuming you have the software that can make the corrections). Unfortunately, the TIFF files are about four times the size as JPEG.
When I first tried to scan a full-frame of 120 mm film at 9600 DPI (the highest) resolution, I got an error message: "Scanner cannot be performed unless the crop size or output resolution is reduced to 10208 x 4032 pixels or less." This message also appears, but less frequently, when scanning 35 mm film at full-frame. By trial and error, I found that I cannot scan a full-fame of 120 mm film at more than 2400 dpi. I also discovered that if I use a crop tool to reduce the size of the scan area, I can avoid the error message and scan at 9600 dpi. This scan, however, creates a very large file of more than 500 MB. The manual does not explain what this confusing message means. It appears to say that you must reduce resolution in terms of pixels but the scanner settings are expressed in dpi's. (Pixels and dpi's are not equivalent terms). I thought that I might have an outdated driver, but the Canon web site offers only one driver: "9000F MarkII MP Drivers Ver. 1.00" while the scanner came with driver 19.0.2. It is not clear which is the more current, so I am still using the driver that came with the scanner.
Despite the software quirks, I am giving this scanner five stars because it is reasonably-priced and produces scans that are comparable to drum scans.
4/12/14 update: Today I noticed that Amazon has deleted my links to high-resolution scans that I could not post on their web site. I have written to Amazon asking whether they now forbid reviews to include links to external, non-commercial web sites.
on July 11, 2013
I have owned many scanners. This is the best by far. In my three months of ownership, I have already scanned about 600 photos.
What do I like: Using an LED lighting element, the scanner is immediately ready for use. Scanning is very fast. It is simple to scan multiple images simultaneously. Scanned results are great. Dust removal is good. Price is excellent for a good scanner.
As far as quality, the scans look very detailed. Most of the photos are old. Very old. Some are about 100 years. Most are either scratched or faded. Most need some Photoshop after scanning.
So, why do I think this is so good? Scans are far faster then my previous scanners. Although I need to work on most of the photos, it requires far less work then what I needed to do in the past.
What don't I like: slide adapter is not good. I know, as I have a tons of slides I should use a professional slide scanner as well. However, for the cost and time I will probably just have a service scan them for me.
I really do not like the included "My Image Garden" application. It is worse then worthless. Canon should have included a worthwhile photo application.
on April 6, 2013
I bought this scanner because someone else had recommended it. The scanner arrived when Amazon said it would arrive. I immediately unpacked it, installed the software, and tried scanning some negatives. Excellent results! I then tried some old 35mm slides and it worked equally well. I have more than paid for the scanner by the amount of pictures that I have scanned from the many negatives that I had managed to amass. If you scan several pictures at once, the software does not treat them as one giant picture, instead it makes them into individual pictures. My only concern is that I feel that the film carrier is or could be a bit flimsy, but with care it should last for as long as you own the scanner. Also, the LED lighting makes for an almost instant on scanner. I just can't say enough good things, I am so glad that I bought it.
on March 2, 2014
A much reviewed product. Also, some very good tech reviews on other web sites. I thought I might have something to add?
I bought this scanner because my new printer/scanner "all in one" (a canon mx340) does not do a good job scanner photos (prints). I had a Mustek several years ago that stopped working, so without getting technical (yet), it was obvious that "all in one" was not very good.
I borrowed an Epson V600 from a friend, and I could see easily that one can get much better scanner for <$200. And you can scan negatives/slides with some flatbed scanners, including both the 9000F and the V600. I expected this to be a bonus, but since they can scan negatives, I wanted to buy the best of the two. And that is all you should expect, the best of the class.
Result. It is a 5 star value for scanning prints, not so good for negatives. I lot of this review is about negatives, because that is where the problems are.
Reviews from serious photographic professionals make it clear that no flatbed scanner is very good at scanning small transparent originals (negatives or slides of 35mm and less). The problem is not just the resolution, but the dynamic range. This scanner can almost pick up everything you can see on a print, in fact everything a print records, but it cannot record the range of dark and light that a slide or negative holds. And you can use this extra light and dark information to fine tune your photographs with software like Photoshop or Lightroom (and many other packages). So do not let someone tell you it does not matter. There is information on slide or negative you can not even see with your eyes. This is much more important than you think, even if you are just going to adjust the brightness and contrast, very important if you plan to make adjustment to highlights are blacks etc.. Modern software lets you adjust things digitally (you needed to use dodging tools and filters to achieve in a dark room). But little can be done if the full range of brightness and color the negative records is not available. In fact, some of your negatives may not have been exposed optimally, the person printing them years ago (or the machine) may have adjusted the exposure of the prints (adjusted the brightness of your prints). OK maybe your perfect, but most people have shots that the exposure of the paper was adjusted to make the print better. Maybe it is true it does not matter to everyone, if you just want to recognize the faces and look at the perfectly exposed parts of the image on a computer screen... Otherwise this is a compromise. The scanners dynamic range is good enough for prints, but not optimal for negatives and slides. Still it might be the best in its class, it would still be worth 5 stars.
I decided to try the 9000F mark II because it supports a feature which "might" slightly improve the scanning of negatives. Third party software like SilverFast and VueScan Pro can control exposure used for negatives and slides. These programs can even automatically combine two scans (high and low exposure) to produce a single file with more dynamic range. Vuescan calls this multi-exposure, and states it may be "sometimes" usefull. Silverfast calls it a similar name, and claims it makes the 9000F mark II work much better, according to SilverFast you really need multi-exposure. If the Epson V600 supports this type of operation, it is not clear to me, I tried VueScan and it did not list the capability (but that might be a "bug" in Vuescan). This in the end, is why I decided to try the Canon.
Even with this feature, it is not a perfect scanner for negatives, slightly better than another flatbed that does not support exposure control. But the price is similar, and I'm used to canon software.
The biggest fault to me is the resolution scandal. Canon claimed 9600dpi resolution is both true and very misleading. So misleading I cannot give it 5 stars. It really does scan at very high resolution (higher than most dedicated film scanners). But it is pointless, you cannot see film grain in the results because the focus of the optics is not good enough to make any use of 9600 dpi resolution (well not to produce very high resolution scans, but if you like pointlessly large files you will be happy.) There are dedicated "home" film scanners (for less than $300) that have better dynamic range, and better "real" resolution (you can often see the film grain on 400 speed film). These have true resolution of about 3000 dpi. The Epson V600 is not much better, I would not give it 5 starts either. I had read this in several good technical reviews, and I can confirm it now. @2400 dpi is just about as good as 9600dpi with this scanner. In fact, the included canon software (ij scan) refuses to scan a full 35mm image in 9600dpi, you have to find a very odd setting to enable such large images (not in canon software ij scan utility itself but in the shell program that launches ij scan utility). Even then, you still get warnings about such "huge" images. Very funny, they advertise 9600dpi, and then try to stop you from doing it? The Engineers may not be too happy with the Marketing department? The lie makes the scanner not worth 5 stars, it is not what it is advertised to be. The scanner is also so slow in 9600 dpi mode, it is painful. It is not the only fault with the scanner, but the most serious one in a less than $200 dollar scanner.
BTW, it seems from my research (actually I read some stuff) that if you already own a full frame digital 35mm SLR camera with more than 14M. You already own a good scanner for 35mm slides and negatives. You Just need two other things, a good macro-lens and a slide copier. In fact, a digital camera might be the best scanner available for 35 slides and negatives if you build your own slide copier. Makes sense, you have a very high end camera chip and a lot of control. You can use HDR techniques, and the type of software that creates panoramic images from multiple shots to capture all the resolution and dynamic range that the film or negative holds. But maybe not so convenient? After I'm done digging through old negatives, I plan to try the camera thing, but only with my best negatives. Some day when I have time?... Like, after I'm dead. Canon or Nikon should make a kit for the crop frame SLRs and full frame SLR. They have the skill and it mostly just a combination of there own equipment.
I like this scanner for scanning prints very much, and I think it is about equal to Epson V600 (I have scanned a few things with both.) The only thing that might be better is the noise. There is noise in the scans that does not average out with multiple scans, or averaging away when high resolution scans or converted to medium resolution. But at $200, I think this is very, very good. The packaged software is good enough. Canon does send a lot of extra software that is not really useful, at least to someone who also has all in one printer/scanner and Lightroom. It is mostly intended to make routine things like photocopying easier, but for me it is waste, and I would rather it be easy to install just IJ scan. I'm not saying it is bad software, I do not use it or need it. Silverfast and Vuescan support this scanner. But unless you are needed to calibrate the scanner with a color standard, I do not see anything useful for scanning prints. The built in color correction does a nice job, the scanned images look very much like the originals on my monitor. Printing is another matter, but this is not a printer. Some say the scanning software is hard to use. To me it seems pretty good. It allows 24 and 48 color bit Tiff files, 16-bit bw tiff, as well as other formats.
The warm up time is as advertised nearly instant. Basically you can scan in 1-3 seconds after turning it on. Very nice.
One small fault is about the color balance. The build in software does not correct for different types of color negative films at all (at least I do not see it). This would be nice, because different types of film are different. A slide and a print get looked at by the human eye. Negatives were not meant for this, and the chemists take advantage of this. The Silverfast demo did well with several types of Kodak Royal Gold and Max films, but Vuescan did not (although at least it attempts too). I understand it comes bundled with Silverfast in Europe. I can see why. But Silverfast is as expensive as this scanner and will only work with one scanner (you select it to get a license). Vuescan is about $75 dollars and works with all the scanners you have with free lifetime upgrades. I actually already owned it from years ago. Since it supports multi-exposure with this scanner it is what I used for negatives.
For scanning negatives I have found that indeed the multi-exposure feature in VueScan does help the dynamic range a little. Just a little, less than I hoped. I have happened to have few large prints that I had developed in a series of exposures, prints made from the same negative with different exposures of the paper. So a sort of paper multi-exposure that has been waiting to be digitized. Using a free HDR like program (Enfuse) I combined scans of these prints. This result was a better dynamic range then I got from using the multi-exposure feature in Vuescan pro when I scanned the original negative. The multi-exposure of the negative did allow better adjustments of highlights in Lightroom than the simple scan. So multi-exposure is good, but not great. And I find that I can very slightly tell the difference between a 2400dpi scan and a 4800dpi scan. But the 4800dpi scan is reasonable fast, so I used it. So, it is good "enough" for most 35mm negative that do not require much brightness and contrast adjustment, and which you do not plan to print in 8x10" (or larger format). And good enough to tell which negatives are worth more work. Maybe send a few to a scanning service. I did not get a chance to try Silverfast with the 9000F mark II, my free trial expired while I was playing with the Epson V600. But Vuescan works fairly well.
I think I found a bug in Vuescan that is very hard to live with because it affects the only reason I bought it. I first upgraded to version 9.5.24. The program has a 64-bit version and 32-bit version (for Windows 32-bit X86). A few days later I was offered 9.5.25. When I upgraded the 64-bit version, I stopped seeing the multi-exposer option. Or maybe it never worked in 64-bit; I do not remember which shortcut I was using. Now I have to use the 32-bit (not upgraded) version, it works OK, but I'm afraid to upgrade it and free upgrades are included for life!
The Near Infrared based dust removal works well for me. (Dust removal on the Epson V600 was equal). The Near IR only works for negatives and some slides, but this is a great feature in a <$200 scanner.
So far I noticed a few times when the software has stopped, and I had to turn the scanner on and off. But this is not as bad as with the old scanner I owned years ago. It also happened when I tried out the V600. It happened with both cannon software and Vuescan, but Vuesan is more of a problem. Turn the scanner off and Vuescan generally unfreezes.
I do not have many faded and stretched items to scan, so I cannot comment on that part of the software. I would likely use software that is not bundled with the scanner for this anyway, I have a few programs. Reading other reviews, it seems most people like the canon software for the price.
The OCR works as well as I expected. Wish is not very good. Much better than a few years ago. And it might be very useful. It actually worked better than the OCR on my all in one scanner/printer. Not sure why? It is a Canon and it is has a paper-feeder, just the right hardware for OCR.
I always read 1 start reviews. If a lot of them are about the item failing in the first weeks, I assume the percent of one star reviews is an indication of the quality. But I also want to see if the complaints are valid.
Some of the only 1 star reviews do seem to be concerned with broken scanners, some arrived defected. But several concern the fact the negative trays might break. One person gave it one star based entirely on the opinion that that they were easy to break and hard to replace. Although, his are not broken? (1 star??). Yet I would not be surprised if the plastic might break someday. Indeed I find them expensive and difficult to replace (see some links below). There are third party trays, but the cost at least 25% of the scanner price. You need something like these holders for negatives. You do not want to just put them on the glass; they would have nothing on top of them and will curve, touching the glass plate in just one spot, and not giving a uniform scan focus. You could place a glass plate on top, but that causes artifacts and rings that can be very bad. So a good holder is needed to prevent Newton rings and other artifacts.
BTW, the negative holder is not very good at stopping the film from curling toward the emulsion side. (The emulsion (the not so shiny) side goes down in the scanner, you can see the difference in large flat areas of negatives, like blue sky). The holder helps, but my negatives are still a little curved. So far, I have not scanned a negative with a critically perfect focus to worry about. (I take a lot of photos of waterfalls and rivers with long exposures, they are focus but soft, and I have started with these.) Of course many pictures of family and friends (not the kind of thing you want a super hard focus in the center for). So the curvature is not too bad for me... yet. I do have some negatives that I really want to capture all the sharpness possible. One of the links below is about a trick with toothpicks to fix the curvature problem; another is for a special kind of glass that does not cause problems, it can flatten the curvature of the negatives. I have not tried any of these yet, just passing along the info. If the holder brakes, I sure I could rig something.
Curved negatives links and film holder links:
European website that sells oem 35mm negative/film strip holder (could not find a US site, but one is listed in the comment section of a 1 star review)
After market negative holders, even for odd sizes like 110.
on May 13, 2015
I noticed one major feature difference between the Epson V600 and Canon 9000f (MKII), Epson's driver is primarily closed source or proprietary and the Canon 9000f (MKII) driver is entirely open source code.
There maybe some benefits with the closed source code Epson IScan driver, but history dictates products having open source code drivers usually rival products having only closed source code drivers. The main feature of open source code drivers, the code is backwards and forwards compatible with past and future operating systems. Also, open source code drivers tend to be always readily available, versus closed source code having a tendency of their download mirrors simply disappearing due to internal business decisions.
There is a web page detailing some of the differences between the Epson V600 and Canon 9000f scanner models, by searching with an Internet search engine and using the search term "Epson V600 Canon 9000f MKII versus". This page listing the differences is published within the versus.com domain name.
In brief, the Canon seems to win over the Epson unless you want 16 bit reflective grayscale scans, then the Epson V600 would be your choice. In practice, scanning black and white photos with a scanner not having 16 bit grayscale output can still be achieved by simply scanning in color 48 bit which outputs to 16 bit. Then open the image file using your photo editor and click "Image > Mode > Grayscale" to convert the RGB/color image to grayscale!
Further reviews by filmscanner.com shows the following effective viewable resolution comparisons:
Epson Perfection V600 Photo 1560ppi (less than a quarter of the claimed 6400ppi resolution)
Epson Perfection V700 Photo 2300 dpi (less than 40% of the claimed 6400 dpi resolution)
Epson Perfection V750 Photo 2300 dpi (less than 40% of the claimed 6400 dpi resolution)
CAnon CAnoScan 9000F Mark II 1700 ppi (17% of the rated value of 9600ppi)
Also, scanning photos (or reflective media and not negatives/positives) is limited to the manufacturer's 4800 dpi resolution on all scanners mentioned above. They're higher stated dpi/ppi resolutions are only for negative & positive media. Makes me wonder why more people by the Epson versus Canon. The Canon seems to be a far better deal all over, unless you're buying a Nikon (or other scanner) specifically for scanning negatives.
1) Open Sourced Linux Driver (ie. sane-backends "pixma")
2) Many improvements over the Epson V600, such as better power management
3) ScanGear (or IJ Utility included within the Canon Driver package) are useful and apparently adequate. ScanGear's Advanced menu without thumbnails appears to be very similar to Linux XSane with having a few additional customizations.
4) Scanner seems very light weight, and I like the inside cover unique insertion, and can be easily removed for scanning negative/positive media.
5) Power management is another huge plus. I always hated seeing my older scanner filament lights always
1) Only able to perform 16 bit grayscale negatives/positives and color reflecctive media. Only 8 bit grayscale reflective (ie. Black and White Photo), versus the Epson V600 able to perform 16 bit negative & reflective grayscale media. Other than this, both are able to perform 16 bit color. But if 16 bit reflective grayscale is needed, then just scan the black and white photo as 16 bit depth color and then transform to black and white. (This is likely why Canon negated the 16-bit depth reflective grayscale feature, as reflective color scans support 16-bit depth color.)
2) The My Image Garden software (680 MB) and Quick Menu are basically useless. These two pieces of software will not function within VirtualBox Windows XP session, using NVidia binary drivers & Linux. (The problem occurs with Virtual Box Windows' 2D/3D display acceleration, as these application's graphical interfaces apparently depend upon the acceleration.) However, any software usually bundled with any purchased hardware is basically useless, except usually the in-house created utility and drivers for operating the basic hardware components.
3) Digital Ice or FARE (or scratch and dust fixing) seems like a gimmick for flat bed scanners, and only useful for scanning negatives. Hardware not specifically made for scanning negatives/positives, do not include the full version of the Digital ICE software for fixing negatives. Even then I've heard it's just best to perform all image fixing from within the Gimp or Adobe Photoshop, as automatic filters tend to provide unexpected results. The other option if you strongly desire the infrared image hardware fixing features, buy VueScan or other after-market proprietary software. If you have many negatives to scan, strongly consider buying hardware desired specifically for scanning negatives; and infrared image fixing is desired, buy VueScan or other third party capable software.
TIP 1: Old 4x6 black and white photos are scanned in as color 16 bit (ie. Input 48 bits color) at 600 DPI and then transformed to grayscale from within the Gimp. Smaller photos will likely benefit from the higher 1200 DPI. Rotate as required and use; 1) Image > Mode > Grayscale, 2) Colors > Levels > Auto should produce good grayscale images. I tend to keep the initial scanned image file size at around 100MB.
TIP 2: When working with old color photos, instead of using Auto Levels, try using Colors > Auto > Equalize.
TIP 3: For Windows' operating system users, avoid installing My Image Garden (mig @ 680 MB) and the (Canon) Quick Menu software when prompted for selecting or deselecting installing software components. Only select to install the Adobe 1998 Profile and Canon Driver, for which the driver includes the IJ Utility and ScanGear. There will be no shortcuts created on the desktop until you make one using the Program Files entry shortcut. Also, update your driver and Adobe Profile by downloading the updated software online at Canon.com. The updates are several months older than the CD that was provided with my scanner. When using ScanGear, make sure to set file saving settings to TIFF instead of default JPEG for best results. There are no additional compression settings for TIFF files.
TIP 4: For Linux users, Linux XSane includes an open source driver, with XSane able to scan at 16-bit depth for color reflective scans only. When scanning grayscale (or black and white) photos, scan in color (16 bit depth) as previously mentioned and then use the Gimp to convert the Image > Mode > Grayscale. Also CMS color management profiles are contained within the Canon driver CAB files. (ie. CNSN0D.ICC, CNSP0D.ICC, CNSR0D.ICC) Using hexedit, hexedit clearly displays each color ICC profile as negative, positive and reflective. You'll need to manually select the profiles when scanning either negative (ie. negative/positive) or reflective media. ImageMagick's identify or the Gimp is your friend for displaying scanned image file properties, or ensuring you're getting 16-bit depth scans. Save scanned image either as PNM or TIFF without any compression. Can also embed the scanner profile into the image. (ie. CNSR0D.ICC 212KB)
TIP 5: ScanGear does not provide color profiles for negatives. VueScan does provide color profiles for negatives. (ie. Standard, Kodak, ...) When comparing scans from Canon ScanGear and VueScan, the ScanGear scans look very similar to VueScan except ScanGear's scans seem to be too colorful. (ie. Lawn grass looking to comic book color green.) VueScan scan's have a more realistic color look. If you're performing color scans, especially color negatives, it is likely best to invest the $80 for VueScan Professional. Some settings within VueScan seem tricky without hover-over hints, requiring some searching for definitions for configuration settings. VueScan works within Windows & Linux, including infrared fixing for negatives. I've read quite a few negative reviews for SilverFast. XSane (Sane for Linux) appears relatively good for reflective bed scanning, and barely adequate for somebody performing few negative scans. The nice feature with ScanGear, ScanGear's multiple auto cropping for negatives works well versus VueScan's multiple auto cropping. I tried to include the two photos comparing ScanGear to VueScan, but Amazon.com wouldn't permit the upload.
Tip 6: Instead of using VueScan's preset negative color profiles (ie. KODAK GOLD 200 Gen 6 GOLD 200-6), it's said to be best and of little effort to perform the color profile yourself. Follow steps listed on VueScan's "Advanced Workflow Suggestions" (http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc16.htm) and ignore the "Lock exposure" option as this option likely no longer exists. First set the Color > Negative Vendor to standard, then preview a negative and crop an area of print which is pure black for a negative. Perform a second preview (for the cropped black area) and then tick "Input > Lock film base color". The film for this roll of film is now color profiled. Using the preset negative color profiles, I've witnessed slightly brighter images (slightly washed-out) than using this custom profile method.
TIP 7: I think the reason why many Linux Sane/XSane users migrate to VueScan; when scanning negatives, there is no complete infrared support and good color profiling (ie. ICC/ICM) support. Although there is infrared source code (ie. antidust.c), antidust.c support is currently not integrated into Sane/XSane or at all useful to end users. Although XSane does allow users to create their own medium definition, medium definitions cannot be used at the same time color profiling support is activated. (ie. CanoScan 9000F CNSN0D.ICC negative ICC/ICM, cannot use both the ICC and custom media definition for which are two color definition tactics apparently used at the same time from within VueScan and Canon's ScanGear.)
on August 29, 2013
I bought this to scan slides from the 60's to late 70's. I was initially looking at one of those devices that feeds slides through one at a time and was a little concerned about picture quality. This scanner has a slide attachment (as well as one for standard negatives) that will hold the slide while you start the scanning process. My attachment will hold four slides at a time. When you insert the slide holder, you take out another piece in the top of the unit that uncovers and LED light, which is how the scanner can work. There are several ways to use the included software, and multiple corrective measures, but the most relevant setting is resolution. You can pick resolutions where you swap out slides almost as fast as you can close the lid, and resolutions where it takes 20 minutes to process a batch. Of course, the former are little better than screen caps, where the latter could be blown up to poster size without pixellating. The key is to decide what you want before starting the big job. I chose a resolution that gives me 3.5MB file sizes, which is good enough for any size photo paper.
The software will help address (some) fading/aging artifacts, but it can't work miracles. If it would look washed out on a screen, it will look that way here, too.
Gotta go! I have another couple thousand slides to get done by Thanksgiving!
on December 12, 2013
Software is terrible. Total nightmare. Seriously. It appends not only the scanning date, but also a sequence number to your file name. Example: _20131215_0001 will be added to EVERY file or photo that you scan on Dec 15, 2013. The other idiotic thing Canon changed (from the much, much better MP Navigator EX software that came with the 9000F Mark I scanner) is now you can't name your file before you scan without going into the settings file every time. Sure you can name it after the scan, but that is inefficient workflow practice. Another pop up screen & more clicking involved. I am a professional researcher and scan documents and photos all day long. I don't have time to go back & fix every single file name. This software literally cuts my productivity by 20% and annoys the heck out of me. If I can't return this scanner, I will have to buy the 3rd party Silverfast software for $49 to use the scanner effectively (and without continually cursing at it). I complained to Canon because I have the 9000F Mark I, which is exactly the same hardware as the Mark II - only the software & driver are different. I bought the Mark II because I thought it was a newer version of the Mark I. Nope. I wanted to use the old MP Navigator software with the Mark II. Nope. Canon's response: "There is not a way to use the MP Navigator program with the CanoScan 9000F Mark II, and there is not a way to prevent the appended information from being appended to the scan filename. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause." Sorry Canon - this isn't simply an inconvenience. Its a nightmare for me and a waste of my time and money.
on May 28, 2013
I bought this scanner specifically for converting a large collection of 35mm negatives to digital. It works great. I'm using it with a Mac and editing the photos in iPhoto, and the final results have been pretty impressive. It's a great machine...especially given the modest cost.
on October 25, 2013
At a 4800 dpi setting it takes about 5 minutes to do four slides/ The results are quite good and with my old scanner it took that long to do one slide with lower resolution. The software does a pretty good job of recovering old slides, even ektachrome ones that have faded to red.