PC pages - Scanner
|
I just got a new scanner - again. This time it's a usable machine. Agfa Snapscan 1212 Installation | OK, the ScanWise program | The difficult 4x6" glossy | Different twain modules | Good enough? | Slide scanning | Long term usage OK, so it's not top of the line. I've used the 1236s before, and it is better. However, since I was looking for a cheapo scanner that would deliver usable results, I thought I might be able to get away with this one. Being a photographer, I'm a tad critical of scanners. I'll give you my very superficial observations: After I got it home, I plugged it in and let the machine detect it. Started the installation after I'd inserted the CD with the ScanWise software. The installation is very easy, except for some silly stuff that could confuse you - a scale where you can click on different things as you prepare to install the scanner. There's this movie routine that I found rather boring. However, once you've installed it - provided you have a suitable graphics program, it's very easy. I found it was best to start ScanWise first, then start the graphics program. Remember that you need to choose if you want the destination to be the program or a file. If I start ScanWise as Twain module from the graphics program, I have to close the scan window to get at the photo in the graphics program. I actually like it. For a lot of my needs it's quite OK. It's good for newbies, because you'll understand the options easily enough. The reason for the different choices of Original type is for instance to be able to minimize moire pattern on magazine print originals. That used to be a big problem, and I've had scans on this scanner turn out beautifully. I had scanned the same original on a top of the line scanner years earlier, and the results were horrible. This time it was beautiful. That scan alone convinced me I'd made the right choice. However, I'm not always that convinced when I pop a 4x6 glossy in the scanner. They sometimes turn out ugly, and when I started writing this page I hadn't figured out why yet. I'll let you join me in the journey to try and get better results. The image above was taken on Hollywood Boulevard on a rainy night in 1992. The face was rather small in the frame. I used the Photo-glossy and photo genie settings. The program suggested 150 dpi and 100%. I then cropped it (but still kept it at 100%), and kept the dpi setting. See how ugly it is? The original was a print from a slide, so it wasn't first rate, but still... Without photo-genie, the results were perhaps marginally better. I had an enlargement, and in this scan (without photo-genie) I got less of the mottled effect. I tried setting dpi at 72, and Scale at 50% - yikes! Scratch that. Guess this goes to show that the old saying (garbage in = garbage out) still holds true. Think I'll go back to the suggested 150 dpi and 100 % - then resample to a lower setting in the graphics program. On a hunch I tried the 4x6 one more time, this time with 300 dpi. Much better! Even better than the enlargement at 150! I think I'll use that as my standard for 4x5 glossies. I'd rather shrink them later than have those unsightly pixel problems - or whatever the pros call those things. I decided I would try what I considered a perfect 4x6 glossy (except that color balance was off), and the results were very good. This was a close cropped headshot, and the skin detail was a perfect rendition of the original. A bit too scary, I'm not using that photo on the net. Too much detail... This photo behaved well with 150 dpi. I tried a black and white portrait (not that closely cropped) as well, and ended up using 300 dpi to get enough detail. Results were poor with 150 dpi, but good with 300 dpi. With the 1236 I used before I didn't have to make any adjustments unless I was scanning magazine pages. It wasn't my scanner, and the user probably had made some adjustments to the twain module. This scanner used Photo Look, and that's a better program for control freaks than ScanWise. A newbie is probably better off with ScanWise, because the options are a lot easier to understand. I called Agfa in Norway and asked about the slide accessory (which can't be used on the 1212 anyway. Bummer!), and the guy I talked to ended up sending me the Photo Look software. Really nice of him! Can't wait to try it out! I can have both programs on my machine at the same time, so I'm really looking forward to seeing if there are any differences in performance. In other words - what's due to the scanner, and what's due to the software! (October 2001) I tried the old twain driver a while ago. Didn't work. Of course. They've put in some sort of lock so you won't be able to use the scanner with the old one. Didn't count on geeks not being happy with the new one, I suppose! I talked to a guy who owns an older 1236s. This one came with the PhotoLook software. He told me he downloaded ScanWise from the net (he thought PhotoLook was too difficult, especially for magazine print photos), and tried to make that work. He followed the instructions, but couldn't find the Twain module. I don't know what his problem was, but thought I'd mention it. This was a nerd - in the positive sense. He should have been able to make it work if it was possible. Not your average newbie... On reflection, after the experiment session tonight, I think the scanner is good enough for my use. I might have a photo I have trouble with now and then, but I kind of liked the price... Also, for web pages you don't need the world. I can change color balance (although it's a lot trickier than I'd like), and with optical dpi a whopping 600 dpi it's likely to work for me. Now if I was to scan slides it might be a tad small for large magnifications, but for 4x5 glossies it's OK. Since we're on the subject of slides. The guy at Agfa told me the slide accessory couldn't be used on the 1212. It's just that I know there are other slide accessories on the market. Generic types. Probably no good, but I wish somebody would try it and tell me what they make of them. Anyway, he told me the difference between the 1212 and the 1236 was the intensity of the light source. If I tried scanning slides I could lose detail in dark portions of the slide (person with dark hair, for instance). He also mumbled something about the quality of the CCD, which I can imagine is a bit different. Either that or the software makes all the difference. I really don't know yet. (October 2001) I've had the scanner for quite a while now, and although I still get cranky over it now and then, I've more or less made my peace with it. The problem with 4x6 glossies is that the Glossy setting is very sharp. And if you have a 4x6 glossy that isn't tack sharp, it produces those ghastly results you see above here. I've tried it with really sharp photos, and it fares much better there, when other scanners might produce a lot softer results. I guess I'd like one that was configurable ad nauseum. I just didn't know that wasn't an option when I bought the thing. I scan a lot of black and white 8x10 headshots, and it works really well for that. Those scans are really fast. I've scanned some old ancestral photos as well, and the results are good enough for printing. I've got my grandfather's photo in a frame now, after loaning my uncle's photo album for an afternoon. A guy who really knows what he's talking about says there isn't any cyan in the scans I made. He also thought the scanner was interpolating at 300 dpi, which it shouldn't do according to the specs. Could also be he picked up something from the print itself? Prints aren't always perfect, and this guy is into scanning negatives.
|
This page was created by Ann Elisabeth Nordbo
and has its home at http://www.annelisabeth.com/
Updated 04.17.2005
Premiere issue March 3rd 2000