#Top rated photo scanners 2013 pro#

was surely already way off on all of those random click cameras and cheap photo centers just as much as a 300 dollar scanner from 1999. The way I saw it before, (and I'm probably dead wrong on this) if the photos weren't taken with 'all-or-nothing' (top-of-the-line of the affordable consumer teir equipment), there really would be no need to scan with all-or-nothing equipment. I guess I'll start there and work my way down the models until something hits my price/usage ratio. That Epson looks amazing but probably overkill for me. I'm sure a select bunch of them might be printed off (or doubled in size at the most in a rare case or two), but the printing would be done on consumer grade inkjets or Walgreens at the most (of course in 10 years that might not be as bad as it sounds).

#Top rated photo scanners 2013 pro#

I'm coming mostly from 'a box of family photos' (point and shoot) spanning 4-5 decades standpoint and preserving as much as possible Not just for online photo album sharing, but also not to a pro published photographer's standards. Also recommended by a lot of photography groups I am part of. If it is photographic work then I would definitely go for the Epson as I have recommended, this is an awesome scanner that won't let you down. In terms of quality, then the newer scanners seem to work much simpler. Scanning software with a painless interface if I should stick with what I have?ĭepends entirely on what you want to scan. Think the new generation is worth the cost (since most are geared towardĭocument slurping around here), can you at least recommend some That said, I'd be willing to endure if I had to - so if you guys don't Isn't clunky as can be as well as the painful speed of the devices. How much more efficient are the new photo scanners than the old lateĩ0s - early 2000 era scanners? I have 2 old scanners but barely gotĪny use out of them because I've yet to find a software interface that

do I threadjack, or be shown politely to the search feature.?)