mmm, I have had and used a flatbed scanner for over 12 years and couldnt imagine not having one on my pc. They are very cheap and very useful for doing an occasional fax, making a copy of document for archives, etc. Flatbeds are good to have. Film scanners were expensive, but basic document only scanners are not. The quality of the scans are amazing from my epson scanner with typical 8.5x11 documents.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Waller Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner The whole point was I wasn't going to purchase a flatbed scanner for a few prints! These reproductions totally exceeded my expectations. It would be interesting to see how these digital images from my K20D compare to those from a scanner. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f ----- Original Message ----- From: "JC OConnell" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner > as good as that worked, using a decent flatbed scanner > would probably be even better! scanners can be super > critical sharp too. > > JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) > "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas > Jefferson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Ken Waller > Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 7:49 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: K20D as Scanner > > > I had the need for prints from some 50 year old B+W family pictures > that I didn't have the negs for. > I don't have a flat bed scanner & decided to shoot them with my K20D & > my > 200mm f4.0 ED Macro. > > I shot them using a tripod, making sure I was perpendicular to the > image > > plane, using available light & being mindful to eliminate glare off > the originals. I shot raw, ran them thru CS2 (including applying a > small amount of unsharp mask) & printed them (slightly larger than the > original > image) on > my 12 year old Epson Stylus Photo printer. > > The results are simply astounding ! Its hard to believe the final > results came from the 50 year old original - much clearer and sharper. > I seriously > doubt if wet prints off the original negs would even come close to the > digitally produced images. > > FYI > > Kenneth Waller > http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
