From: Harry Stottle on
I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
doing a pretty good job.

http://www.photoscan.150m.com/


From: marika on
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 18:33:24 -0400, Harry Stottle
<sorryspamdoesntwork(a)nospam.uk.co> wrote:

> I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
> following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
> to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
> supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
> doing a pretty good job.
>
> http://www.photoscan.150m.com/
>
>

I enjoyed this

From: Andy Hewitt on
Harry Stottle <sorryspamdoesntwork(a)nospam.uk.co> wrote:

> I have just put my first results from the Epson 4490 scanner on the
> following link. I have also included the settings I used on the scanner,
> to help anyone struggling to set the scanner up. This is using the
> supplied Epson Scan software, which as far as I can see, seems to be
> doing a pretty good job.
>
> http://www.photoscan.150m.com/

Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Raphael Bustin on
On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100, wildrover.andy(a)googlemail.com
(Andy Hewitt) wrote:


>Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
>indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
>with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
>print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.


In a way this is a sad situation.
I mean -- I've been there and done that.

I've got some slides and negatives that
have been through three generations of
film scanners.

If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
all your old stuff one more time.

The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
league.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com
From: Andy Hewitt on
Raphael Bustin <rafeb(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:51:17 +0100, wildrover.andy(a)googlemail.com
> (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
>
>
> >Nice, I already have this scanner myself, and find it very good value
> >indeed. I'm currently rescanning all my old photos off the negatives
> >with it, and you can easily see the difference between a scan from a
> >print and a negative. A well worthwhile purchase.
>
>
> In a way this is a sad situation.
> I mean -- I've been there and done that.
>
> I've got some slides and negatives that
> have been through three generations of
> film scanners.
>
> If you ever see one of your sharp negatives
> or slides scanned on (say) an LS-9000 or a
> drum scanner -- you're going to want to re-scan
> all your old stuff one more time.

In my case, that isn't likely to happen.

> The 4990 is a great value but not in the same
> league.

Indeed not, it wasn't being compared to any such, or anything else come
to that, it was being shown for its own merits. If you can't afford to
spend a four figured sum on a 'Pro' scanner, or indeed simply don't have
the need to, then the 4490 is quite adequate for modest needs.

A lot of my old negatives are now pretty shabby anyway, and I feel I've
probably got the best I can out of them anyway. They are definitely
better than the equally old prints I have, and scanning at higher
resolutions isn't going to improve them much.

For perfect picture quality, I now use a DSLR.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>