View Full Version : Colour printer with 35mm slide scanning

07-31-2015, 08:07 AM
Hello all.

Not specifically Mac, but I thought someone here might have an answer.

I use a Canon Pixma printer, mainly as it produces good quality photos. I used to have a Canon Pixma printer with a 35mm scanning facility built in to the lid, but it went South some time ago, unfortunately.

And now Canon don't do Pixma printers with 35mm scanning.

Been scouring the internet for a Canon MG8250 or equivalent, with no luck.

Any suggestions as to an alternative product, i.e. a good quality colour printer (plus copier plus flatbed scanner plus 35mm slide scanner), offering similar print quality as the Pixma?

I suppose one alternative is to buy a stand-alone 35mm neg scanner, but I also have a number of ancient (1890s) large b&w negatives so a 35mm-only carrier wouldn't do - I need something where I can use bits of tape etc. to hold odd-sized films.

Thanks for reading, and I hope someone has a suggestion or two.


08-02-2015, 10:08 PM
Canon and Epson have the best photo printing tech overall.

I would get a stand alone scanner, although Epson does make a few all-in-one machines too.

- The Workforce line is marketed for general purpose printing, not high quality photo printing
- The Expression line is built for photo printing

Maybe something like this:

Epson Expression Photo XP-950 Small-in-One? All-in-One Printer (http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/jsp/Product.do?UseCookie=yes&sku=C11CD28201#4)

08-05-2015, 06:29 AM
Well, I spent (wasted) valuable hours scouring the web for someone who still stocked the top-end Canon Pixma machines (the ones with 35mm scanning), but to no avail.

My Canon MG5250 is great for photo printing, so not worth changing, so I'm going down the route suggested by Unclemac, that is towards Epson, for a dedicated flatbed scanner with built-in slide and film scanning. Over here it's called a V500, and from all accounts does a good job.

I think I can find a bit of desk space for it!


08-05-2015, 09:31 PM
The photo department where I work uses both the V700 and V600, and they are well liked. I can't really speak to color accuracy....as I am colorblind. They function well, and using either Preview, Photoshop, or the Espon software works fine.

For more control, there is Vuescan (http://www.hamrick.com) too.

08-06-2015, 12:39 AM
The V600, how fast will it scan things? I've had alway had HP, now a Photosmart Premium, eprint. Scanning is only OK, but I've got a large quantity I'd like to scan for a family history. I was photographing each photo and that's really slow, even with a copy stand.

08-06-2015, 02:50 AM
I'll let you know the speed once I've got it up and running, Yeung Feng, but I don't expect it to be that quick. In my case, it was just for the 35mm and other sized negs that I really wanted it.

Colour-blind? Me too, unclemac, so I have to rely on critical friends telling me how good/bad the prints are.


08-06-2015, 06:18 AM
I've had a V600 for a while now and love it. I used to scan everything right from Photoshop but since I updated the OS to Mavericks I've been using the Epson Scan standalone utility and liking it. It scans fine from Acrobat too. Lots of control and you can also automate if thats your thing. It's amazing my first scanner cost more than my house and this one less than a few rounds of golf...

08-13-2015, 05:40 AM
Back to your question re. speed, Yeung Feng.

As predicted, it isn't that speedy. Up to 1 minute or so for a scan of a print, but a few minutes if you're going to do negs or slides. They are fiddly to arrange in the 'carrier', some needing a bit of masking tape to hold them down. I've only got a couple of dozen that need doing, but if it was hundreds, well, that would be a labour of love for a long weekend!

Results, though, are excellent, and as almaink says, you have sensitive controls which you can automate if you've got big batches of similar items.

My favourite part is that it can take very small old black and white snapshots, and with a few minutes manipulation, give you a good-sized (A5 even) and fair quality print.

Good luck with your archiving - I think the trick is knowing what to leave out.


08-14-2015, 12:30 AM
Thanks for the update! As usual there's no quick fix for something that just requires your time. Maybe I need a robot. Oh then you run into the cost verses time quandary.

No matter where you go, there you are!

Thanks again!

09-05-2015, 11:56 AM
I have archived my old pictures, 35mm slides and negatives of various sizes, BW and color, about 5 years ago.
I had to use my own flat bed scanner (stand alone) and send others to commercial outfit.
The problem, as I determined then, was that there is no flat bed scanner which can handle slides. Sure, you get a decent result, but not the best possible from your specimen. One had to buy something like Nikon 9000 in order to get enough distance between the slide and the sensor. In flat beds with the 35mm trays that distance is just too short. I learned that by using my flat bed for 35mm and comparing the result from commercial outfit using Nikon 9000.

Perhaps newer flat beds, like say Epson 10000 are now much better for tranparent media.

To get best prints from selected digital images I used Epson printer specifally designed for photographs.

The cost? Well, I figured less this way since Nikon was very expensive then. And I didn't have to worry about quality, although I tweaked a few with my photoshop.

Now I breathe a sigh of relief; all my oldies are digitized, and anything new is digital already.

09-09-2015, 08:31 AM
Thanks marrand, useful thoughts.

One problem I foresee with digitizing everything in sight is that in future years people might have trouble reading our digitized archives - just thinking how in my working lifetime we've gone from 1" mag tape to DVDs and the like.

I was scanning a negative the other day, one developed in his bedroom by my grandfather in about 1909 - a picture of my grandmother and my mum at the age of 5, all in period dress (of course), outside their West London house. A wonderful picture which I hadn't seen before (I found a dozen or so crackly old negs in a box), but it occurred to me that if Hugh Allen had used some 'fancy' 1909 technology, maybe wax cylinder or electric wire recording (yes I know they didn't do pictures, but just suppose), then I probably wouldn't be able to view that 106 year-old scene now.

Similarly, I've got photos of my great-grandfather from around 1870, and again only have these because someone committed them to paper and stuck them on cardboard.

How much of antiquity would have been lost for ever if our ancestors had digitised their worlds?

Just a thought...


09-10-2015, 01:33 PM
An interesting question: if our digitizing today won't be readable something like 100 years from now?
I believe it will.

Talking about family pictures only, when I digitized all that is avaible, I arrranged them neatly with some key dates and names in TIFF format, and distributed to all kids and grandkids on DVD's. It is their library of their past. They can convert to JPEG and make shows for viewing on TV. It is up to them to make sure future generations can read them. This means, if any want to preserve, they will convert to new technology, say 25 years hence, and after another 25 years, another conversion to something new.

And I get a feeling this applies to all digitized records, privately and in industry and government. Periodic updgrading will be the norm.

The weak link in this chain, I predict, will be material science: what materials will be used to embed all this information which will stand the test of time and not degrade? But that's up to our great grandchildren; let them figure it out.

09-14-2015, 09:36 AM
Well, I hope you're proved right! Certainly wouldn't have been the case in the 1960s, or 70s, or 80s, but maybe we've finally invented THE final electronic system. Fingers crossed.


09-14-2015, 10:33 AM
Well, I hope you're proved right! Certainly wouldn't have been the case in the 1960s, or 70s, or 80s, but maybe we've finally invented THE final electronic system. Fingers crossed.


I.... wouldn't bet on it....