Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
If you are particularly happy, or not with something, please indicate what it is, including make.
Thanks in advance.
Login to Like
this post
I like using a scanner for normal pics. Most camera pics are not very good (lighting, angle, detail, etc) and recommend a scanner if you want someone to buy one of them. Yet, so you see very expensive stamps displayed for sale using a camera with all the negative aspects.
If I do us camera, I use a DLSR on a copy stand with decent lighting.
I have an Epson v600 but many good ones out there.
Login to Like
this post
I would just shoot myself if I didn't have a scanner (and I was a professional photographer!). I use mine almost daily, sometimes several times a day. I also have an Epson, the V700 model which is pricey but scans slides and negatives as well documents. In terms of quality, it's faster than my previous scanner (can't recall what I had, but it cost me only CAN $129) but the quality of the images it creates is just the same, i.e. excellent. So you don't have to spend an arm and a leg fora scanner that will easily do a good job. My wife is very happy with the scanner on our HP printer/scanner/fax, which also didn't cost an arm and a leg.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
I use a camera for most of my images.
Login to Like
this post
I've always had a good quality scanner available. So, naturally, I've always used the scanner because of the output quality compared to a camera. I've never tried to photograph a stamp.
Cameras have gone digital and have improved dramatically in recent years, making them somewhat more usable in the absence of a scanner. However, relatively inexpensive scanners have improved dramatically over the years as well. Scanners are ideal for scanning flat objects like stamps. Cameras are not.
Having said that, a really good quality camera can produce better images than a marginal-quality scanner. If you have a camera and a scanner that are capable of producing comparable quality images, I think it'll always be easier to get good quality stamp images with the scanner.
My current scanner is an Epson Perfection V700 which I use primarily for work other than scanning stamps. It's clearly overkill for scanning stamps.
Login to Like
this post
I have used a Kodak EasyShare 2 megapixel camera to take pictures of stamps since the days of StampWants (about 20 years?).
It's still shooting great pictures for use on the internet. Here's one I took today:
I place the stamp on an empty three-ring binder and angle the camera (a tripod is a must!) so that it is parallel with the slop of the binder.
Login to Like
this post
I find scanning to be superior.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Here's a camera shot of the same stamp for comoparison.
Login to Like
this post
In my opinion scanning is superior for most hobbyists.
The issue at hand here is the need to generate an accurate image. With a flat bed scanner, the only variable is to try to position the stamp straight (not as easy as it sounds) on one axis.
But with a camera, every axis becomes a variable. There are also cases on eBay where sellers will intentionally use a camera angle to alter the image perspective and hide perf issues. (You cannot perform a Srail test on an image like this.)
I am sure that experienced photographers can probably take quality images but for most of us trying to position the camera at exactly 90 degree over the top of the stamp is very difficult.
Don
Login to Like
this post
"...but for most of us trying to position the camera at exactly 90 degree over the top of the stamp is very difficult.
"
I have a left over enlarger stand from my photography days that I use as a copy stand. I still use it for UV photography and want to do tethered capture where the image goes directly into the imaging tool (Lightroom for me). No need to remove SSD and then put in computer.
Login to Like
this post
I wrote to HP about variable light source ... the new PSA machins have iriodin layer that does not register with current scanners. uv imaging is also impossible
solution - digital icard camera ...
http://www.ebay.ca/sch/Publications-Supplies/83274/m.html?item=182117701169&hash=item2a670f9631%3Ag%3AvfEAAMXQLoZR01
5%5B%2Fimg%5D&_ssn=cbenbow
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Scanner-Epson V600
Camera- Nikon- Coolpix
Here is the identical stamp scanned and a pic taken.
In general, I find the camera takes a "cooler" hue image then the scanner.
I prefer the scanned image here, but this is an unfair comparison, as the camera was not on a tripod (hand held).
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
wavelength of light source accounts for shades ...
scanner emits greenish light
Login to Like
this post
OK, I admit that I'm impressed with some of the images created with digital cameras. And I could probably do the same with my Canon, but it just seems a lot more efficient to use my scanner. And some images would still be difficult to impossible to obtain. Here's an example:
I noticed that a couple of the images taken with digital cameras suffer a bit from uneven light, which of course is one reason that a copy stand is useful.
I'd still just shoot myself if I didn't have a camera. But maybe not with a real gun — bullets hurt like hell! So I'd use a water pistol, well away from my mint stamps! And digital camera.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
The camera pics can be improved by post processing such as the blue tint by tweaking the white balance. The scanner should give better consistent images with no need to tweak.
Login to Like
this post
"JKJblue
Camera- Nikon- Coolpix
Here is the identical stamp scanned and a pic taken.
In general, I find the camera takes a "cooler" hue image then the scanner."
Sorry but the camera shot should not be taken as a argument for scanners being superior. The angle & depth of field are obvious issues.
A good CCD type scanner will give you consistent very good images with the right software and scanner calibration
A digital SLR (not a Coolpix) in macro mode with the object in a proper lightbox and stand will provide a far superior image with incredible depth.
The problem - the scanner is fast and easy and as far as 99% of what I see posted, it can give better results provided the software & calibration is taken into account. The camera just takes too long to set up.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
This was taken with a Nikon 24MP DSLR with a 90mm lens under UV light so you have room to get lighting using 2 UV lights. I agree the camera has much better Depth of field since you can stop down.
Login to Like
this post
Why are we talking about cameras having a better depth of field than scanners? Scanners have zero depth of field, and don't need it.
As I said previously, I'm impressed with the quality of some of the stamp images produced by cameras as shown in this thread, but for ease of use and consistent quality, I still vote for a scanner. With a scanner you don't have to worry about exposure, fall-off of light, parallax, camera shake, or depth of field. Of course you can use a copy stand, which is fine if you already have one, but there aren't many copy stands as cheap as inexpensive scanners (which can produce amazing images despite their low cost).
One of my pet peeves is people who try to sell stamps, covers, and postcards but provide images that are too small and/or of such poor quality that potential buyers can't actually see what they're buying, assuming they buy. Show me a bad image on any philatelic sales site, including Stamporama, and I can pretty much guarantee that the seller was using a digital camera and didn't bother learning how to use it.
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
A lens in a camera and scanner have depth of field. A scanner needs some depth of field to scan items that are not completely flush to glass and to allow for manufacturing tolerances, etc. If something is not at the actual focus point then items closer or further away get progressively less sharp. Scanners that scan slides or negatives in holders need more depth of field since the item is not flush to glass and usually not flat.
Scanners will give consistently better results without any tweaking in most conditions since more variables are controlled.
Login to Like
this post
Using a camera does have advantages if a person wants to hide or cover up issues with a stamp.
If a person had a reperfed stamp and they wanted to make it hard to see the reperf, they would use a camera and simply take the picture at a bit of an angle like this...
If they wanted to hide some flaws, repairs, or fake cancels they would use a camera and take an out of focus image like this...
I don't mind if a quality photographer uses a camera, especially if they have a stand or other device which can position the camera directly over the stamp. But the majority of hobbyists do not have the skills or equipment needed to take quality images with a hand held digital camera. In my opinion a scanner is the best option for most hobbyists.
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
"A digital SLR (not a Coolpix) in macro mode with the object in a proper lightbox and stand will provide a far superior image with incredible depth.
"
O.K. CF1957, your're on!
Upload an image of one of your favorite stamps (1840-1940 era) here with one of your digital SLRs.
I'll likewise upload a similar example using my scanner.
Login to Like
this post
I've never noticed any difficulty scanning items that weren't perfectly flat, such as covers with contents or with wrinkled, bent surfaces. But I got curious, and scanned something that definitely isn't flat — a shard of Anasazi pottery which I found in my back yard in New Mexico when I was seven or eight years old. First, here's a photo taken with my iPhone to show that the shard is definitely not flat!
Here's a scanned image of the shard (done with Epson V700 scanner).
The scanned image seems sharp throughout. Perhaps that's because it is designed to scan slides and negatives as well as documents, and as a result has greater depth of field than other scanners. But I suspect that most scanners have sufficient depth of field to handle most "flattish" 3D objects.
I had a LOT more difficulty taking the photograph than doing the scan. The scan required one pass, and that was it. But I had a lot of problems with uneven light with the photograph, even though the shard and coin seemed to be evenly illuminated by a LED light directly overhead. It would have been easier to do with my Canon DSLR, but still not as easy as scanning it.
Finally, here's a photo I took with my iPhone, trying to replicate the scanned image. It's not bad, but the contrast is too low, showing all of the flaws in the background:
I noticed that the scan (as someone mentioned previously) produced a cooler image than the iPhone. I tried to tweak the colour, without notable success.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
The Epson V700 was a nice scanner especially for copying negatives and slides due to dynamic range. This scanner and its replacement, V800, have a dual lens system.
Login to Like
this post
What you use to post your stamps to sell, or to a message board?
If you are particularly happy, or not with something, please indicate what it is, including make.
Thanks in advance.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I like using a scanner for normal pics. Most camera pics are not very good (lighting, angle, detail, etc) and recommend a scanner if you want someone to buy one of them. Yet, so you see very expensive stamps displayed for sale using a camera with all the negative aspects.
If I do us camera, I use a DLSR on a copy stand with decent lighting.
I have an Epson v600 but many good ones out there.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I would just shoot myself if I didn't have a scanner (and I was a professional photographer!). I use mine almost daily, sometimes several times a day. I also have an Epson, the V700 model which is pricey but scans slides and negatives as well documents. In terms of quality, it's faster than my previous scanner (can't recall what I had, but it cost me only CAN $129) but the quality of the images it creates is just the same, i.e. excellent. So you don't have to spend an arm and a leg fora scanner that will easily do a good job. My wife is very happy with the scanner on our HP printer/scanner/fax, which also didn't cost an arm and a leg.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
01:24:50pm
re: scanner or camera?
I use a camera for most of my images.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I've always had a good quality scanner available. So, naturally, I've always used the scanner because of the output quality compared to a camera. I've never tried to photograph a stamp.
Cameras have gone digital and have improved dramatically in recent years, making them somewhat more usable in the absence of a scanner. However, relatively inexpensive scanners have improved dramatically over the years as well. Scanners are ideal for scanning flat objects like stamps. Cameras are not.
Having said that, a really good quality camera can produce better images than a marginal-quality scanner. If you have a camera and a scanner that are capable of producing comparable quality images, I think it'll always be easier to get good quality stamp images with the scanner.
My current scanner is an Epson Perfection V700 which I use primarily for work other than scanning stamps. It's clearly overkill for scanning stamps.
Login to Like
this post
05:56:39pm
re: scanner or camera?
I have used a Kodak EasyShare 2 megapixel camera to take pictures of stamps since the days of StampWants (about 20 years?).
It's still shooting great pictures for use on the internet. Here's one I took today:
I place the stamp on an empty three-ring binder and angle the camera (a tripod is a must!) so that it is parallel with the slop of the binder.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I find scanning to be superior.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
10:41:27pm
re: scanner or camera?
Here's a camera shot of the same stamp for comoparison.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
In my opinion scanning is superior for most hobbyists.
The issue at hand here is the need to generate an accurate image. With a flat bed scanner, the only variable is to try to position the stamp straight (not as easy as it sounds) on one axis.
But with a camera, every axis becomes a variable. There are also cases on eBay where sellers will intentionally use a camera angle to alter the image perspective and hide perf issues. (You cannot perform a Srail test on an image like this.)
I am sure that experienced photographers can probably take quality images but for most of us trying to position the camera at exactly 90 degree over the top of the stamp is very difficult.
Don
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
"...but for most of us trying to position the camera at exactly 90 degree over the top of the stamp is very difficult.
"
I have a left over enlarger stand from my photography days that I use as a copy stand. I still use it for UV photography and want to do tethered capture where the image goes directly into the imaging tool (Lightroom for me). No need to remove SSD and then put in computer.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I wrote to HP about variable light source ... the new PSA machins have iriodin layer that does not register with current scanners. uv imaging is also impossible
solution - digital icard camera ...
http://www.ebay.ca/sch/Publications-Supplies/83274/m.html?item=182117701169&hash=item2a670f9631%3Ag%3AvfEAAMXQLoZR01
5%5B%2Fimg%5D&_ssn=cbenbow
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
Scanner-Epson V600
Camera- Nikon- Coolpix
Here is the identical stamp scanned and a pic taken.
In general, I find the camera takes a "cooler" hue image then the scanner.
I prefer the scanned image here, but this is an unfair comparison, as the camera was not on a tripod (hand held).
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
wavelength of light source accounts for shades ...
scanner emits greenish light
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
OK, I admit that I'm impressed with some of the images created with digital cameras. And I could probably do the same with my Canon, but it just seems a lot more efficient to use my scanner. And some images would still be difficult to impossible to obtain. Here's an example:
I noticed that a couple of the images taken with digital cameras suffer a bit from uneven light, which of course is one reason that a copy stand is useful.
I'd still just shoot myself if I didn't have a camera. But maybe not with a real gun — bullets hurt like hell! So I'd use a water pistol, well away from my mint stamps! And digital camera.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
The camera pics can be improved by post processing such as the blue tint by tweaking the white balance. The scanner should give better consistent images with no need to tweak.
Login to Like
this post
06:38:00pm
re: scanner or camera?
"JKJblue
Camera- Nikon- Coolpix
Here is the identical stamp scanned and a pic taken.
In general, I find the camera takes a "cooler" hue image then the scanner."
Sorry but the camera shot should not be taken as a argument for scanners being superior. The angle & depth of field are obvious issues.
A good CCD type scanner will give you consistent very good images with the right software and scanner calibration
A digital SLR (not a Coolpix) in macro mode with the object in a proper lightbox and stand will provide a far superior image with incredible depth.
The problem - the scanner is fast and easy and as far as 99% of what I see posted, it can give better results provided the software & calibration is taken into account. The camera just takes too long to set up.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
This was taken with a Nikon 24MP DSLR with a 90mm lens under UV light so you have room to get lighting using 2 UV lights. I agree the camera has much better Depth of field since you can stop down.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
Why are we talking about cameras having a better depth of field than scanners? Scanners have zero depth of field, and don't need it.
As I said previously, I'm impressed with the quality of some of the stamp images produced by cameras as shown in this thread, but for ease of use and consistent quality, I still vote for a scanner. With a scanner you don't have to worry about exposure, fall-off of light, parallax, camera shake, or depth of field. Of course you can use a copy stand, which is fine if you already have one, but there aren't many copy stands as cheap as inexpensive scanners (which can produce amazing images despite their low cost).
One of my pet peeves is people who try to sell stamps, covers, and postcards but provide images that are too small and/or of such poor quality that potential buyers can't actually see what they're buying, assuming they buy. Show me a bad image on any philatelic sales site, including Stamporama, and I can pretty much guarantee that the seller was using a digital camera and didn't bother learning how to use it.
Bob
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
A lens in a camera and scanner have depth of field. A scanner needs some depth of field to scan items that are not completely flush to glass and to allow for manufacturing tolerances, etc. If something is not at the actual focus point then items closer or further away get progressively less sharp. Scanners that scan slides or negatives in holders need more depth of field since the item is not flush to glass and usually not flat.
Scanners will give consistently better results without any tweaking in most conditions since more variables are controlled.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
Using a camera does have advantages if a person wants to hide or cover up issues with a stamp.
If a person had a reperfed stamp and they wanted to make it hard to see the reperf, they would use a camera and simply take the picture at a bit of an angle like this...
If they wanted to hide some flaws, repairs, or fake cancels they would use a camera and take an out of focus image like this...
I don't mind if a quality photographer uses a camera, especially if they have a stand or other device which can position the camera directly over the stamp. But the majority of hobbyists do not have the skills or equipment needed to take quality images with a hand held digital camera. In my opinion a scanner is the best option for most hobbyists.
Don
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
"A digital SLR (not a Coolpix) in macro mode with the object in a proper lightbox and stand will provide a far superior image with incredible depth.
"
O.K. CF1957, your're on!
Upload an image of one of your favorite stamps (1840-1940 era) here with one of your digital SLRs.
I'll likewise upload a similar example using my scanner.
Login to Like
this post
re: scanner or camera?
I've never noticed any difficulty scanning items that weren't perfectly flat, such as covers with contents or with wrinkled, bent surfaces. But I got curious, and scanned something that definitely isn't flat — a shard of Anasazi pottery which I found in my back yard in New Mexico when I was seven or eight years old. First, here's a photo taken with my iPhone to show that the shard is definitely not flat!
Here's a scanned image of the shard (done with Epson V700 scanner).
The scanned image seems sharp throughout. Perhaps that's because it is designed to scan slides and negatives as well as documents, and as a result has greater depth of field than other scanners. But I suspect that most scanners have sufficient depth of field to handle most "flattish" 3D objects.
I had a LOT more difficulty taking the photograph than doing the scan. The scan required one pass, and that was it. But I had a lot of problems with uneven light with the photograph, even though the shard and coin seemed to be evenly illuminated by a LED light directly overhead. It would have been easier to do with my Canon DSLR, but still not as easy as scanning it.
Finally, here's a photo I took with my iPhone, trying to replicate the scanned image. It's not bad, but the contrast is too low, showing all of the flaws in the background:
I noticed that the scan (as someone mentioned previously) produced a cooler image than the iPhone. I tried to tweak the colour, without notable success.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: scanner or camera?
The Epson V700 was a nice scanner especially for copying negatives and slides due to dynamic range. This scanner and its replacement, V800, have a dual lens system.
Login to Like
this post