Good scanner for a computer newbie?

[Ryan]

My aunt is looking to purchase a good *easy to use* flatbed scanner. She'll be scanning photos and documents and her computer runs Vista, so compatibility with that is important. The way she told me, she wants to push a button on the scanner and have the equipment take care of the rest. Also, she's considering a switch to the Mac, so it'd be nice if it worked well on that side too.

I don't know jack about scanners so I have no idea what I should be looking for. Her budget is $200, but less would be nice of course. Any ideas?

[turtle]

Canon LIDE 200 is a pretty good one. I think it's closer to $100 too. :)

[Ryan]

Canon LIDE 200 is a pretty good one. I think it's closer to $100 too. :)Great, I've looked it up on NewEgg and I'll definitely add it to my short list. Thanks! :)

[NosferaDrew]

I've got a Canon CanonScan 4400F scanner (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=120&modelid=13810).
Works great with photos, documents or 35mm slides (which is what I use it for). It's about $89.

It works great with XP, should work fine with Vista, but did not work with Tiger - I have not tried it with Leopard, but I will soon.

I don't think that you, or your Aunt, can go wrong with Canon gear.

[turtle]

I've got a Canon CanonScan 4400F scanner (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=120&modelid=13810).
Works great with photos, documents or 35mm slides (which is what I use it for). It's about $89.

It works great with XP, should work fine with Vista, but did not work with Tiger - I have not tried it with Leopard, but I will soon.

I don't think that you, or your Aunt, can go wrong with Canon gear.

How well do you like that for scanning negatives? I've got a stack to do and was looking to get a CoolScan but it's out of my price range now. :\ Would you mind posting or PM'ing me a full res sample that you've scanned with it?

[PKIDelirium]

I'd like to see the results of a 35mm negative scan from that, too. I've got a bunch of old film photos and I'd like to digitize them all.

[colivigan]

Scanning negatives is definitely quicker, but I've generally had better luck with prints.

I have a CanoScan 8880F, and it does a decent job with negatives. But in a 35mm frame, every defect is magnified. Dust is your enemy. If you scan a 4x6 print, a tiny hair or speck of dust won't have anywhere near the impact it does on the 35mm scale.

I also suspect that the color in negatives degrades over time differently than in prints.

The Canon scanner driver lets you lay several prints on the flatbed, and crop them to individual files. This is currently my preferred method for scanning old photos, although I did do a whole bunch of negatives before I decided to change tactics.

[NosferaDrew]

How well do you like that for scanning negatives? I've got a stack to do and was looking to get a CoolScan but it's out of my price range now. :\ Would you mind posting or PM'ing me a full res sample that you've scanned with it?
I really like it except for the fact that it didn't work under OS X. I'll try later tonight with Leopard and see if there's any change, but I dual boot my MBP so it's no real issue for me.
You can scan six 35mm slides at a time and those six slides take about four minutes to scan - it's labor intensive, but once they're digitized, the hard part is over.
Obviously, the results are only going to be as good as the quality of your slides. I have slides from the 1950's through the 1970s in varying states of decay. Some will take a lot of work in Photoshop to renew.

I'd like to see the results of a 35mm negative scan from that, too. I've got a bunch of old film photos and I'd like to digitize them all.

Here's one scan of my Pop (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33019644@N00/3073019138/).
Edit: Flickr scales it down. Here's the full resolution file in my Dropbox (http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/131360/Dad_Hawaii_Original.JPG)

Scanning negatives is definitely quicker, but I've generally had better luck with prints.

I have a CanoScan 8880F, and it does a decent job with negatives. But in a 35mm frame, every defect is magnified. Dust is your enemy. If you scan a 4x6 print, a tiny hair or speck of dust won't have anywhere near the impact it does on the 35mm scale.

I also suspect that the color in negatives degrades over time differently than in prints.

I have hundreds of 35mm slides that are degrading (which is why I bought the scanner). And you are right, the dust is definitely an issue as you can see from the example above. The next scan session I have, I'm going to try and blow some of it off.

Prints are surely better, but all I have are slides.

[turtle]

In my case one of my projects is my wedding photos. My photographer gave me the negatives after the order for prints had been placed! Some of them were awesome images and the digital version is going to give me more liberty with them. The prints could be used, but it seems like I could get better detail from the negatives.