Review on 🖨️ Enhanced Color Image Scanner: Canon CanoScan 9000F by Chris Cervantes

This Canoscan 9000 replaces a cheap Canon printer/scanner and a very old Nikon LS 1000 35mm film scanner. It was very easy to set up basic work just to do the Download latest drivers for Mac OS X Lions. As a flatbed reflex scanner, I have no complaints. It works exactly as it should and has way more resolution than I'll ever need (I think!). The main reason for choosing this scanner is its ability to scan film up to 6cm wide. I used to scan quite a bit with Nikon and gave up scanning because it was very slow and slow in both its hardware and software was restless (Silberfast). Experience with the Canon scanner and its MP Navigator interface. meant the 9000 was easy to get used to. If you use it to import scans into PhotoShop or the included PS Elements, you get pretty much the same interface. Some reviewers have complained that they have to do mental math to get the resolution they want. No problem. Just enter your desired number of pixels per inch (called dpi) and set the output to "flexible". When you are ready to print, resize the image to your liking. Other reviewers have complained that the software forgets settings. I haven't encountered this problem. Okay, but does that get mixed up? I didn't try. Probably too big. However, it scans 35mm slides and negatives well. The Scratch and Dust Removal (FARE) option has proved very useful on the many rolls of 35mm negative film I shot and processed in South America fourteen years ago. Much of the processing was very messy. FARE cleans up this film very well. As of this writing, I am scanning these negatives at a fairly low resolution (800ppi) with the FARE setting. This is to create a database of high quality evidence so I can see which ones can be used for high resolution scanning. I have tried high resolution scans and they are great. Film grain appears long before this scanner's maximum resolution of 9600 ppi. Who needs to see a lot of detail on the front sight? For black and white film with very fine grain and a very sharp image, a resolution of 9600 ppi would be desirable. What's not so good? Some reviewers noted that the film holders, particularly the 35mm film holder, have a lightweight design. You're right. The 35mm holder is fragile and should be handled with care. Speed. I want film scanning to be instantaneous. These 800 ppi scans at maximum FARE (expensive in terms of scan time) take about ninety seconds on average. It could be worse, and since you can set up 8-12 frames at a time and then go about your business - on the same computer or elsewhere, it's not that bad. When a series of scans is complete, the program will play a sound clip of your choice to alert you. I've only been using this scanner for a few days, but it doesn't frustrate or annoy me. Big compliments from me. It's also compact compared to its predecessor and looks pretty good, if not quite as good as the iMac next to it. UPDATE 12/21/2011: About 2,000 scanned images later I'm still satisfied. Here are some things I've learned: Good film, both negative and positive, is much easier to scan. If the film is of high quality, well processed and well exposed, the best results can be achieved by turning off all image adjustments, including fade correction and grain correction. I use FARE on low for good luck if there's dust on the film that I can't shake off, or scratches. For a trip to Africa and the Middle East, I cut film costs with regular grocery store color negative film. This turned out to be a bug, but can be corrected by adjusting levels and white balance while scanning. Of course that takes time. Another thing I learned from scanning dozens of rolls of film is how to use film and film holders efficiently. Everyone has to find that out for themselves, but knowing how to handle documents makes scanning happier than one would expect. Another thing is that I now scan en masse at 1200 pixels per inch (dpi). With FARE on low, a 35mm frame takes sixty-seven seconds. It goes without saying that when scanning large prints, the resolution should be increased accordingly. I doubt going beyond 4800 dpi on normal color film will do any good. UPDATE 2 December 31, 2011: During my mission to scan thousands of frames, I completely reconsidered using FARE. If the film is clean enough, it is not needed for bulk scanning. Scanning at 1200 ppi without FARE takes less than half a minute. It's almost too fast: load eight images and set up the scan. I used to be able to do something else with FARE while I waited; Now it requires attention every few minutes. The software crashed twice without warning, not often considering how much it was used, but every crash is too much (quad-core iMac OS X Lion, 12GB RAM). Fails lose unsaved scans, and that's no more than a roll while I'm working.