Barb, I'm in the same boat........but I downloaded the new driver from HP and not the one for the USB. I can scan all day long just can't use my text reader. Everything comes out as either a black & white photo or fax ready. No way to get into it to edit. I'll try the USB way and see what happens. Harold ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 5:42 PM Subject: [SP] XP & ScanJet 5300C > Scanner still not working, altho it will scan 1 photo daily. > This is from HP website. Someone please tell me what > to do. > > . > This is what I finally got down to, but I don't know enough to > know what I need. > There are 2 that seem appropriate, as I purchased my scanner in Jan 01 > > Drivers & Downloads for ScanJet 5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision Scan update, > USB only (October 01) > > AND > > ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi/Precision Scan software/driver (Feb 2002) > > I am pasting the following from the last site before downloading, if I do. > > > > > If you purchased a new computer with Windows XP pre-installed or have > > completely removed your previous version of a Windows operating system and > > have loaded the full version of the Windows XP operating system, you should > > verify #1 that there is a full version of the HP PrecisionScan software > > available for your new Windows XP operating system. If the software is > > available, install that software. If the full HP PrecisionScan software for > > your HP ScanJet scanner is not #2 yet available, HP suggests using the > > Windows XP - WIA software driver that is built into your PC, until the HP > > PrecisionScan software for Windows XP is available for downloading or > > ordering from this web site. Customers that have products that are not > > supported with the built-in WIA driver on the Windows XP operating system, > > or would prefer the full featured HP Software solution for Windows XP, may > > follow the steps listed here: > > Disconnect the scanner from the PC if it is connected. > > #3 Download and install the latest version of the HP Scanning Software for > > the scanner for Windows 2000 Pro. > > Download and install the HP ScanJet scanner update for Windows XP from <A HREF="http://www.hp.com/cposupport/pc_photography/support_doc/bpy60153.html" >here</A> > > > > Reconnect the scanner to the PC and let it plug and play. > > > > The original scanning software must be installed and the scanner must be > > plugged in and powered on prior to running this update. This update will > > only run in Windows XP and is only for scanners connected on the USB > > interface. > > This is what I finally got down to, but I don't know enough to > know what I need. > There are 2 that seem appropriate, as I purchased my scanner in Jan 01 > > Drivers & Downloads for ScanJet 5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision Scan update, > USB only (October 01) > > AND > > ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi/Precision Scan software/driver (Feb 2002) > > > Questions regarding above: > > 1. How do I verify that there is a full version of software available for my > > scanner. > > 2. If I had Win XP WIA software driver, wouldn't it already be doing its > thing and letting me scan? > > 3. Why does it say Windows 2000 Pro? Does it mean it? > > 4. Wouldn't the DL for Feb 02 contain earlier downloads in it? > > Barb Austin >

Hi, I just joined the list because of a sudden problem with my Microtek Scanner. I bought a new computer with Windows XP Pro last February and after a lot of fooling around (with the ScanSuite/ScanWiz software) finally got it running fine. It would always run using the Windows XP program but I wanted to use the Microtek one so I could use the scanner as a copier. Three months later my brand new hard drive crashed and I went through the same dance to get it going and finally did. A couple of weeks ago the scanner was not recognized when I tried to use it. The only way I could get back on track was to close Windows, detach the scanner, open Windows, look to see if the scanner was shown on the Control Panel, turn off Windows, re-attach the scanner and it was recognized and all was well. Stupid me, I wasn't satisfied and tried to get it back to normal, uninstalled the software, reinstalled it and, since it didn't work properly, downloaded the new ScanWizard program from the Microtek web page. After a bunch of fooling around I still don't have it working as before. And, at this point I can't install ScanSuite because the cd won't start up. I made another mistake when it wouldn't start and opened the cd in Windows Explorer. I saw a file called cdsetup.exe and foolishly clicked on it with no apparent result. Unfortunately, at startup I get a message that they can't find the file and then if it's not available remove the reference to it in the registry. Anyway, Murphy's law prevails. I did, however, find a way to use my scanner. I bring up the control panel and click on it and I'm led through a way to use it with my Adobe Photo Deluxe Home Edition program. Still can't make copies so will probably have to get another scanner. Sorry this is so long, but it's a long story. Holly Klass On 3 Feb 2003 at 20:23, [email protected] wrote: > Glad to hear someone else say Win XP won't let their > HP scanner "copy" any more. I thought it was just me. > It doesn't want me to scan either. After much manipulation > I can usually get one scan a day. Then it quits and no > amount of coaxing will get it to scan one more photo. > Tells me I don't have a scanner, or it can't find it, then > the whole thing freezes. > > I bought my scanner 1-01. There is a DL for ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi > Precision > Scan Update for USB only, dated Oct 01. Should install this? > > > > > > > > Barb Austin > > ______________________________ -- Proud Rootsweb Sponsor View all my websites at http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~hklass

Somehow that copied my info twice before getting to my questions. Please read to the end of the previous posting. Sorry, seems as tho everything's going wrong! Barb Austin

Scanner still not working, altho it will scan 1 photo daily. This is from HP website. Someone please tell me what to do. . This is what I finally got down to, but I don't know enough to know what I need. There are 2 that seem appropriate, as I purchased my scanner in Jan 01 Drivers & Downloads for ScanJet 5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision Scan update, USB only (October 01) AND ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi/Precision Scan software/driver (Feb 2002) I am pasting the following from the last site before downloading, if I do. > > If you purchased a new computer with Windows XP pre-installed or have > completely removed your previous version of a Windows operating system and > have loaded the full version of the Windows XP operating system, you should > verify #1 that there is a full version of the HP PrecisionScan software > available for your new Windows XP operating system. If the software is > available, install that software. If the full HP PrecisionScan software for > your HP ScanJet scanner is not #2 yet available, HP suggests using the > Windows XP - WIA software driver that is built into your PC, until the HP > PrecisionScan software for Windows XP is available for downloading or > ordering from this web site. Customers that have products that are not > supported with the built-in WIA driver on the Windows XP operating system, > or would prefer the full featured HP Software solution for Windows XP, may > follow the steps listed here: > Disconnect the scanner from the PC if it is connected. > #3 Download and install the latest version of the HP Scanning Software for > the scanner for Windows 2000 Pro. > Download and install the HP ScanJet scanner update for Windows XP from <A HREF="http://www.hp.com/cposupport/pc_photography/support_doc/bpy60153.html">here</A> > > Reconnect the scanner to the PC and let it plug and play. > > The original scanning software must be installed and the scanner must be > plugged in and powered on prior to running this update. This update will > only run in Windows XP and is only for scanners connected on the USB > interface. This is what I finally got down to, but I don't know enough to know what I need. There are 2 that seem appropriate, as I purchased my scanner in Jan 01 Drivers & Downloads for ScanJet 5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision Scan update, USB only (October 01) AND ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi/Precision Scan software/driver (Feb 2002) > Questions regarding above: 1. How do I verify that there is a full version of software available for my scanner. 2. If I had Win XP WIA software driver, wouldn't it already be doing its thing and letting me scan? 3. Why does it say Windows 2000 Pro? Does it mean it? 4. Wouldn't the DL for Feb 02 contain earlier downloads in it? Barb Austin

Some folks on another genealogy mailing list have been raving about an image catalog program called Imatch by Photools. Two big draws seem to be with it's great ability to search for images and the ease with which it displays embedded captions. I'm a long-time Thumbsplus user, but I did download this and play with it a bit. It's quite impressive. I like it better than Thumbsplus in some ways, but not as well in others. Thumbsplus is able to read more types of image formats and I like how Thumbsplus can directly call up whatever image editing software I choose rather than using it's own. However, I do like the Imatch user inferface. Here's the link in case any of you would like to give it a try. There's a free 30-day trial period after which it costs $50. I'm not necessarily endorsing it, just throwing out the information for your own decision. http://www.photools.com/ _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

I installed the complete program for my Visioneer 8100 from the Visioneer website. It is properly working with XP-Home. It may be that the program on that website has been upgraded to work with XP. Whatever, I feel fortunate that I went that route when setting up the new computer with XP since I did not run into any problems. I would think programs on manufacturer websites probably do contain the latest drivers and assume most new users will be working with XP. Elaine All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind. --Aristotle Hello BAustiin On Monday, February 3, 2003, you wrote > Glad to hear someone else say Win XP won't let their > HP scanner "copy" any more. I thought it was just me. > It doesn't want me to scan either. After much manipulation > I can usually get one scan a day. Then it quits and no > amount of coaxing will get it to scan one more photo. > Tells me I don't have a scanner, or it can't find it, then > the whole thing freezes. > I bought my scanner 1-01. There is a DL for ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision > Scan Update for USB only, dated Oct 01. Should install this?

Glad to hear someone else say Win XP won't let their HP scanner "copy" any more. I thought it was just me. It doesn't want me to scan either. After much manipulation I can usually get one scan a day. Then it quits and no amount of coaxing will get it to scan one more photo. Tells me I don't have a scanner, or it can't find it, then the whole thing freezes. I bought my scanner 1-01. There is a DL for ScanJet5300C/Cse/Cxi Precision Scan Update for USB only, dated Oct 01. Should install this? Barb Austin

This is such a good point. Every program out there will be obsolete some day. One must seriously consider how easily all of your images will be transferred to the next program. Steve "E.Rodier" <[email protected]> wrote:Part of a comparison test of image catalog or album software should be printing and moving of a set of files from one computer to another. If the first catalog becomes too large for a convenient backup, can it be split into meaningful groups? Whatever method you pick to organize images, consider the chances of a specific program selling enough copies to stay in business. Everyone who collects pictures recommends a completely different method. I've tried many album programs advertised since 1994. Some didn't last and some were too much work when the main goal is to include dozens of pictures in each family book report with box charts printed directly from a database. If a particular program doesn't work with a future version of Windows, can the data be moved or does it have to be re-entered in some completely different database? Meaningful file names for standard JPG or other image formats plus a simple text file for each folder (person, topic, household) is easy and likely to remain useful. Windows XP has some picture features included. I'm organizing many census images with simple Windows folders and sub-folders. Date-Subject.TIF is working well for small copies of uncompressed 16 color TIF, though that image format is not accepted by some genealogy programs. 1906 Canadian census images have a corresponding Excel file as they are transcribed for a web site. One copy of each image is not adequate. A single CD-ROM is easily scratched or lost. There is a need to organize all images and show or print or use selected images of different sizes. http://www.jasc.com/pbeta/pspa/ Link for Jasc's new Public Beta of Paint Shop Photo Album. It has a discount price prior to the release version shipment. It is usually easier to use programs from the same company because the interface is familiar. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- > Interesting you should post that information as I am also looking for > "something"... > I've been looking at BR's Photoarchiver > http://www.br-software.com/photoarchiver.html but haven't made up my mind > yet. > Anyone out tried both of these programs to give us a comparison? > Shari --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

Part of a comparison test of image catalog or album software should be printing and moving of a set of files from one computer to another. If the first catalog becomes too large for a convenient backup, can it be split into meaningful groups? Whatever method you pick to organize images, consider the chances of a specific program selling enough copies to stay in business. Everyone who collects pictures recommends a completely different method. I've tried many album programs advertised since 1994. Some didn't last and some were too much work when the main goal is to include dozens of pictures in each family book report with box charts printed directly from a database. If a particular program doesn't work with a future version of Windows, can the data be moved or does it have to be re-entered in some completely different database? Meaningful file names for standard JPG or other image formats plus a simple text file for each folder (person, topic, household) is easy and likely to remain useful. Windows XP has some picture features included. I'm organizing many census images with simple Windows folders and sub-folders. Date-Subject.TIF is working well for small copies of uncompressed 16 color TIF, though that image format is not accepted by some genealogy programs. 1906 Canadian census images have a corresponding Excel file as they are transcribed for a web site. One copy of each image is not adequate. A single CD-ROM is easily scratched or lost. There is a need to organize all images and show or print or use selected images of different sizes. http://www.jasc.com/pbeta/pspa/ Link for Jasc's new Public Beta of Paint Shop Photo Album. It has a discount price prior to the release version shipment. It is usually easier to use programs from the same company because the interface is familiar. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- > Interesting you should post that information as I am also looking for > "something"... > I've been looking at BR's Photoarchiver > http://www.br-software.com/photoarchiver.html but haven't made up my mind > yet. > Anyone out tried both of these programs to give us a comparison? > Shari

Gene, Interesting you should post that information as I am also looking for "something"... I've been looking at BR's Photoarchiver http://www.br-software.com/photoarchiver.html but haven't made up my mind yet. Anyone out tried both of these programs to give us a comparison? Shari ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gene Stuff" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 6:27 PM Subject: [SP] Image Catalog Software > Some folks on another genealogy mailing list have been raving about an image > catalog program called Imatch by Photools. Two big draws seem to be with > it's great ability to search for images and the ease with which it displays > embedded captions. > > I'm a long-time Thumbsplus user, but I did download this and play with it a > bit. It's quite impressive. I like it better than Thumbsplus in some ways, > but not as well in others. Thumbsplus is able to read more types of image > formats and I like how Thumbsplus can directly call up whatever image > editing software I choose rather than using it's own. However, I do like > the Imatch user inferface. > > Here's the link in case any of you would like to give it a try. There's a > free 30-day trial period after which it costs $50. I'm not necessarily > endorsing it, just throwing out the information for your own decision. > > http://www.photools.com/ > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus >

Hi all, I just joined the list because I got tired of fighting with HP and Microsoft over their drivers. I have a HP 5100C scanner that I bought in 2000. In Jan 2002 I bought a new Dell 4400 that had WinXP and found the drivers would not give me the same results my software and old drivers would give me, such as the copy feature and the ability to set the size of the finished scan. Has this been covered before on this list and possibly in the archives? If so, how do I get to the archives? Harold Williams [email protected]

Is anyone using the new public Beta of Paint Shop Album from Jasc? It has some of the features of AfterShot which is very good but not a replacement for PSP 7. Elizabeth

Lori I was going to use Paintshop Pro 7, But I do have adobe Photoshop 6. And you describe the photos well. (grin) They are a mixture of damaged, too Dark or too Light photos. Subject: Re:Black & White Scans > Steve, > > It depends on what software you are going to use to touch up the photos. If > you will be using Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0 you might want to experiment > with scanning some in color, using some of Elements one-step features, then > convert to grayscale for printing/saving. Some dark, damaged photos respond > amazingly well to color correction even though they are not in color. > > Lori >

Consider the size of originals. I scanned a set of 10 pictures from 1944 and printed full page pictures from some very small snapshots today. They are not really sharp at that size but the owner is planning to make some notes for the family of his air force buddy who passed away in January. 400 dpi is "too large" for large originals and may not be large enough for small ones. You might want to save multiple file sizes depending on the intended purposes besides archival storage. I've only recently been made aware of a well known image product that does not downsize images well for the sizes used in sets of a family history or other collection. Try some samples printed or on a web site to see if you can tell the difference between the archival size print and the Windows XP send-to-email size that is a much smaller file. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Alvarez" > I am ready to start scanning my old B&W photos. I will be scanning some to > store, but others to touch up and repair. From my reading, I believe I will > need to scan at 400 dpi, 2x Ipi, Gray Scale 16 bit. > > Can anyone relay their wisdom. Am I on the right path on the resolution and > "Ipi." and Gray Scale. Or am I overdoing it.

I am ready to start scanning my old B&W photos. I will be scanning some to store, but others to touch up and repair. From my reading, I believe I will need to scan at 400 dpi, 2x Ipi, Gray Scale 16 bit. Can anyone relay their wisdom. Am I on the right path on the resolution and "Ipi." and Gray Scale. Or am I overdoing it. Steve

At 03:52 PM 1/26/03 -0800, you wrote: >I am working on a cemetery survey project. I have >photos of gravestones that I scan into my computer, >tweak with Adobe Photoshop Elements. This I am happy >with. I am scanning at 300 dpi, grayscale. Then, I >import the picture into Mircosoft Word adding the >inscription to the page. The quality of the photo in >Word is poor compared to the quality of the image in >Adobe. Is there some way to correct this difference? > >Thanks in advance, Deb The PAPER is a very large factor in how your images will look when printed. Use the more expensive "bright" paper, and see how much better they will look. The printer usually has a dpi setting also, and that needs to be increased....read your printer manual to see how to do that. rondie

Hi Deb I've used Word since DOS and I've never had this problem but here are a couple of ideas you might try. It may be a scale problem. If you're probably inserting the pictures then resizing them, Word has to interpolate the dpi for the picture and may be making the images "fuzzy" and lacking the definition of the original. Try sizing your images in Photoshop so that they are the same size when you save them as you want them to be in Word. You may have to experiment till you find what works. You may also reducing your resolution to 200 dpi as this is usually all that's needed for printing. You might also try saving in a different format. Typically pictures are saved as JPG, which I'm assuming is what your saving them as. Try saving the pictures as a GIF for or a Compressed TIF file and see how they look. For some reason photos saved as GIF file tend to look better in PowerPoint so it may be the same in Word. Something else you may try is to scan in full color then convert the image to greyscale in Photoshop. Once the Greyscale conversion is done change the image back to RGB (full color). It'll retain the greyscale look gut in fact will be a full color image. Word may be handling the Greyscale image differently than it would a RGB image. Hope these help. Jack ===8<==============Original message text=============== I am working on a cemetery survey project. I have photos of gravestones that I scan into my computer, tweak with Adobe Photoshop Elements. This I am happy with. I am scanning at 300 dpi, grayscale. Then, I import the picture into Mircosoft Word adding the inscription to the page. The quality of the photo in Word is poor compared to the quality of the image in Adobe. Is there some way to correct this difference? Thanks in advance, Deb ===8<===========End of original message text=========== ______________________________________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". - Ben Franklin ______________________________________________ "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson ______________________________________________ "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." - Samuel Adams ______________________________________________

Deb, Some image printing products "downsize" pictures better than others. You might have better results with smaller images that are the "right" size to print in Word. I usually edit pictures to 100 dpi for Word documents printed with color ink jet, but even more often use a genealogy program with sort by date and captions. Size of the original picture isn't too critical for the program that I use as long as it is under about 1600x1200 pixels or 900 kb as a standard JPG. Some of my genealogy scrapbooks are prints of digital camera pictures. Another current project has nearly 300 images, mostly newspaper clippings, sorted by date for the same man. Genealogy program is good for *growing* collectings of census scans and other collections of pictures because they can be added in random order and printed by category. Scrapbooks can be saved as PDF files using a less expensive product than Word. If you want to print an image 4 inches high (or wide) in Word, try 400 pixels. One of the local book authors uses inches x 72 for pictures added to Adobe PageMaker. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Deb Inman" > I am working on a cemetery survey project. I have > photos of gravestones that I scan into my computer, > tweak with Adobe Photoshop Elements. This I am happy > with. I am scanning at 300 dpi, grayscale. Then, I > import the picture into Mircosoft Word adding the > inscription to the page. The quality of the photo in > Word is poor compared to the quality of the image in > Adobe. Is there some way to correct this difference?

I am working on a cemetery survey project. I have photos of gravestones that I scan into my computer, tweak with Adobe Photoshop Elements. This I am happy with. I am scanning at 300 dpi, grayscale. Then, I import the picture into Mircosoft Word adding the inscription to the page. The quality of the photo in Word is poor compared to the quality of the image in Adobe. Is there some way to correct this difference? Thanks in advance, Deb

Good product, haven't used it much as yet due to rearrangement of computer equipment. It can be used with uncut roll film including microfilm. Some scanners require cut strips of film and some can handle a roll at a time or several slides. An expensive film scanner usually allows more control for pictures with extreme contrast such as mountain in bright sunlight as a background to people in shaded foreground. High quality slide scans are very large files that show every fleck of dust. For computerized scrapbooks, I usually save pictures at 480 pixels high and print in sets using 2x2 layout. -- Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kay Hampshire" > Hi - has anyone tried this hardware for scanning slides/film? > A friend of mine is thinking of buying this to scan some slides that are > 30+ years old. He has a lot of slides - wasn't doing any prints back > then - so they need to be printed for memory albums etc.