All About Pocket Knives

I've tried many times to create images of knives that I want to post using a scanner with my computer.
But they end up being out of focus and poor quality.
What am I doing wrong? I've seen others post pictures this way and they look exceptional.
Is it the type of scanner I'm using or do I have the setting wrong?
An HP DeskJet F448 all in one ->printer-flatbed scanner-copier.

Any advice on this subject would be appreciated.

Thanks,
JW

I've just tried scanning a knife and I get about the same results you describe, not much depth of field. I have a HP Photosmart Premium all-in-one which is probably very similar to yours. Must be the scanner.

+1

I have two scanners. Both H.P. One is a Photosmart all in one and the other is an HP Scanjet 3970. Either I don't know the lick it's done with or both of these scanners are NFG, 'cause the results from both are unacceptable. Even as bad as my pictures are, I'm sticking with a camera. I get a better picture with the camera than with either one of the scanners.

+2

I have the same problem with a scanner

my suggestion is to ask knifegirl. it seems that kathy uses this method all the time.
she puts some sort of artist canvas over the subject.

I tried it with both the scanner cover and a sheet of plain white paper with the same results

Must be the cheap scanner that came with this computer.
It scans any object that is fairly flat with no problems.
Anything that is rounded or tubular shaped like a pocket knife doesn't come out very well.
Just wanted it to be easier to post pictures.
Taking pictures involves setting a lot of thing up and finding the right light to get a good shot.
I'll have to use my camera till or if I decide to get a better scanner.

Thanks for the info.

JW

I don't know what to tell you guys to do differently.

I have a Canon scanner that wasn't very expensive.

When I was creating my website, I could have used my 4.8 megapixal digital camera or the scanner. I used the scanner.

I wrapped a piece of blue felt around the cover, placed the knife on the bed and used the software that came with the scanner, called "ScanGear" and Adobe PhotoShop Elements that I happened to have on my computer. I don't recall where that came from, but it was included in some software I purchased. It's not as versatile nor as expensive as the whole PhotoShop program, but it does what I want to do with it.

I cropped and resized the scans for the website to 3" x 3", and adjusted the brightness and contrast a bit.

Almost every pic of a Robeson knife I post here was done that way.

An example below.

Charlie Noyes

very nice knife and a cool pic charlie. kathy has excellent results also.. hopefully she will chime in here and enlighten us.

You need a scanner that was designed to have depth of field for 3-D images. I have an Epson Perfection that was about $100 that works well. However, I do still get better results with my camera.

Charlie clearly has gotten awesome results with a scanner. Waynorth does as well.

I have used a scanner for all of my pictures. Mine is a Epson RX620. Some of my
pictures are OK some are not. I cover my knives with some gray cloth. The
pearl knife is a poor picture the bone knife looks fair to OK. I try to edit my pictures
this helps. I also crop most of them it seems to help. The pearl knife was done before
I started using the gray cloth.

Stockman

Most low cost scanners are set to focus right at glass level....i.e. to focus on a flat sheet of paper. If the object is above the glass - even a 1/8 inch (a 3-D object), you quickly loose focus (except on the part of the knife that is touching the glass).

I ran into the same problem with my HP all-in-one.

I think some higher end scanners are set up to scan 3-D objects.

I used my Lexmark scanner and downloaded Picasso. I send the pictures to Picasso and it lets me do some things there that help a lot. Picasso is free from google. May try that and see if it helps.

I'll just continue to shoot my pics with my old technology Sony Mavica. It records on a 3.5" floppy. I had to buy an external floppy drive but it's worth it.

That`s what I use TJ

I kinda figured that's what you had when you said it recorded on disc and when I saw the file name a bottom of some of your pics. All-in-all they're great cameras for taking pics of knives and have a great macro setting. I'm down to one battery, had two and one gave up the ghost (won't charge any more) I bought two new ones but they won't hold a charge. I'll try Sony and see if they have any. I'll really hate it when this last battery konks out.

tjmurphy wrote:I'm down to one battery, had two and one gave up the ghost (won't charge any more) I bought two new ones but they won't hold a charge. I'll try Sony and see if they have any. I'll really hate it when this last battery konks out.

Funny you should mention that.

A few years ago I found a camera someone had thrown out, same model as mine, I took it home popped my battery in it and sure enough the camera was junk. Then I got to thinking, I only have one battery, maybe the old battery will take a charge.

It did and I am still using it to this day. If the both batteries go I will get rid of the camera.

I still can`t believe these things cost $1000 new in 1998

$1,000!! I know mine didn't cost that much, my kids couldn't afford it!! I think maybe it cost in the neighborhood of $250, I'll check with them to see. You still find these things on Ebay pretty cheap. Maybe try one of those.