posted on April 9, 2001 10:17:55 AM
Personally, I find a camera to be quicker. I deal in magazine advertisements, and can take a single picture of 4-9 ads at once, instead of trying to scan each individual ad. Your quality probably won't be as high...but it saves time!
posted on April 9, 2001 10:22:45 AM
Its all about your hardware/software interface and process. I find digital camera quicker as my scanner is kinda slow...
I have my scanner save jpg/gif files into a directory that is "synced" with my FTP site. This helps automate the uploading process. Scanning is usually reserved for small or flat items like CDs or books.
For larger items, I use a digital camera. My particular model appears as a 'removable drive' when I hook it up to the USB port. This makes moving files to my computer pretty easy. I know some sellers use the SmartMedia to Floppy Adapter (FlashPath) to make moving files easy.
posted on April 9, 2001 10:35:22 AM
I use both. I use to use the scanner for everything, including teapots, glass, prints, jewelry and of course books.
Then I bought the Mavica now I alternate depending on item.
Books I do scanner, still do plates, saucers small prints and collectibles as I find the quality better.
Depending on your scanner; mine was an 85.00 number I can stand it on it's side, create a little prop in front of it and it takes beautiful pictures better than the camera but I've gotten lazy about doing it, and tend to use the camera more.
posted on April 9, 2001 10:36:03 AM
I expect a scanner can be faster for items that fit but since I've gotten my Sony FD-73 camera I haven't used my scanner.
I know the process to work with camera images and don't even remember the steps with the scanner.
I have a table top light arrangement and use poster boards for different color backgrounds.
Seeing the pictures as taken, being able to make adjustments and take additional images, nearly instant change from full image to close-ups etc. make the camera my first and only choice.
I suspect the scanner might even be better for somethings but the camera has so much more versatility and is adequate for everything that I'm 100% a camera fan.
posted on April 9, 2001 10:59:11 AM
I have barely used my scanner since I got my Sony. I had a Casio digital camera before and it was just too much trouble transferring the photos. With the Sony you just save them on floppy, open them in your image editing program, save them to your auction management software or wherever you store them on your hard drive, save a back up copy to the floppy (which I keep until the auction ends in case something happens to my computer). once the auction ends I reformat the disk and it can be used again. The other day I had to scan in a photo for someone and I was tempted to just take a digital photo of it rather than mess with the scanner.
posted on April 9, 2001 10:59:38 AM
I have barely used my scanner since I got my Sony. I had a Casio digital camera before and it was just too much trouble transferring the photos. With the Sony you just save them on floppy, open them in your image editing program, save them to your auction management software or wherever you store them on your hard drive, save a back up copy to the floppy (which I keep until the auction ends in case something happens to my computer). once the auction ends I reformat the disk and it can be used again. The other day I had to scan in a photo for someone and I was tempted to just take a digital photo of it rather than mess with the scanner.
posted on April 9, 2001 11:12:39 AM
Thanks for all the replies. I have an Epson Perfection 1200U with a usb port. It is pretty easy to use. Hit the button and then I can clip the picture to size, and it scans. I don't like having to go name the file in Presto Page Manage for Epson however. You have to select file type (jpeg) then give it a file name and then save.
I have a Kodak DC290 with a USB Port also. It just seems more complicated. However after all of the comments, I think i have to overcome this block and start using it. I really need to reduce list time!!
[ edited by mildreds on Apr 9, 2001 11:15 AM ]
posted on April 9, 2001 04:59:44 PM
I have both, but if it can be scanned it gets scanned. Part of the reason I prefer the scanner (though it it slow) is because it'll show the flaws in books or anything flat exceptionally well, most times even exaggerated. I also like being able to click the 'preview' button then outline exactly what I want to scan--no cropping later.
I love my camera, though, too. When I bought it I got a USB port for it (best $15 upgrade I ever did!) It's quick to take pictures and upload, but then there's the cropping and such. (I hate pictures that show more than they should, LOL.)
For me, though, the scanner is the handiest, but the camera lets me sell a bunch of stuff I wouldn't be able to with just the scanner.
posted on April 9, 2001 05:05:16 PM
Has anyone else put there scanner on it's side to take pictures of items that don't scan well laid flat -- I scan lot's of things but I never thought of that -- does it really work?
posted on April 10, 2001 04:42:35 AM
About 90% of the items I sell are "flat" so I use my scanner a lot. I like being able to multi-task by scanning item #1; writing description of item #2 into Word at the same time; then scanning item #2 as I write the description for #1, and so on.
However, I'm experimenting with selling more 3D items and use my digital camera for those. Ever since the AW fee debacle (which sent me to the public library for "HTML for Dummies" and which motivated me to get the camera out of the drawer), I've also been using the camera to get pictures of groups of flat things, rather than scanning each of 3-4 items separately to sell as a lot. This is certainly faster. I had thought that one picture with 3 things in it, rather than 3 pictures each with 1 thing, might make a difference, but sales seem steady.
[ edited by mouselady on Apr 10, 2001 04:44 AM ]
posted on April 10, 2001 04:50:56 AM
We used to have one of those cameras that downloaded thru a serial port... Very slow, and anything that could get scanned did. Since we got our Sony Mavica, the scanner doesn't get used all that much. (Mavica's are the way to go, IMHO)
