HP 3210
I just finished up doing a 250+ photo project from loose photos and negatives from Dad’s estate. I bought the HP 3210 to use because it has 2 different slide carriages and the success I’ve had with other HP scanners in the past.
I had no trouble scanning the varous sized negatives (except one old “hard” plastic negative) nor the photos. After I was done I downloaded all the scans to a CD then made copies of the CD for Christmas presents to my siblings.
From other projects I found it NOT TO BE COST EFFECTIVE to print large photos from the scanner/printer in large numbers. It was cheaper to go to Wally World with the CD and use their services.
My next project is the Family Album. That’s going to mean lot of time and pots of coffee.
Good luck on your project.
Scanning
How about scanning slides to be specifically used in PowerPoint presentations onto a 5’ - 6’ screen via data projector? The last time I tried doing a few with an HP scanner, they did not come out very good. However, I did not have much time to experiment with settings, etc.
Settings
Don’t know as I’ve not used it for large screen jobs from slides. But, like you said, maybe all you need is to “tweak” the settings.
Misconceptions in your post
That JPG compression is something to be avoided when preparing for print output. If you read the pro-oriented books (both photography and graphics) they all say to use TIFF, Photoshop, or some other non-lossy format. It’s not that you can’t print a decent-looking photo from a JPG format but if you do any file saves, each save causes degradation of the data. And it’s common to make a few changes and saves before printing.
Besides, 2MB is not enough data to make a decent 8x10 or 11x14 print. If you’ve ever seen a printed 11x14 made from a 2MB JPG (I have), you’ll immediately see why.
Dpi is best used in reference to printed output resolution, true, but in practice dpi is also widely used for scanning resolution. I just checked the box of my CoolScan and it actually says “4000 dpi” on it, as one example.
The 4000 dpi/ppi refers to maximum resolution of actual scanned pixels (real image data). Scanning a 35mm slide or negative at 4000 dpi results in file sizes of about 50MB or more; exact file size depends on scanner bit depth and the nature of the image itself. Take that same 50MB block of pixels and use it as a master file to keep. Then you downsize THE FILE as necessary instead of rescanning the same film over and over for each different print size output. I routinely downsize to 300 dpi resolution with 8" x 10" output area specified, which reduces file size by maybe half. Any JPG files for web use are derived either from the master file or from downsized files containing more pixels than the JPG file needs.
A 2MB file looks HUGE on a computer screen because monitor resolution is only 72 to 96 dpi. So it spreads those 2MB of pixels to whatever area the monitor can display–but still at only 72 to 96 dpi. Printing is a completely different animal, because good print places recommend that files be at least 200 to 300 dpi resolution at actual output size. Before printing, you should specify output area to avoid having those 2MB of pixels sprawled over an 11x17 sheet of paper. It looks AWFUL, and I don’t care what the “expert” high-school kid at the consumer point-and-shoot display case tells you otherwise.
WHICH CoolScan?
There are many different CoolScan models, with many different prices and specs. As with digital cameras, it's not enough to say "It's a Nikon D-something or other". Not enough info to make an informed comparison.
I have a Super CoolScan 5000 ED and its scans are far better than any scans I've seen except drum scans. And no home user will be buying a drum scanner.
I've seen the scans from Epson's latest and greatest; their film scans (done on flatbed scanner) are horrible. No need to mince words. Horrible. Don't go by specs or brand name alone--look at the results. I almost bought the Epson they touted as being "pro quality"...till I saw the sample film scan.
Scanning slides
Nikon produced much of the literature you are quoting in 2000 or 2001. There was a lot of confusion back then about dpi and ppi. Unfortunately Nikon added to it and so are you. The two terms are not interchangeable. Check this out on the internet.
I work with 2meg files all the time without any trouble. And I print 8 x12’s that look fine.
What I see on PhotoShop is usually shown at 6.25% or 10%.
I work like you, keeping the original large file (Tiff or Jpeg) on CD and save a compressed Jpeg version on my computer. When I work this version and make changes to it and do not want more info to be lost, I save it in Jpeg using the “maximum” option. Seems to work for me.
Most file formats involve some loss of info when saving. It is up to the user to choose the format and “loss” technique that he feels comfortable with.
Terminology
I’m sure you are correct about the ppi vs dpi thing, but I don’t think it’s a big deal since in either case people know what they are describing. A simple question about input or output, or scanning vs printing would clarify if the listener is confused, but the context ought to prevent the need for that. For what it’s worth, both of my Canon scanners, one of which is only a few years old, use “dpi” to define scanning resolution, not “ppi”. Proper use of the term doesn’t seem to be an industry standard by any means, and I doubt that many people would get their undies in a bunch over this. That’s just my take on it, of course.
Nikon did not produce "the literature"
It was generic info contained in many graphics and photo-editing aftermarket (read: not specific to brand) books.
Anyway, I agree that the terminology isn’t the greatest but that’s not my main point. Call it ppi or dpi–it doesn’t really matter as long as you understood what object is being described. If someone tells me their inkjet printer’s resolution is 1440 x 720 dpi, I would know he’s not talking about a scan even if he said “ppi” by mistake. What matters is “Is there enough data to provide the quality I need?” You find 2MB files good enough for large prints. Many would disagree, including me. What the original poster finds “good enough” can only be decided by him.
Plustek
I have a plustek (aka no-name) “Opticfilm 7 2000” That cost about $400 a couple of years ago. I offered to scan my parents slides if my brother bought the scanner. He got the good part of the deal.
It took a while to optimize the process but they are more than fine for viewing on the computer at full screen. If I go to actual size I can clearly see details that I didn’t know existed in the slides.
A few things: This loads four slides by hand and you have to manually move from one to the other. I prescan each slide and do simple color and balance adjustments before scanning. Can always do more later in Photoshop. I blow dust off each slide first but after 50 years a lot of it isn’t going to move easily.
You can always rescan the best of the slides at higher resolution but I’m not sure it is necessary for anything I want. You could also send out the best of the best if you want to.
Kodachrome is great if the slide was exposed properly in the first place. Ektachrome is often a loss on many of mine. Sometimes I’m best off just going to black and white since the color is not retrievable.
The time was totally worth it when I talked to my sister after she received her CD copies at Christmas. I’m about half done.
Ektachrome
Ektachrome from the 70s and 80s was notorious for discoloring after only a short time, and the later versions may not be much better. Kodak also had a serious problem with fading and discoloration with some negative films and pretty much all their color print papers during that time.
If you like slides, try Fujichrome Velvia in either ISO 50 or ISO 100.