In that there seemed to be a degree of interest, I thought I'd put on record this week's impressions of scanning software I've tried.
Kooka -- as previously noted, it is just about impossible to establish a workflow. Works, in an emergency.
EpsonScan2 -- segfaults at launch, which many of us would find a significant limitation.
SimpleScan -- lacks configuration options and just, well, simple.
IScan -- the original Epson native scanning application. Works well, but for instance when saving it starts with ~/ *every single time,* so you spend more time navigating your hard drive than actually scanning.
GIMP -- nothing is simple with the GIMP, and scanning is no exception. I apparently have the plugins installed correctly -- itself an ordeal -- but haven't yet found a way to get GIMP to scan.
Skanlite -- a surprise, and the current winner. Offers both image settings and applicating settings. Assumes that there's a good chance that it you saved the scan you made 90 seconds ago in a particular directory, you might want to save the one you made just now in that directory. Very much like the much better Windows version of the native Epson software. Unlike any non-VueScan Linux scanning software except IScan, can scan transparancies. KDE native, so it doesn't download half the Synaptic Debian repository. Has weird resolution settings, though, somewhat inexplicably but there might be a reason.
Anyway, if your scanner is SANE-compliant, Skanlite seems the way to go. Apparently last built when KDE was doing whatever they were doing in 2020.
Anno domini 2025 Fri, 19 Sep 02:24:49 +0000 dep via tde-users scripsit:
In that there seemed to be a degree of interest, I thought I'd put on record this week's impressions of scanning software I've tried.
Kooka -- as previously noted, it is just about impossible to establish a workflow. Works, in an emergency.
EpsonScan2 -- segfaults at launch, which many of us would find a significant limitation.
SimpleScan -- lacks configuration options and just, well, simple.
IScan -- the original Epson native scanning application. Works well, but for instance when saving it starts with ~/ *every single time,* so you spend more time navigating your hard drive than actually scanning.
GIMP -- nothing is simple with the GIMP, and scanning is no exception. I apparently have the plugins installed correctly -- itself an ordeal -- but haven't yet found a way to get GIMP to scan.
Skanlite -- a surprise, and the current winner. Offers both image settings and applicating settings. Assumes that there's a good chance that it you saved the scan you made 90 seconds ago in a particular directory, you might want to save the one you made just now in that directory. Very much like the much better Windows version of the native Epson software. Unlike any non-VueScan Linux scanning software except IScan, can scan transparancies. KDE native, so it doesn't download half the Synaptic Debian repository. Has weird resolution settings, though, somewhat inexplicably but there might be a reason.
Anyway, if your scanner is SANE-compliant, Skanlite seems the way to go. Apparently last built when KDE was doing whatever they were doing in 2020.
Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane? My brother MC-J5something comes with a same driver and it just works. I had VueScan as a "bonus" when I purchased SoftMaker. Can't say that VueScan (nor SoftMaker) were any bettern than xsane or libreoffice :)
Nik
On 9/19/25 02:15, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users users@trinitydesktop.org wrote:
| Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane?
The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate.
| My brother MC-J5something comes with a same driver and it just works. I had | VueScan as a "bonus" when I purchased SoftMaker. Can't say that VueScan (nor | SoftMaker) were any bettern than xsane or libreoffice :)
Damn. I got Softmaker and all I got for free was a frigging extra typeface. Nevertheless, I'm glad you enjoy xsane.
dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/
Anno domini 2025 Fri, 19 Sep 06:33:53 +0000 dep via tde-users scripsit:
On 9/19/25 02:15, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users users@trinitydesktop.org wrote:
| Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane?
The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate.
| My brother MC-J5something comes with a same driver and it just works. I had | VueScan as a "bonus" when I purchased SoftMaker. Can't say that VueScan (nor | SoftMaker) were any bettern than xsane or libreoffice :)
Damn. I got Softmaker and all I got for free was a frigging extra typeface. Nevertheless, I'm glad you enjoy xsane.
There are rumours of masachists ... aehm .. purists dwelling the earth :)
You can use xsane or scanimage from commandline, too. Well, depends on you scanner if you can do this, buts 900 negatives would scream for a scanner with magazin tray and and autoscan function.
Nik
dep Pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/doc/depscribe/album Column: https://ofb.biz/author/dep/ ____________________________________________________ tde-users mailing list -- users@trinitydesktop.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@trinitydesktop.org Web mail archive available at https://mail.trinitydesktop.org/mailman3/hyperkitty/list/users@trinitydeskto...
dep via tde-users wrote:
The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate.
but at the end in the linux world, you usually first do some research which device is supported and buy the best one from the list. Otherwise it is impossible.
When I did the research about scanners might be 10+y ago I found out that very few devices are supported without issues, especially such, that I can put underneath of the desk. More problematic as usual are the cheaper USB devices.
said deloptes via tde-users: | dep via tde-users wrote: | > The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, | > I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 | > negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is | > important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a | > book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate. | | but at the end in the linux world, you usually first do some research | which device is supported and buy the best one from the list. Otherwise | it is impossible.
True, unless they provide their own software. When I got my first scanner, also an Epson, there was no software support for much of anything. So I ran the provided Windows application in a virtual machine. Then Epson made iscan, which was a huge pain -- took half an hour to get the scanner recognized and running. So I kept a basket of stuff that I wanted to scan, and when I had something that I needed *today,* I'd take a day and scan it all. Though when I was doing serious work, slides and valuable negatives, I'd still fire up the Windows vm. I still have that vm here, though I haven't used it in a long time. But I keep it because sometimes I have to do things on deadline often, and until now I haven't really trusted Linux/SANE. Plus, the GUIs were pretty awful, which I've decided Skanlite isn't. Wonder what non-lite Skan would be like.
| When I did the research about scanners might be 10+y ago I found out | that very few devices are supported without issues, especially such, | that I can put underneath of the desk. More problematic as usual are the | cheaper USB devices.
That's why I went the Epson route. That and the fact that on the box it said it had Linux support. This is my second one; the first one seemed to have died. Only a couple months ago I realized that its power supply had gone, four years after I got the new one. So I have a spare, because they use the same power supply. Which I could replace for $25 or so.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 06:33 (+0000), dep via tde-users wrote:
On 9/19/25 02:15, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users users@trinitydesktop.org wrote:
Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane?
The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate.
Just out of curiosity, what workflow features that you find useful are missing from xsane?
I'm just curious about what things scanners other than xsane provide that I have (evidently) been missing out on all these years. I don't do a huge amount of scanning, but if I can be more efficient when I do, that would be a win.
Thanks.
Jim
said Jim via tde-users: | On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 06:33 (+0000), dep via tde-users wrote: | > On 9/19/25 02:15, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users users@trinitydesktop.org wrote: | >> Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane? | > | > The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, | > I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 | > negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is | > important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a | > book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate. | | Just out of curiosity, what workflow features that you find useful are | missing from xsane?
Default path setting, for one. Also, it is just clunky and unpleasant to use. Give Skanlite a shot and you'll see the difference.
| I'm just curious about what things scanners other than xsane provide | that I have (evidently) been missing out on all these years. I don't do | a huge amount of scanning, but if I can be more efficient when I do, | that would be a win.
I was out of town and didn't have access to a scanner, but now that I am back...
On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 00:05 (+0000), dep via tde-users wrote:
said Jim via tde-users:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 06:33 (+0000), dep via tde-users wrote:
On 9/19/25 02:15, Dr. Nikolaus Klepp via tde-users
users@trinitydesktop.org wrote:
Hm ... what makes you want to use anything but xsane?
The desire to get work done, in reasonably high quality. When I scan, I generally need to do a substantial number of scans -- say 900 negatives in both 35mm and 2 1/4 -- so establishing a workflow is important. Using xsane is certainly possible. So would be writing a book in KEdit or heaven help us, Kate.
Just out of curiosity, what workflow features that you find useful are missing from xsane?
Default path setting, for one.
I think you must live in a part of the universe where the laws of physics are different than where I live. When I give xsane a path to save a file in, it remembers the path for the following scans... even if I terminate xsane and run it again later.
I am curious as to whether your problem is just a "you" thing or whether my xsane somehow has features that yours doesn't. Maybe someone else reading this can chime in with information about whether their xsane has a problem with the default path setting.
Also, it is just clunky and unpleasant to use. Give Skanlite a shot and you'll see the difference.
It is indeed different. I'm not really feeling it is any better (in fact is seems to be missing a feature or two of xsane that I like), but that is just a personal preference, and I'm happy for you that you found something you like.
Jim
-
deloptes -
dep -
Dr. Nikolaus Klepp -
Jim