This is only my third scanner I've owned and first scanner to be good enough to scan printed photos and negative film. I have spent the last week scanning about 1800 photos and negative film. In short, this scanner is very good for archiving old photos. This scanner is so much quicker than my old Canoscan LIDE 20 even on some of the 9000F's highest settings. The preview is also very fast.Printed photos:The lid is pretty strong and can keep down the most rolled up photos. Most of the photos I scanned came out pretty good. I think that since my monitor and scanner is not calibrated, some of the colors seemed just a bit off after the fade correction. I generally use the fade correction on black and white photos while on color, I would manually adjust it. There is also this blue tint problem when using the scanner driver with Google's Picasa. However, using the MP Navigator EX with the scanner driver is about the same as using Picasa and have resorted to this.The thumbnail view feature on the scanner driver works well. It does take some playing around with where the photos are on the scanner to get it to recognize each individual picture sometimes. Once you get used to it, its not an issue. It can scan up to 12 different images (and put them in individual files) at one time. There was some rare instances i needed more than 12, but rarely so 12 should be enough for most scans.Scanning negatives:I have scanned some color and b/w films and it seems to work well. The instructions calls for having the film emulsion side up (what they really say is photo facing up), versus the established practice of keeping it down ("dull" side down facing the scanner). Doing this without any tweaks to the software yields pictures that are flipped (does not matter if you flip horizontal or vertical). You will have to manually flip it when you get back into MP Navigator before saving, or flipping the image in Scangear before you scan. Either way its not difficult or time consuming. It is a pain when you forget before saving since now some of your scanned film is backwards.You should always check the preview to see if the software missed or mis-cropped any of the negative film. Sometimes this can happen if the photo negative is too dark or too light. It has happened on occasion so i always check the preview.The 35mm negative holder works pretty well. With some film, the holder can get caught on the film, preventing it from closing properly. Sometimes it takes some adjustment but not too difficult once you notice what the problem is. It can scan two strips of 6 negatives, or 12 negatives in total. I usually use 2400dpi and it takes the scanner 12 minutes to scan 12 negatives. 3200dpi takes 20 minutes. For many pictures, 2400dpi can yield an 8x10 printed photo at good quality. Check the output resolution and needed resolution for prints to verify.MP Navigator EX:I always use the scanner driver so i can adjust the settings as i go along, depending on the pictures/negatives. Then later on, you can save them to another directory and rename the starting letters, and numbering the photos in order. If you use the same default starting letters (IMG), it will number after the last photo you saved. If there is already an IMG_0012, it will name the next set IMG_0013 and so forth. This is very handy if you dont want to change the name and keep saving them in batches.The software scans and stores the data in BMP files in another directory. This directory can get large quite fast since many of my scans were above 50mb, so after 30 files, it is about 1.5GB. It stores it after each scan. In the unlikely event something goes wrong, the files are still there in the BMP format. Even if you start up the software again to scan, it will number the BMP after the existing ones so the old ones are never over-written. This can happen if the ScanGear app is minimized. When you do this, i have not seen a way to restore this window. I have used Photoshop to automate saving the BMPs as standard quality JPGs.Computer Hardware.My computer has an AMD BE-2350 with only 2GB ram on windows XP. It seems to scan everything fine using the newest version of MP Navigator EX (3.14) with the newest scanner driver. I have kept the BMP image size below 100MB, or about 5-10mb in JPG format with "standard" compression. Some have complained that having not enough ram will not work with this scanner, but with the latest software and drivers, having only 2gb seems to work on my computer.

This Canoscan 9000 replaces an inexpensive Canon all in one printer/scanner and a very old Nikon LS 1000 35mm film scanner.It was very easy to set up with the main work simply to download the newest drivers for Mac OS X Lion. As a flatbed reflective scanner, I have no complaints. It works exactly as it should and has way more resolution than I would ever need (I think!). The big reason to have this scanner is for its ability to scan film up to 6cm wide. I had done quite a bit of scanning with the Nikon back in the day, and I had quit scanning because it was so slow and cranky, both in its hardware and software (Silverfast).Having experience with a Canon scanner and its MP Navigator interface meant an easy time getting used to the 9000. Using it to import scans into PhotoShop or the included PS Elements gives you essentially the same interface. Some reviewers have complained about the need to do mental arithmetic to get the desired resolution. Not a problem. Just dial in your desired number of pixels per inch (called dpi) and set the output to "flexible". When you are ready to print, resize the image as you like. Other reviewers have complained about the software forgetting settings. I haven't encountered that problem.Ok, but does it blend? Haven't tried that. Probably too large. However, it scans 35mm slides and negatives well. The scratch and dust removal option (FARE) has been very useful for the many rolls of 35mm negative film I shot and had processed in South America fourteen years ago. Most of the processing was very dirty. FARE is cleaning up this film very well indeed. As I write this, I'm scanning these negatives at fairly low resolution (800 pixels/inch) and with FARE floored. This is to create a db of high quality proofs, so I can see which to lavish high resolution scans on. I have tried high res scans, and they are beautiful. Long before the 9600 ppi max of this scanner the film grain shows up. Who needs to see a lot of detail on the grain? With a very fine grain B&W film and a very sharp image the 9600 ppi might be welcome.What is not so good? Some reviewers have noted that the film carriers, particularly the 35mm carrier, are lightly constructed. They are right. The 35mm carrier is delicate and must be handled with care. Speed. I would like film scans to be instantaneous. These 800 ppi scans with max FARE correction (costly in scan time) are averaging roughly ninety seconds a piece. It could be worse, and because you can set up eight to twelve frames at a go, then go about your business -- on the same computer or elsewhere altogether, it's not too bad. When the set of scans is done, the software plays a sound clip of your choice to alert you.I've been using this scanner for only a few days, but it's not making me frustrated and pissed off. High praise from me. Also, it's compact compared to its predecessor and fairly good looking, though not so good looking as the iMac beside it.UPDATE December 21, 2011:Roughly two thousand images scanned later, I'm still pleased. Here are some of the things I've learned:Good film, either negative or positive, is much easier to scan. If the film is high quality, well-processed, and well-exposed, best results come from turning off all image adjustment, and that includes fading correction and grain correction. I use FARE on low for good luck, just in case there's dust I failed to brush off or scratches on the film. For a trip to Africa and the Middle East, I cheaped out on the film, using generic grocery store color negative film. That turned out to be a mistake, but it is largely correctable during scanning by adjusting levels and white balance. That takes time, of course. Another thing I learned while scanning dozens of rolls of film is how to be efficient in handling the film and film carrier. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves, but getting good at handling makes you happier to be scanning than you would expect.Another thing, I now bulk scan at 1200 pixels per inch (dpi). With FARE on low, a 35mm frame takes sixty-seven seconds. When scanning for a large print, needless to say the resolution should be increased appropriately. I doubt whether there is anything to be gained by going to more than 4800 dpi for ordinary color film.UPDATE 2, December 31, 2011:On my mission to bulk scan thousands of frames, I've rethought using FARE at all. When the film is reasonably clean, it's not needed for bulk scanning. Scanning at 1200 pixels per inch without FARE takes less than a half minute. It's almost too fast: Load eight frames and set it scanning. Before, with FARE, I could do something else while waiting; now it's calling for attention every few minutes.The software has crashed without warning on two occasions, not often considering how much it's been used, but any crash is too much (quadcore iMac OS X Lion, 12GB RAM). The crashes lose the scans that haven't been saved yet, which is never more than one roll, the way I work.