CS9000F MKII CanoScan 9000F MKII Photo, Film and Negative Scanner, Flatbed

I bought the CanoScan 9000 F Mark II scanner in March, 2013 for $179.00 and use it primarily to scan 35 mm and 120 mm film. So far I have scanned over 1,000 frames. I have uploaded low-resolution images to the Amazon site (11/26/13.. Amazon has deleted these images), and have provided (below) links to high-resolution scans. Rather than taking my word, or anyone else's, on the quality of this scanner, look at the images it has produced and judge for yourself. The links will take you to my photography web site. To view an image at a higher resolution, click on the "sizes" icon at the far-right bottom of the page; the "original" option is the highest resolution available. 1.Cowboys [...] This and the five photos that follow were shot on 120 mm Fuji Velvia (transparency) film in October 1980. 2.Moth [...] This and the seven photos that follow were shot on 35 mm Kodak Ektachrome (transparency) film in 1977. 3.Key West [...] 35 mm Kodak Ektacolor (negative) film shot in 1974. 4.Santa Barbara [...] 120 mm Kodak Vericolor Professional (negative) film shot in 1988. 5.Biscayne Bay [...] 35mm Kodak Kodacolor II (negative) film shot in 1972. For the money, I don't think you could buy a better scanner; however, the software, could be better. The Canoscan offers three programs for scanning film: Auto Scan, Custom Scan and Scan Gear. It also comes with another program, Image Garden, for cataloging and filing images. I am currently using Adobe Lightroom to do this and do not care to switch. To run Auto Scan you simply push the auto button on the scanner. The scanner detects whether you are scanning film, photos or documents, automatically selects the resolution and file format and sends files of each image to your computer. In regard to film, the Auto Scan will scan only 35 mm film in the JPEG format at 1200 dpi. If you want a TIFF format and / or a higher resolution, you must activate the Custom Scan or Scan Gear from your computer. The auto and custom scan programs will scan only 35 mm film while the Scan Gear program scans 35 mm and 120 mm formats and lets you make corrections on a low-resolution preview. I generally use Scan Gear for all my film scans because I can select which frames to scan from the preview; the other programs scan every frame. For the most part, the programs work OK, but are far from perfect. Each program requires you to designate a folder on your computer that will store the scanned images. If you create different folders for each program you will get triplicate files of the same images no matter which program you use. While the scanner's uncorrected output is pretty good, a serious photographer would probably want to make post-scan adjustments using more specialized software such as Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop. The Scan Gear program can make useful adjustments, such as flip or rotate, but does a terrible job on the finer adjustments such as color balance, exposure and contrast. The scanner's ability to output "TIFF" files rather than just "JPEG" is a real advantage. The TIFF format is uncompressed meaning that it captures more information than JPEG and thereby allows a wider range of corrections (assuming you have the software that can make the corrections). Unfortunately, the TIFF files are about four times the size as JPEG. When I first tried to scan a full-frame of 120 mm film at 9600 DPI (the highest) resolution, I got an error message: "Scanner cannot be performed unless the crop size or output resolution is reduced to 10208 x 4032 pixels or less." This message also appears, but less frequently, when scanning 35 mm film at full-frame. By trial and error, I found that I cannot scan a full-fame of 120 mm film at more than 2400 dpi. I also discovered that if I use a crop tool to reduce the size of the scan area, I can avoid the error message and scan at 9600 dpi. This scan, however, creates a very large file of more than 500 MB. The manual does not explain what this confusing message means. It appears to say that you must reduce resolution in terms of pixels but the scanner settings are expressed in dpi's. (Pixels and dpi's are not equivalent terms). I thought that I might have an outdated driver, but the Canon web site offers only one driver: "9000F MarkII MP Drivers Ver. 1.00" while the scanner came with driver 19.0.2. It is not clear which is the more current, so I am still using the driver that came with the scanner. Despite the software quirks, I am giving this scanner five stars because it is reasonably-priced and produces scans that are comparable to drum scans. 4/12/14 update: Today I noticed that Amazon has deleted my links to high-resolution scans that I could not post on their web site. I have written to Amazon asking whether they now forbid reviews to include links to external, non-commercial web sites.

I am working a major photo scan effort of over 5000 35mm slides and 8000 historical photos. The Canon CanoScan 9000F MarkII paired with Photoshop CC is a photo scanners dream. This device is Fast! And the supporting software is a huge help when it comes to removing scratches and brightening up 100 year old photos before puling them into either Paintshop Pro 6X or Photoshop CC. The software scans four 35mm slides in one go, placing them in 4 separate files, with photo enhancements and/or adjustments. I currently scan 35mm slides at 2400dpi and photos at 600dpi to 1200dpi depending on the photo size. Playing around I scanned a 35mm slide at 19,500dpi in 5 minutes. YES, this device will scan at 19,500dpi. I guess if you need to scan a gnats rearend, that will come in handy. Let me tell you how sensitive this scanner is. I scanned a 78 year old photo of a 4 year old child at 1200dpi, pulled it into Photoshop CC, and zoomed in to start removing age spots and speckling which the scanner did not catch. After working on the speckling for over 30min I moved to another section of the photo to continue. This photo was speckled badly, or so I thought. After seeing a chaotic type pattern to the speckling, I zoomed out to realize there was Snow Falling in the Picture. I took the image to the woman whom was in the photo and she told me, "Yes, it was snowing when that picture was taken". No one else; for 70 years, had known there was snow falling in the picture. The CanoScan 9000F MarkII brought that image back to life. If your looking for professional quality photo scans at a reasonable price, this is the device.

Not 100% useful. Installed this device on a new Win 8 system and scanned negatives with it. Tried to install it on a Vista System which is my primary photography box, and it refused to install. Install CD says must have service pack 1 in order to install. Ordinarily a no-brainer solution here except my system says SP1 has been installed about a dozen times. Finally gave up. It runs photoshop and picassa just fine; has 4gb of ram and very good video card. So why should the scanner need service pack 1 anyway? Nothing else does.... including the two canon printers I own. System is Vista Ultimate and is a 4 hdd system with Intel Mb and is dedicated to photography. Purchased this scanner to scan 120 negatives primarily. So the scanner effectively is of no use on my primary system. With close to 1,000 images, I am not tempted to change anything on this box. Know it is my issue; not Canon's, but still.... Update as of September 2016. I have switched completely to Linux. While it was problematic with Windows 8 and then 10, the 9000f is impossible with Ubuntu Linux and now Linux Mint. Canon does not offer a driver, which pretty much completes the cycle on this Piece of ..... Have two Epson scanners and both work flawlessly with anything you care to connect them to. Decided to give the CanoScan one more shot with VueScan which I have a license for (both windows and linux are supported). Downloaded latest VueScan with supposed good driver for the 9000F. Scanner not found. Hooked up the Epson scanner; same port and same USB cable. No problems running VueScan and simplescan, which is the bundled scan software for Ubuntu and Mint. Swapping out the scanners on my workstation today. Now there may be some convuluted workaround to get the 9000f to run under linux, but why??? when the Epson Scanners are essentially plug and play for any OS you care to run. Love my canon printer and I purchased a scanner to match. BIG MISTAKE. Update: Changing one star to two stars. Went back and tried it on the Windows 10 PC. It installed and seems to do a good job. Don't know how much flat bed scanning I will do with this unit. I purchased it primarily for document work in LINUX - which CANON DOESN'T SUPPORT. They should tell you this up-front, but never mind. It installed, and as per windows, took forever. Installed a lot of utilities that I really didn't want, but skipping them on the install would have been painful. Picture garden or some such. (I use Picasa... Free while it was around). it was far simpler to just let everything install and then go back with CCLEANER (excellent FREE utility) to remove the packages I did not want. Got rid of some Microsoft apps while I was there, so it was a profitable venture. This scanner has the ability to scan negatives and this feature might get me up to 3 stars once I try it. Scan a lot of film, some 120 and 4x5 film;,my 35mm film scanner won't handle that. The 9000 is a nice looking box. Seems to work well under Vue Scan. Again; the lack of LINUX support is a real deal killer. Especially when their printers ARE supported. More later when I run some negatives through it. Back to one star. Got an old Epson1640su that connects to everything seamlessly. Wish I hadn't bought this thing. Thought because I am using Canon printers it would be a match. Forget it.

It looks like there are a lot of people who've really dove into the technical aspects of this scanner, and compared it with other similar scanners. Honestly, that's really beyond my ability. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do a side-by-side comparison. I simply wanted a high-quality flat-bed scanner to scan a large number of family photos-- most of which have some fading or color correction needed. Many people have commented on the difference between their scans with this scanner, another scanner, or the colors of their originals. I think any scanner you buy and use is going to have subjective color differences. All can be corrected with the right software. So all I really care about is sharpness / lack of blur and speed of scanning. Those are the highest priorities for me. I'm happy with the quality of the Canon 9000F because the scans seem sharp, and the scanning is surprisingly fast-- even for large photos. I didn't think I needed a negative scanner with adapter, but man did it blow my mind. It turns out my mother left a lot of the negatives in the store photo folders, and they were less effected by time and the elements. I scanned them and was amazed with what the Canon could do with them. They look like photos taken yesterday (instead of 40-50 years ago). If you're luck-enough to have negatives or slides, scan 'em! I'm knocking one star off the review because Canon software is bloated and intrusive (as usual). However, I found it fairly easy to get it dialed-in so that I only needed to click one button and the scanner did the rest (fast, excellent auto cropping, and put the files in the directory I wanted). I'd recommend you look at aftermarket software to do color corrections (something like Adobe Photoshop Elements or Lightroom). If there's one thing I can say base on experience: It's more important that you get scanning right away than you wait for the perfect time and the perfect scanner. Memories fade over time, photos can be lost or damaged, and I'm glad I got this and just dove into scanning. My recommendation is that-- if you're interested in preserving your family history-- get scanning and don't overthink it. I wished I'd started this project ten years ago. Cheers, and here's to your family!

I've had this scanner now for about a month, and I've run several hundred 35 mm slides, dozens of 4x5, 620, 120, and other large and medium format black and white negatives and a few 35mm black and white negatives through it. This scanner is very fast, thanks to USB II, and if you take the time to tweak the settings, you'll be very happy with the results. Working in Photoshop CC with a Windows 8 machine, I found it critical to set both Photoshop and the scan utility to both use the same Adobe RGB 1998 profiles. This gives very accurate color scans. I was pretty taken aback by some of the weird color shifts until I read both a Photoshop book and the scanner documentation more carefully. Now I'm entirely pleased with the results. Medium format negatives are no problem. The holders that ship with the scanner are for 120 film, 35mm slides, and 35 mm negatives. I scanned some somewhat bigger negatives in the medium format holder just by placing them face up on the glass and using the holder to just sit on top of it to prevent curling. As long as you don't need every single part of the negative (there is slight cropping at the top and bottom doing this) you're fine. That's also how I've scanned all the 4x5's and had zero problems. If you need full frame, you can always just lay the negative down on the glass and scan without it. If need be, you can scan in portions and use Photoshop CC to easily stitch them together seamlessly. I was aghast at my first scans of 35 mm black and white negatives. I always used Panatomic X and Technical Pan back in the 1970s and 80's, and from the prints I've made those were razor sharp. These scans looked horribly out of focus and grainy. My heart sank, as I've got tens of thousands of them to do. Fortunately, a little experimenting a few minutes ago solved the problem. Go WAY up on the DPI. I bumped these up to 7000 dpi for a 48 mb file (TIFF) and they're razor sharp and full of detail. If you need lower resolution, use Photoshop to downsample to the appropriate size. I'm not sure why that wasn't working for me before, but this certainly solved the problem. The black and white 8x10's I've scanned were perfect. I've scanned a couple of photos out of books and the results were quite good. I'm very happy I have this scanner. It's at an excellent price, the speed and performance is quite good,

I noticed one major feature difference between the Epson V600 and Canon 9000f (MKII), Epson's driver is primarily closed source or proprietary and the Canon 9000f (MKII) driver is entirely open source code. There maybe some benefits with the closed source code Epson IScan driver, but history dictates products having open source code drivers usually rival products having only closed source code drivers. The main feature of open source code drivers, the code is backwards and forwards compatible with past and future operating systems. Also, open source code drivers tend to be always readily available, versus closed source code having a tendency of their download mirrors simply disappearing due to internal business decisions. There is a web page detailing some of the differences between the Epson V600 and Canon 9000f scanner models, by searching with an Internet search engine and using the search term "Epson V600 Canon 9000f MKII versus". This page listing the differences is published within the versus.com domain name. In brief, the Canon seems to win over the Epson unless you want 16 bit reflective grayscale scans, then the Epson V600 would be your choice. In practice, scanning black and white photos with a scanner not having 16 bit grayscale output can still be achieved by simply scanning in color 48 bit which outputs to 16 bit. Then open the image file using your photo editor and click "Image > Mode > Grayscale" to convert the RGB/color image to grayscale! Further reviews by filmscanner.com shows the following effective viewable resolution comparisons: Epson Perfection V600 Photo 1560ppi (less than a quarter of the claimed 6400ppi resolution) Epson Perfection V700 Photo 2300 dpi (less than 40% of the claimed 6400 dpi resolution) Epson Perfection V750 Photo 2300 dpi (less than 40% of the claimed 6400 dpi resolution) CAnon CAnoScan 9000F Mark II 1700 ppi (17% of the rated value of 9600ppi) Also, scanning photos (or reflective media and not negatives/positives) is limited to the manufacturer's 4800 dpi resolution on all scanners mentioned above. They're higher stated dpi/ppi resolutions are only for negative & positive media. Makes me wonder why more people by the Epson versus Canon. The Canon seems to be a far better deal all over, unless you're buying a Nikon (or other scanner) specifically for scanning negatives. Pros 1) Open Sourced Linux Driver (ie. sane-backends "pixma") 2) Many improvements over the Epson V600, such as better power management 3) ScanGear (or IJ Utility included within the Canon Driver package) are useful and apparently adequate. ScanGear's Advanced menu without thumbnails appears to be very similar to Linux XSane with having a few additional customizations. 4) Scanner seems very light weight, and I like the inside cover unique insertion, and can be easily removed for scanning negative/positive media. 5) Power management is another huge plus. I always hated seeing my older scanner filament lights always powered on. Cons 1) Only able to perform 16 bit grayscale negatives/positives and color reflecctive media. Only 8 bit grayscale reflective (ie. Black and White Photo), versus the Epson V600 able to perform 16 bit negative & reflective grayscale media. Other than this, both are able to perform 16 bit color. But if 16 bit reflective grayscale is needed, then just scan the black and white photo as 16 bit depth color and then transform to black and white. (This is likely why Canon negated the 16-bit depth reflective grayscale feature, as reflective color scans support 16-bit depth color.) 2) The My Image Garden software (680 MB) and Quick Menu are basically useless. These two pieces of software will not function within VirtualBox Windows XP session, using NVidia binary drivers & Linux. (The problem occurs with Virtual Box Windows' 2D/3D display acceleration, as these application's graphical interfaces apparently depend upon the acceleration.) However, any software usually bundled with any purchased hardware is basically useless, except usually the in-house created utility and drivers for operating the basic hardware components. 3) Digital Ice or FARE (or scratch and dust fixing) seems like a gimmick for flat bed scanners, and only useful for scanning negatives. Hardware not specifically made for scanning negatives/positives, do not include the full version of the Digital ICE software for fixing negatives. Even then I've heard it's just best to perform all image fixing from within the Gimp or Adobe Photoshop, as automatic filters tend to provide unexpected results. The other option if you strongly desire the infrared image hardware fixing features, buy VueScan or other after-market proprietary software. If you have many negatives to scan, strongly consider buying hardware desired specifically for scanning negatives; and infrared image fixing is desired, buy VueScan or other third party capable software. TIP 1: Old 4x6 black and white photos are scanned in as color 16 bit (ie. Input 48 bits color) at 600 DPI and then transformed to grayscale from within the Gimp. Smaller photos will likely benefit from the higher 1200 DPI. Rotate as required and use; 1) Image > Mode > Grayscale, 2) Colors > Levels > Auto should produce good grayscale images. I tend to keep the initial scanned image file size at around 100MB. TIP 2: When working with old color photos, instead of using Auto Levels, try using Colors > Auto > Equalize. TIP 3: For Windows' operating system users, avoid installing My Image Garden (mig @ 680 MB) and the (Canon) Quick Menu software when prompted for selecting or deselecting installing software components. Only select to install the Adobe 1998 Profile and Canon Driver, for which the driver includes the IJ Utility and ScanGear. There will be no shortcuts created on the desktop until you make one using the Program Files entry shortcut. Also, update your driver and Adobe Profile by downloading the updated software online at Canon.com. The updates are several months older than the CD that was provided with my scanner. When using ScanGear, make sure to set file saving settings to TIFF instead of default JPEG for best results. There are no additional compression settings for TIFF files. TIP 4: For Linux users, Linux XSane includes an open source driver, with XSane able to scan at 16-bit depth for color reflective scans only. When scanning grayscale (or black and white) photos, scan in color (16 bit depth) as previously mentioned and then use the Gimp to convert the Image > Mode > Grayscale. Also CMS color management profiles are contained within the Canon driver CAB files. (ie. CNSN0D.ICC, CNSP0D.ICC, CNSR0D.ICC) Using hexedit, hexedit clearly displays each color ICC profile as negative, positive and reflective. You'll need to manually select the profiles when scanning either negative (ie. negative/positive) or reflective media. ImageMagick's identify or the Gimp is your friend for displaying scanned image file properties, or ensuring you're getting 16-bit depth scans. Save scanned image either as PNM or TIFF without any compression. Can also embed the scanner profile into the image. (ie. CNSR0D.ICC 212KB) TIP 5: ScanGear does not provide color profiles for negatives. VueScan does provide color profiles for negatives. (ie. Standard, Kodak, ...) When comparing scans from Canon ScanGear and VueScan, the ScanGear scans look very similar to VueScan except ScanGear's scans seem to be too colorful or over-saturated (eg. Lawn grass looking to comic book color green.) ScanGear's color negative scans also look slightly unnatural versus using VueScan after using "Lock Film Base Color"/"Lock Image Color" method. As such, VueScan scan's have a more realistic color look. If you're performing color scans, especially color negatives, it is likely best to invest the $80 for VueScan Professional. Some settings within VueScan seem tricky without hover-over hints, requiring some searching for definitions for configuration settings. VueScan works within Windows & Linux, including infrared fixing for negatives. I've read quite a few negative reviews for SilverFast. XSane (Sane for Linux) appears relatively good for reflective bed scanning, and barely adequate for somebody performing few negative scans. The nice feature with ScanGear, ScanGear's multiple auto cropping for negatives works well versus VueScan's multiple auto cropping. I tried to include the two photos comparing ScanGear to VueScan, but Amazon.com wouldn't permit the upload. Tip 6: Instead of using VueScan's preset negative color profiles (ie. KODAK GOLD 200 Gen 6 GOLD 200-6), it's said to be best and of little effort to perform the color profile yourself. Follow steps listed on VueScan's "Advanced Workflow Suggestions" (http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc16.htm) and ignore the "Lock exposure" option as this option likely no longer exists. First set the Color > Negative Vendor to standard, then preview a negative and crop an area of print which is pure black for a negative. Perform a second preview (for the cropped black area) and then tick "Input > Lock film base color". The film for this roll of film is now color profiled. Using the preset negative color profiles, I've witnessed slightly brighter images (slightly washed-out) than using this custom profile method. TIP 7: I think the reason why many Linux Sane/XSane users migrate to VueScan; when scanning negatives, there is no complete infrared support and good color profiling (ie. ICC/ICM) support. Although there is infrared source code (ie. antidust.c), antidust.c support is currently not integrated into Sane/XSane or at all useful to end users. Although XSane does allow users to create their own medium definition, medium definitions cannot be used at the same time color profiling support is activated. (ie. CanoScan 9000F CNSN0D.ICC negative ICC/ICM, cannot use both the ICC and custom media definition for which are two color definition tactics apparently used at the same time from within VueScan and Canon's ScanGear.) TIP 6: When scanning negatives or film, whether color or black and white, first preview the negative then rectangle select an area of the negative's border. Click "Lock Film Base Color" and click preview again. Click "Lock Image Color" and click preview again. Now you can maximize the crop area and perform the final scan without worrying about black/white clipping or orange masks. (As they say, film or color film profiles suck! Just use this lock method workflow, providing far better results!) TIP 7: Preferably, save to RAW TIFF (not DNG) only and then use VueScan's "scan from file" function. This gives you a digital negative, for which you can later use DarkTable (or other RAW image manipulation application) for manually augmenting, or in my case for fool proof archiving. TIP 8: I haven't seen much difference between 4800 DPI and 9600 DPI, albeit 9600 DPI double or quadruples the file size. I just played with an UnSharp Mask and Gaussian Blur on a 4800 DPI image, and it turned-out looking very similar to the 9600 DPI scan, but with a far smaller file size. (The work piece was an old black and white photograph, and might see better results with recent color film.)

I love this, it has worked flawlessly for me. I did spend some time playing with the settings to get the best results to meet my expectations but once I found them I have been scanning old family negatives daily, so far I've scanned 1800 without issue and have about 20000 more to scan. Photo added to review was in a box for 30 years and after scanning it looks the same as it did when my mom printed it 30 years ago (the original photo is in a family album at my moms). I have been able to edit and adjust images scanned in that in the original print were too dark and turned out poorly, so I am able to save photos that 30 years ago were "junk" photos. I also have cousins who do not have many photos from childhood and I was able to make them a digital copy, as well as a digital copy for each of my siblings to have. It really is a user friendly scanner that works well. I have scanned 35, and 110. To scan 110 you just set it in the scanner click preview and there is a box on the top left of the scan gear you click and it gives you a preview of the whole 110 strip, from there you use the little crop box and place it over the individual image from the strip until the image appears as a tiny thumbnail photo. You can do multiple crop boxes and then click scan. I read in some reviews that this does not do 110 film, but it does. I imagine any strip of film with individual image frames on it could be scanned using the method I used for the 110 so I do not feel this scanner is as limited as some have said it is. The setting that have worked best for me was 4800dpi, jpeg files. The Tiff files took forever to scan and were very large. I have tried the scratch and dust setting but that also added a lot of time to the scan so I do not use that setting as the majority of my negatives are still in very good condition. I have also scanned my boyfriends childhood photos in at 600dpi and they turned out wonderful too. I would absolutely recommend this product to friend or family. I am completely pleased with this purchase.

I bought the old version of this scanner and was quite impressed with the output - both photo and film. The only issue I faced was the time it takes to scan films. Nevertheless, I went on scanning my photos... when I read a review of somebody saying, "Don't buy this... wait for the MKII version". Well, to cut the story short, I returned my scanner and waited for MKII's to come out and bought it($199) as soon as it was for sale. I'm not into reviews and all that complicated stuffs... I use my common sense in evaluating a product. First of all, I noticed a downgrade in the scanning of photos. I compared the MKII's output with the old one and it's just not the same - the old version's output was finer. Second, the old version came with Photoshop and MKII didn't. Third, I bought this new version expecting that Canon would address the issue of the long wait for scanning films. To my dismay, it took the same time - 20 minutes to scan 2 sets of films(12 frames)... and worse, it made my 10 year old films look like 50 or older. See, when a product promises to "Make your old photos look virtually brand new again", I expect results. This MKII just didn't deliver. The only 'upgrade' I noticed is that it gives you the facility to scan using the front panel buttons... and that's it. In fact, I think this 'upgrade' is more like a downgrade from the old version it replaced - Photoshop is missing; pictures are grainy and film-scans look so old. And, the thing is, 3 days after I bought MKII, Amazon lowered their price to $179. I felt offended so I returned it back. So, was it worth the wait for the 'upgrade'? No, I personally don't think so. Had I stuck with the old version, I would have finished scanning my thousands of films and photos by now. The only bright side I see in Canon release MKII is that, it drove the price of the old version of it - the "Canon CanoScan 9000F" without the "MKII" - $139 delivered(before MKII's release costs $175). While others advise you to "wait for the new version", I'd say, "revert back to the old version and save money, time and effort".

Great results! Tip: Play around with settings to find what's ideal for you. You don't want to have scanned 4000 slides before finding out you could have done so with better settings...

Item was ordered 19 May 2019. Est delivery 3 - 19 June. It is now 6 July. This is an expensive item and there has been no tracking info.

Tiene todos los aditamentos necesarios para realizar digitalizaciones de negativos y transparencias o diapositivas antiguas. El trabajo de mejoramiento de color verdaderamente revive las fotos al momento en que fueron tomadas. El producto es fabuloso para quienes ya tienen o tuvieron un escáner pero necesitan mucho más y tampoco quieren invertir más allá de 5 mil pesos. Un excelente producto para dar el paso al nivel semi profesional y profesional. La instalación en Mac es algo confusa pero al final funciona todo perfecto.

CanoScan 9000 MKII is really great, started using it like few weeks ago, the machine and the software driver are really good for the job, and if you are working with Adobe element or of course photoshop, you don't need anything more to make your old photos alive.....