Troubleshoot my scanner
 

So, I've got this HP Scanjet 4400c. I haven't used it in a long time (> 1 year). But Mrs. Dallas dug up some ancient pictures (sound familiar??) so here we are.

Anyway, it operates just fine, but it won't scan anything in... you just end up with blank output. The scanner lights up on cue, the reader moves up and down the glass as expected, the four "short cut" buttons on the front of the scanner work, but it doesn't "see" anything.

I've tried updating the scanner drivers, different USB cable, different USB port, and nothing.

Any suggestions what could be causing this?

You're putting the pictures in face down, right? :redface:
Will it copy text as in xeroxing?
Will it respond to commands from your PC as well as the buttons?

The last time you used it, was it hooked up to the same PC, or is this a new setup?

Yes, but thank you for asking. :3_eyes:
No, no matter what it scans, it just turns up blank.
Yeah, I've tried it with the direct access from Photoshop as well as the HP Precison Scan software, and it runs fine except for that pesky no data part.
It's the same computer, same installation of Winblows XP.

Uninstalled and reinstalled the drivers yet? The newest available ones?

HP's site doesn't address this problem. Perhaps their diagnostic program for this scanner will be of some assistance (I doubt it, but stranger things have happened).

Naah, I saw that when I was downloading the drivers. It looks like it just pulls together system stats on your computer so when you talk to tech support you know how much memory etc. you have in.

SD, does it act as though it has actually gathered data? I mean to say, can you save a file, but when you do, it is a zero byte file?

Interesting question.. I didn't think to look. The file photoshop saved is 159KB, a JPG file. The histogram comes out all white. So yeah, it acts like it's a real file with data in it.

I once had an old scanner (epson I think) that did something similar to this. I had to replace the light source (fluorescent type tube) as it was no longer putting out enough light.

But I think I paid something like 35 bucks for this lousy bulb (but the scanner was an upper end machine that I had paid 400+ for). There are a lot of new very inexpensive scanners out there. You like HP? Compusa lists a HP5470cse for under 50 bucks.

Maybe it needs to be face up? :p

And what means "blank": black or white? If white, try scanning nothing with the lid open, see if you can get black. In any case, it sounds like the scan head's busted. You might open it and see if any lenses need cleaning or wires need tightening.

I'd suspect either the scan head as others have suggested or perhaps the twain stuff is fuxord.

The result is a white document. Thanks for all the suggestions, but I've punted. Given that I'm now on my FOURTH digital camera (I don't think I ever mentioned that little Nikon D50 I picked up before Christmas did I??) we don't have a huge scanning volume and I can use one at work to do the small number of pieces we need at this point.

What happened to your other 4 cameras? Mine just got a CCD error (small section of bad colours) so I was thinking it was time for a new one. Thankfully there is a program that fixes it almost completely losslessly.

They got old! :cool:

Number one was acquired very cheaply from ubid.com, which used to be a good place to dumpster-dive for last year's model. It was a Polaroid model that, with a top resolution of 640x480, qualifies as little more than a toy by today's standards. But it was well worth the price and was handy to have around and experiment with.

The second was also a ubid special. The Olympus D-460Z is a nice little camera for what it is. With several white balance options and three ISO levels, it's more flexible than the average low-end point & shoot digital of its day, and 1.3 megapixel resolution gave quite nice standard sized prints. (No enlargements, though.)

I fell in love with the third one, the Nikon Coolpix 995, after I tried out my boss's. Although this camera has many of the problems of point & shoot digitals (especially shutter lag), it allows as much or as little manual control over the shutter, aperture, white balance, and ISO sensitivity as you want, and gives limited options for some extra lenses and external flash. It was therefore a good choice for someone who learned on the completely manual Pentax K1000 35mm SLR.

That one came used from B&H Photo in New York. The only one that I bought new was number four, the Nikon D50 mentioned earlier, which I had been drooling over since it came out last year.. "I probably shouldn't have," but Best Buy tempted me with a pre-thanksgiving sale and I bit. Unlike most point & shoot digitals (even good ones), the autofocus is lightning fast, and the shutter lag is practically nonexistent. It's just great. I love it.

The Polaroid is not really usable because the battery door became so loose it wouldn't keep the batteries in contact, but I still have it around somewhere. The Olympus is quite servicable and is now doing teaching duty for the munchkins to use until such time as they develop enough skill to justify something nicer. And the 995 is still a nice choice for Mrs. Dallas, who is completely uninterested in all the manual photo geekery that makes me all verklempt, or for me when I'm going to be in an environment where I don't want to carry the D50.

(By the way, for newer Dwellars, my 995 led a very sheltered, nay, cloistered existence. NothingButNet had the same model; his suffered an untimely demise but, I dare say, had more fun than mine did before it went to its reward. Look through the Quality Images forum for some examples.)