Scanning pictures vs scanning negatives

[Lingus]

I just bought a scanner that scans pictures as well as film negatives.
I have a lot of my pictures as negaives as well and was wondering if scanning the negatives will give me better copies of my pics or if I am better off scanning the actual paper pictures?

 

[Bighorn]

Since we don't know the make and model of the scanner it's really hard to say, some are specifically made for working with prints and negatives. Only thing one can say is to try some and see but be prepared to see a bit of loss of quality. My eyes are getting older and sometimes what I see isn't quite as good as what others see. But then it's the age-old thing about "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

 

[Lingus]

Since we don't know the make and model of the scanner it's really hard to say, some are specifically made for working with prints and negatives. Only thing one can say is to try some and see but be prepared to see a bit of loss of quality. My eyes are getting older and sometimes what I see isn't quite as good as what others see. But then it's the age-old thing about "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

It's an Epson V370
I'm doing some experimenting as we speak, we'll see how it goes, thank you

 

[Bighorn]

I was given an older Epson V30 last year, good scanner.

 

[Grizzly]

I have the Canoscan 5600 and scan my negatives if possible as the resulting pictures are IMHO better than scanning pictures. The texture of the pictures is usually what screws up the scan...

 

[BigFeet]

Grizzly's right, although if you want really high res scans, scanning the pictures would be better. Although it will bring out every flaw in the print.