kennylovrin
Well-known
Hey guys
I just wanted to generally ask a bit about scanners. The thing is that now that I've started enjoying film photography I needed a scanner. And I read more or less everywhere how amazing the V500 is for it's price and so on and because I wanted to scann 120 format as well I just went out and got one.
The thing is, the quality I get out of it is just the ****test thing I've seen. I just can't believe that the negs are that soft as the result I get from the scanned negs.
Obviously I've been researching other film holders because some films have a tendency to bend etc. But the problem I have with that is that the film holder itself is so utterly crappy that even if I'd get a Better Scanning ANR glass to flatten the film I would still be so angry every time I even look at the film holder. Instead I've opted for trying the DigitaLIZA to see if that works better. That seems like a sensible product in theory at leat (waiting for it to arrive).
Hoever, even flattening the film and adjusting the height of the holder etc to optimize, I seriously doubt I would consider it good enough.
So now I started thinking that I should just get like a Plustek scanner and use that for 35mm. So I started researching that a bit, and a lot of people compare the plusteks to the V500/V700 and actually come to the conclusion that the cheaper plustek scanners aren't better than the Epson flatbets.
I just have such a hard time to really take that in. I read some proper reviews and they somehow measured the actual resolution of the plusteks to be over 3000dpi and in some cases 3800dpi, and I really, really don't believe that my V500 ever will deliver actual resolution over 1500dpi or so even how much I try to tweak it.
I'm literally losing sleep over this because the V500 pisses me off to such an extent that I have trouble falling asleep.
Because I find members here truthful and reliable I wanted to ask if anyone of you have compared any Plustek scanners (preferrably cheaper models) to the V500, and what your conclusion was. The reason I say cheap scanners is because I want better quality, but I don't need perfect quality, just not the total crap that I get from the V500.
Or, maybe I just have too high expectations, that might very well be the problem as well. However, if I can't get better quality scans than I get now, for a little more money, then it kind of becomes pointless in a sense for me to shoot film. I would never be able to do anything else than Flick resolution uploads with the V500 in my opinion.
Any input is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Kenny
I just wanted to generally ask a bit about scanners. The thing is that now that I've started enjoying film photography I needed a scanner. And I read more or less everywhere how amazing the V500 is for it's price and so on and because I wanted to scann 120 format as well I just went out and got one.
The thing is, the quality I get out of it is just the ****test thing I've seen. I just can't believe that the negs are that soft as the result I get from the scanned negs.
Obviously I've been researching other film holders because some films have a tendency to bend etc. But the problem I have with that is that the film holder itself is so utterly crappy that even if I'd get a Better Scanning ANR glass to flatten the film I would still be so angry every time I even look at the film holder. Instead I've opted for trying the DigitaLIZA to see if that works better. That seems like a sensible product in theory at leat (waiting for it to arrive).
Hoever, even flattening the film and adjusting the height of the holder etc to optimize, I seriously doubt I would consider it good enough.
So now I started thinking that I should just get like a Plustek scanner and use that for 35mm. So I started researching that a bit, and a lot of people compare the plusteks to the V500/V700 and actually come to the conclusion that the cheaper plustek scanners aren't better than the Epson flatbets.
I just have such a hard time to really take that in. I read some proper reviews and they somehow measured the actual resolution of the plusteks to be over 3000dpi and in some cases 3800dpi, and I really, really don't believe that my V500 ever will deliver actual resolution over 1500dpi or so even how much I try to tweak it.
I'm literally losing sleep over this because the V500 pisses me off to such an extent that I have trouble falling asleep.
Because I find members here truthful and reliable I wanted to ask if anyone of you have compared any Plustek scanners (preferrably cheaper models) to the V500, and what your conclusion was. The reason I say cheap scanners is because I want better quality, but I don't need perfect quality, just not the total crap that I get from the V500.
Or, maybe I just have too high expectations, that might very well be the problem as well. However, if I can't get better quality scans than I get now, for a little more money, then it kind of becomes pointless in a sense for me to shoot film. I would never be able to do anything else than Flick resolution uploads with the V500 in my opinion.
Any input is greatly appreciated!
Thanks!
Kenny
rayfoxlee
Raymondo
Kenny, sorry to hear your problems. I don't have any experience with the V500, but I scan my 120s with an ageing Epson Perfection 2450 and I find that pretty darned good - even now! My 120s are all from Rolleis, so they are nice and sharp. I've often thought of upgrading, but I no longer shoot 120. I bought a new Nikon Coolscan V ED new for 35mm some time ago and that's pretty good, but 35mm will never match 120.
In February 2011, the UK Black+White Photography magazine published a comparison test between the Canon Canoscan L1DE 700F, Canoscan 9000F, HP Scanjet G4050, Epson Perfection V700 and V600. Unsurprisingly, the V700 was 'best in test' and the Canoscan 9000F was rated as an 'all round performer'. The V600 was rated as the best value for money. The V500 was not tested and from memory, a report I read did not rate it highly for film work - but it depends on how critical you want to be.
How about trying to get a second hand Epson Perfection 4990? Very good reports on those, although pretty sought after.
Good luck!
Ray
In February 2011, the UK Black+White Photography magazine published a comparison test between the Canon Canoscan L1DE 700F, Canoscan 9000F, HP Scanjet G4050, Epson Perfection V700 and V600. Unsurprisingly, the V700 was 'best in test' and the Canoscan 9000F was rated as an 'all round performer'. The V600 was rated as the best value for money. The V500 was not tested and from memory, a report I read did not rate it highly for film work - but it depends on how critical you want to be.
How about trying to get a second hand Epson Perfection 4990? Very good reports on those, although pretty sought after.
Good luck!
Ray
Richard G
Veteran
I seem to have read a lot of positive things for the V500, but I cannot remember if it included 120. I can't see how someone happy with 35 output would not also be happy with 6x6. I have the V700 and I love it for black and white negatives, and prefer it over my Nikon Coolscan V, which is better for transparencies. I suspect it's software and settings that are defeating you.
rbelyell
Well-known
ken i feel your pain! i too have a v500 that pisses me off to no end. in fact, even though i am fully computer-literate, ive come to the conclusion that there are just two types of people: those that can make scanners work and those that cant. its either or, immutable characteristics that definitionally cannot be changed due to cosmic design.
i cannot make scanners work, no matter how much i stress or how much mental energy i devote. for folks like us we simply need to find an alternative route. i am now exploring a very simple and inexpensive setup using a flat field lens on a digi cam, shooting in raw against a light table. once established, this is quicker, way easier and better quality, imo.
btw, my v500 is pretty much brand new if anyone wants it!
tony
i cannot make scanners work, no matter how much i stress or how much mental energy i devote. for folks like us we simply need to find an alternative route. i am now exploring a very simple and inexpensive setup using a flat field lens on a digi cam, shooting in raw against a light table. once established, this is quicker, way easier and better quality, imo.
btw, my v500 is pretty much brand new if anyone wants it!
tony
filmfan
Well-known
So I used to own the multi-thousand dollar Nikon Coolscan 8000. Since I never made prints from scans, I sold it (actually it broke) and bought an Epson V500 for $60. I have no problems with mine. See the images in my gallery, blog, website for examples. I just use the scanner without any tricks, so you are obviously doing something wrong man. Remember, I have never printed from either scanner...
The following links will take you to medium format scans using the V500 and normal/auto everything else using the included holders:
1. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=185436&ppuser=19407
2. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=185336&ppuser=19407
3. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=186146&ppuser=19407
4. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=154126&ppuser=19407
The following links will take you to medium format scans using the V500 and normal/auto everything else using the included holders:
1. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=185436&ppuser=19407
2. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=185336&ppuser=19407
3. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=186146&ppuser=19407
4. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=154126&ppuser=19407
Highway 61
Revisited
There is ONE WAY (not two) to scan MF films with a flatbed scanner and here it is :
The sandgrit glass sheet (price : a few cents at any hardware store) is there to avoid the Newton rings. It's a way less expensive solution than the BetterScanning holders and it works like a charm.
Ah and put some good fabric adhesive tape around the sandgrit glass sheet edges not to cut your fingers each time you want to scan something.
- throw the film holders away
- make the scanner window glass CLEAN
- put the film ON THE GLASS and EMULSION SIDE DOWN
- cover the scanner glass - and the film strip(s) - with a custom cut sandgrit glass sheet (fine pattern), SANDGRIT SIDE DOWN
- close the scanner hood
- preview, select the scanning area and scan your MF film strip(s) as TIFF files
- export the file into PhotoShop, invert horizontally (scanned like this, the photo is left/right inverted), and post-process your images.
The sandgrit glass sheet (price : a few cents at any hardware store) is there to avoid the Newton rings. It's a way less expensive solution than the BetterScanning holders and it works like a charm.
Ah and put some good fabric adhesive tape around the sandgrit glass sheet edges not to cut your fingers each time you want to scan something.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Kenny -- The V500 can produce good scans, but if you scan and peep the pixels it's a recipe for lost sleep and disappointment. Scans that look fuzzy at the pixel level can be fine when printed and can look pretty good at magnifications on screen after sharpening.
Have you made prints or displayed screen images from your scans? If not, I suggest trying this.
Any scan from any scanner needs sharpening. Any capture from a pixelated sensor needs sharpening. Any 1:1 image that looks sharp has had sharpening applied.
Here's a long thread about V500/V600 scans... Look for my posts with sample images.
In particular, here is a file ready to print at 12x18" from my V500 scan of a 6x9 negative from an excellent lens (Mamiya Press 100 f/2.8 on tripod).
My conclusion: I like a sharp print. From my V500 scans, I can get good prints up to 6x the linear dimension of negative.
Here's my test image.
Have you made prints or displayed screen images from your scans? If not, I suggest trying this.
Any scan from any scanner needs sharpening. Any capture from a pixelated sensor needs sharpening. Any 1:1 image that looks sharp has had sharpening applied.
Here's a long thread about V500/V600 scans... Look for my posts with sample images.
In particular, here is a file ready to print at 12x18" from my V500 scan of a 6x9 negative from an excellent lens (Mamiya Press 100 f/2.8 on tripod).
My conclusion: I like a sharp print. From my V500 scans, I can get good prints up to 6x the linear dimension of negative.
Here's my test image.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Kenny, you might post one of your scans; maybe there is some specific feedback.
And, finally, it is possible that you have a bad example of this scanner.
And, finally, it is possible that you have a bad example of this scanner.
kennylovrin
Well-known
thanks for the replies guys!
i realize i came off as a bit angry perhaps in my first post (actually i was).
like i said, i've ordered alternative holders to see if that makes any difference (at least they might be easier to work with than the stock ones). so i will definitely get baack with an update when i have them.
it's true that my negs are curved to various degrees, the kodak trix being the worst and the ilford delta i've tried the best (huge difference in film thickness there). i like to believe that the ilford scans came out sharper, but still not as sharp as i'd expect actually.
when i get the other holders i will try to shim them as well to see if that makes any difference. like others i am very computer-savvy as well, so i understand the options i have to work with to tweak the v500, what i don't understand completely is the difference between the v500 and a plustek neg-scanner.
actually, i will post some full size sample scans as well tonight when i get home!
one point though that is brought up here and other places is this scanning directly on the glass vs. using the holder. some people seems to say it does better directly on the glass, others say the head is calibrated for a slight distance between class and film (not necessarily same height as the holder, hence the shims). others speak of different scan modes that uses different heads/focus distances etc. i just cant sort out if some of it applies only to the v700 or both the v500 and v700 etc.
so, does anyone ACTUALLY know where the scan head is supposed to be focused on the v500 and wether it is adjustable by changing mode?
also, why should i scan a 120 neg on the glass, but not a 35mm? i just don't see the difference there. and why emulsion side down? is that to avoid newton rings between the glass and shiny film side?
i find it really hard to tweak this because there are so many unknown variables at the moment.
many thanks for your time people!
i realize i came off as a bit angry perhaps in my first post (actually i was
).like i said, i've ordered alternative holders to see if that makes any difference (at least they might be easier to work with than the stock ones). so i will definitely get baack with an update when i have them.
it's true that my negs are curved to various degrees, the kodak trix being the worst and the ilford delta i've tried the best (huge difference in film thickness there). i like to believe that the ilford scans came out sharper, but still not as sharp as i'd expect actually.
when i get the other holders i will try to shim them as well to see if that makes any difference. like others i am very computer-savvy as well, so i understand the options i have to work with to tweak the v500, what i don't understand completely is the difference between the v500 and a plustek neg-scanner.
actually, i will post some full size sample scans as well tonight when i get home!
one point though that is brought up here and other places is this scanning directly on the glass vs. using the holder. some people seems to say it does better directly on the glass, others say the head is calibrated for a slight distance between class and film (not necessarily same height as the holder, hence the shims). others speak of different scan modes that uses different heads/focus distances etc. i just cant sort out if some of it applies only to the v700 or both the v500 and v700 etc.
so, does anyone ACTUALLY know where the scan head is supposed to be focused on the v500 and wether it is adjustable by changing mode?
also, why should i scan a 120 neg on the glass, but not a 35mm? i just don't see the difference there. and why emulsion side down? is that to avoid newton rings between the glass and shiny film side?
i find it really hard to tweak this because there are so many unknown variables at the moment.
many thanks for your time people!
jonasv
has no mustache
Are you scanning your negs emulsion side up now?
I haven't scanned anything in quite a while so I don't exactly remember the routine... but I seem to remember everything on a flatbed should be scanned emulsion side down, using holders or not.
kennylovrin
Well-known
can't remember to be honest, i just put them in like indicated by the holder, i think that resulted in emulsion side up. i will have to verify that.
still though, what is the reason for this? is it to avoid the so called newton rings? because i have still to see a single one in any of my scans.
or does it actually result in better sharpness because the emulsion side is matte etc? i can somehow imagine that the plastic side down would allow the backlight to bleed along the edges etc. but that is just a complete guess.
Bingley
Veteran
I tried to scan with negatives directly on the glass and my v500 wouldn't recognize them. If anyone has experience doing this successfully on a v500 I'd love to hear about it.
I do use the ANR glass inserts and they've improved my scanning results. I believe that BetterScanning makes them for 120 film.
filmfan
Well-known
I scan with emulsion side (matte) up, and the plastic side (shiny) down.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I have heard reports of significant differences in results with the V700/V750 by shimming the negative holder.
I tested this in my V500 and found no difference. I use the crummy standard holders and try to flatten the film.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
The V500 needs an open area near the top to calibrate the light source. If you are going to go directly to glass or use your own holder, copy the opening in the standard holder.
Shiny side touching smooth glass should produce Newton's rings which will be visible in scans.
charjohncarter
Veteran
You are doing something wrong; mine for 6x6 is almost as good as my friends V700. Maybe just as good. I did buy betterscannings 120 holder and glass and this brought it up to the V700 quality. Take some of the recommendations here and you will have a good if not excellent 6x6 scanner.
PatrickCheung
Well-known
Iunno... I'm using the Epson V500 and the OEM scanning tray... Sometimes the film is flattened before scanning... most of the time it's not. Here's what I'm getting...
Bruno Gracia
Well-known
is it a good 24x36 scanner?
PatrickCheung
Well-known
I'd think so, bruno
kennylovrin
Well-known
Iunno... I'm using the Epson V500 and the OEM scanning tray... Sometimes the film is flattened before scanning... most of the time it's not. Here's what I'm getting...
Thanks for the examples! I have some questions though relating to this:
1. Are these sharpened at all after being scanned? (I guess so, but I need to know what I'm looking at
).2. Would you say that these scans actually represents the sharpness available in the film/lens/camera combination you used? (What I mean is, putting wether you are satisfied or not aside, do you think there is more sharpness to have from the neg with a different scanner?). The reason I'm asking this is because I'm not sure what to expect from a film shot to be honest.