benlees
Well-known
The best tool for flatbeds is a heavy pile of books! Or shoot LF, the simplest way to get the most from your Epson!
I do find Tri-x to be the best yet for drying flat.
I do find Tri-x to be the best yet for drying flat.
historicist
Well-known
@gabor, how would you compare the V700/750 and the Nikon Coolscans?
My own (very brief, no glass holders) comparison of a V500 and a 800ED indicated that they would be very similar at low res scans, any opinions?
My own (very brief, no glass holders) comparison of a V500 and a 800ED indicated that they would be very similar at low res scans, any opinions?
cnphoto
Well-known
@ tlitoldy - i shoot film and make prints, that is MY ultimate outcome and purpose for shooting film. digital files from my negatives is not my ultimate goal, else i would have a digital camera.
i like to share web resolution images of my film photographs online, and used to shoot a bit of 120 and 4x5, a V700 was the most cost-effective option (ANR glass included) to achieve that goal - web resolution images online at a quality i am happy with.
why would i spend 4+ times as much money for a Nikon Coolscan 9000 or 'better' scanner? all of that money buys a lot of film and paper.
my workflow now is very fast, Vuescan scan at 1600dpi 48bit colour DNG > open in CS4 RAW > set levels and save - done. simple and fast! no faffing about, no 'Noise Reduction', no 'retouching', no 'digital asset management' issues, no hassles. i delete the DNG files and just save web resolution JPGs, i still have my negatives and i have my prints and i am happy.
different people seek different things.
i like to share web resolution images of my film photographs online, and used to shoot a bit of 120 and 4x5, a V700 was the most cost-effective option (ANR glass included) to achieve that goal - web resolution images online at a quality i am happy with.
why would i spend 4+ times as much money for a Nikon Coolscan 9000 or 'better' scanner? all of that money buys a lot of film and paper.
my workflow now is very fast, Vuescan scan at 1600dpi 48bit colour DNG > open in CS4 RAW > set levels and save - done. simple and fast! no faffing about, no 'Noise Reduction', no 'retouching', no 'digital asset management' issues, no hassles. i delete the DNG files and just save web resolution JPGs, i still have my negatives and i have my prints and i am happy.
different people seek different things.
Last edited:
tlitody
Well-known
Well since a phase one back image is better than a digital hasselblad and a hasselblad digital blows away an M9 for image quality and an M9 image is better than an M8 image and an M8 image file is better than a flatbed scanned 35mm neg I can only conclude that image quality is pretty low priority for 35mm flatbed people regardless of how good they think their camera and lenses are.
These are all generally accepted truths as far as I can tell. I still don't get why people insist on deliberately putting their hard earned negs through an image quality reducing process such as flatbed scanning on cheap consumer grade kit. It's no different than deliberately tweaking camera focus so that images are never sharp. Would you do that? Of course you wouldn't. But just a second, you do do that when you scan a neg. No wonder I'm confused.
These are all generally accepted truths as far as I can tell. I still don't get why people insist on deliberately putting their hard earned negs through an image quality reducing process such as flatbed scanning on cheap consumer grade kit. It's no different than deliberately tweaking camera focus so that images are never sharp. Would you do that? Of course you wouldn't. But just a second, you do do that when you scan a neg. No wonder I'm confused.
cnphoto
Well-known
image quality does not make a "quality image". and i enjoy shooting 35mm film, i enjoy the grain-induced softness of push-processing and the general lower image quality of film (than images achieved with, say, an M9 or medium format digital camera).
i choose much older lenses (lower in sharpness, lower in image quality and lower in contrast) for the look they give, this is what i like and what i do - and that's all there is too it.
you obviously seek different things to i, and there is nothing for you to "understand" here, people and their actions are a funny thing. so, please go on confusing yourself if that's what you like to do though i would suggest that you're time would be better spent on other things.
i choose much older lenses (lower in sharpness, lower in image quality and lower in contrast) for the look they give, this is what i like and what i do - and that's all there is too it.
you obviously seek different things to i, and there is nothing for you to "understand" here, people and their actions are a funny thing. so, please go on confusing yourself if that's what you like to do
though i would suggest that you're time would be better spent on other things.benlees
Well-known
Well since a phase one back image is better than a digital hasselblad and a hasselblad digital blows away an M9 for image quality and an M9 image is better than an M8 image and an M8 image file is better than a flatbed scanned 35mm neg I can only conclude that image quality is pretty low priority for 35mm flatbed people regardless of how good they think their camera and lenses are.
These are all generally accepted truths as far as I can tell. I still don't get why people insist on deliberately putting their hard earned negs through an image quality reducing process such as flatbed scanning on cheap consumer grade kit. It's no different than deliberately tweaking camera focus so that images are never sharp. Would you do that? Of course you wouldn't. But just a second, you do do that when you scan a neg. No wonder I'm confused.
The reason you are confused is because your thinking is comically linear. Let's say there are people in the world that make pictures using film. That is just they way they are. Just quirky, I guess. Perhaps they want to share some pictures with people on the good old internet. Lets say they do some research on scanners.
"Hmmm", they say, "that Nikon 9000 sure looks nice but it is a little expensive. Perhaps there is something with a bit more flexibility that costs a lot less. As long as there is a minimum acceptable quality I will be happy. If I want higher quality there is always wet printing or drum scans. After all, how many images am I actually going to print? Flatbeds do produce rather lacklustre results but they do exactly what I want. I think I will get one of those."
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
A lot of people turning up to a gun fight with knives here IMO.
The thread's not about image quality or which media translation is more effective ... it's about maximising the potential of a flat bed scanner!
The thread's not about image quality or which media translation is more effective ... it's about maximising the potential of a flat bed scanner!
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Good point Keith. I'd only say using anti-Newton glass inserts seems less effort than temperature/humidity control -- in order to get a quality result.
atlcruiser
Part Yeti
the comment above made me look
I agree with you!One thing not mentioned is trash in is trash out....where I come from we call it the "shiny turd syndrom
"when I started to pay much more attention to exposure/film speed/developing techniques many issues that I blamed on the scanner went away.
I have a lower end canon 8800F with the better scanning 120 insterts. It is not the best but, with a bit of care and a good negative, it produces fine images.
maddoc
... likes film again.
A good question ... The answer is: "It depends !"
It depends mainly on the type of film you develop and the effort in adjusting the negative carrier of the Epson and / or getting the film flat. It depends also on the correct exposure (density of the negative).From my recent experience: Trix-X developed in Rodinal and scanned using the Nikon Coolscan 4000ED is only for somebody who loves grain ... For BW, generally, the Coolscan 4000ED enhances grain while the Epson V700 suppresses grain (when compared to a conventional print on silver gelatin paper). For color the Nikon Coolscan 4000ED has the edge when it comes to dense color slides with film material producing vibrant colors (Velvia50). I am not sure if this is because of the different light source, scan unit or also A/D conversion (the 4000ED has 14bit ability but don`t know about the V700).
Overall, the 9000ED (with diffuse light source, 4 line CCD and the ability to focus) should be the best compromise as a combined 120 & 135 film scanner, compromise with respect to achieved quality, convenience of scanning and spent money. Personally, I am lazy and prefer the easiness of Vuescan (simultaneously saving of JPG and RAW file) in combination with the 4000ED and SA-30. It gives me the highest throughput with acceptable quality. For 120, the V700 does a perfect job.
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
the comment above made me look
Heh heh. I hope you moused over the "Green" link at the right while you were very briefly there.
Stuart John
Well-known
Funny site. Just wondering why you did not try any unsharpmask on your V500 scans. They sharpen up very well and I think you would be very suprised how good they will look. The V500 is still only good for about 2000ppi but it really needs the files sharpend to llok good.
V500 scan
V500 scan
Stuart John
Well-known
Here a B&W one.
Stuart John
Well-known
Heres a B&W v500 scan with a 100% crop. Scanned around 2000ppi
tapesonthefloor
Well-known
Hi Stuart,
Great scans, and great examples. I did play with a variety of sharpening techniques, but was never as satisfied as I hoped I'd be so I think I've moved on for now. I'll save up for a proper film scanner someday. You are getting very good results, though! Are your film holders shimmed in any way? I've heard that focal points on Epson's scanners tend to vary from example to example, and maybe I was just testing with a lemon compared to yours. I was *definitely* not seeing grain that clearly.
Great scans, and great examples. I did play with a variety of sharpening techniques, but was never as satisfied as I hoped I'd be so I think I've moved on for now. I'll save up for a proper film scanner someday. You are getting very good results, though! Are your film holders shimmed in any way? I've heard that focal points on Epson's scanners tend to vary from example to example, and maybe I was just testing with a lemon compared to yours. I was *definitely* not seeing grain that clearly.
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Those are similar results to what I've had with my medium-format and 4x5 negs off my v700. Nice sharp grain, sharp images.
Unsharp mask is a useful feature, as well. I usually scan my B&W images in colour format; once opened in Photoshop I convert to Lab Colour mode, choose the Brightness in the Channel window, and sharpen that channel only (so you're only sharpening the blacks and whites, not colours). Then I convert back to RGB mode.
I'm not a technical person, especially with digital, but this seems to maximise the benefits of unsharp masking, to my eyes.
Unsharp mask is a useful feature, as well. I usually scan my B&W images in colour format; once opened in Photoshop I convert to Lab Colour mode, choose the Brightness in the Channel window, and sharpen that channel only (so you're only sharpening the blacks and whites, not colours). Then I convert back to RGB mode.
I'm not a technical person, especially with digital, but this seems to maximise the benefits of unsharp masking, to my eyes.
Stuart John
Well-known
Tapesonthefloor, I just use the stock holders no height adjustments or anything special. My scans from the V500 without sharpening are not any better than your unsharpened samples. I just sharpen my scan till they look sharp enough. The v500 is not good above 2000ppi and could even be a bit less but for grainy old films that I scan it works quite well. That B&W scan with the sample crop is Trix in HC110 and the rope shot is APX100 in Rodinal. The color shot is Kodak Gold 100 shot in 1998. I must try a modern slowish color neg to see how they will look.
russelljtdyer
Writer
Results Thus Far
Results Thus Far
After having played with my new scanner far too much, but still not enough, these past two or three days, I've developed some skills in using it. I've also taken the advice of a few here to buy a copy of VueScan. I've used it on a trial basis a few times over the years when I was in a bind trying to scan documents. So, I was already familiar with how well it works in general, and therefore willing to buy it. I agree now that it's much better and easier to use than the software provided with the scanner. So, I'd like to show y'all how the scanner is faring with me so far.
Below is a photograph that I took a year ago with my Canon P and a new Voigtlander 50mm lens. It's a picture of a friend of mine. I took it in New Orleans, in City Park with plenty of dark gray clouds overhead, but lots of light. I used Kodak Portra 160NC film. This digital version was on the disk I was given with the prints and negatives from the photography store I used in the New Orleans area. As you can see, it's not a pretty picture of an otherwise pretty young woman. I've tried to improve it in PhotoShop, but it only seemed to get worse, so I left it like it was.
Yesterday, I scanned the negative for that photo using my new Epson V700 scanner. It gave me a clear image that was very usable, one that I was able to tweak in PhotoShop to get the white balance and other factors right. It produced a huge, high resolution digital image for me from which I could easily print a nice 5 x 7 inch photograph. I exported it to a smaller image so it wouldn't be too large for y'all to view here. Below is that exported, new image.
How does it look to y'all? To me it's much clearer and, of course, it has better coloring. Maybe someone more skilled in PhotoShop could have squeezed something as good from the first one. But at 72 dpi and no bigger than 1908 x 1272, compared to the second one with 4800 dpi and 8945 x 5920, I can't see how.
Results Thus Far
After having played with my new scanner far too much, but still not enough, these past two or three days, I've developed some skills in using it. I've also taken the advice of a few here to buy a copy of VueScan. I've used it on a trial basis a few times over the years when I was in a bind trying to scan documents. So, I was already familiar with how well it works in general, and therefore willing to buy it. I agree now that it's much better and easier to use than the software provided with the scanner. So, I'd like to show y'all how the scanner is faring with me so far.
Below is a photograph that I took a year ago with my Canon P and a new Voigtlander 50mm lens. It's a picture of a friend of mine. I took it in New Orleans, in City Park with plenty of dark gray clouds overhead, but lots of light. I used Kodak Portra 160NC film. This digital version was on the disk I was given with the prints and negatives from the photography store I used in the New Orleans area. As you can see, it's not a pretty picture of an otherwise pretty young woman. I've tried to improve it in PhotoShop, but it only seemed to get worse, so I left it like it was.
Yesterday, I scanned the negative for that photo using my new Epson V700 scanner. It gave me a clear image that was very usable, one that I was able to tweak in PhotoShop to get the white balance and other factors right. It produced a huge, high resolution digital image for me from which I could easily print a nice 5 x 7 inch photograph. I exported it to a smaller image so it wouldn't be too large for y'all to view here. Below is that exported, new image.
How does it look to y'all? To me it's much clearer and, of course, it has better coloring. Maybe someone more skilled in PhotoShop could have squeezed something as good from the first one. But at 72 dpi and no bigger than 1908 x 1272, compared to the second one with 4800 dpi and 8945 x 5920, I can't see how.
tlitody
Well-known
What do I think? Looks a bit pink/magenta to me and you have stylised it with some diffusion by the look of it. So I really can't comment as you have departed from the what the camera got and it is totally subjective.
I played with the first version but kept it nearer to what I could see but with a tad of touching up here and there. Is one version better that the other? I really couldn't say I wasn't there.
But what I can say is that every time I do this kind of editing it convinces me that printing direct from film to paper is more enjoyable. Once you start tweaking digital files you are never finshed. There is always something else that can be done. And if you have a series of portraits, getting them all to colour match is a real bugger once you start tweaking them here and there not mention getting colour balance direct from the scan to be correct so you don't have to correct it afterwards.
And was her jacket blue or was it purple? I don't know so what should it be.
View attachment 81857
I played with the first version but kept it nearer to what I could see but with a tad of touching up here and there. Is one version better that the other? I really couldn't say I wasn't there.
But what I can say is that every time I do this kind of editing it convinces me that printing direct from film to paper is more enjoyable. Once you start tweaking digital files you are never finshed. There is always something else that can be done. And if you have a series of portraits, getting them all to colour match is a real bugger once you start tweaking them here and there not mention getting colour balance direct from the scan to be correct so you don't have to correct it afterwards.
And was her jacket blue or was it purple? I don't know so what should it be.
View attachment 81857
Last edited:
Jamie123
Veteran
To be honest, I think the first one looks fine while the second one is absolutely terrible. Not only is the white balance off (magenta cast) but the diffusion effect looks really tacky. The lab scan (first one) may be a bit too contrasty and dark under the eyes but otherwise it's a really nice looking film image. The second one, however, looks like a badly manipulated digital image.
Also, some of it might be due to the applied diffusion, but it's quite clear that the first image resolves more detail than the second. You might get a bigger file from your scanner but that doesn't mean there's more information in it.