Better scanning with the Epson V700 (or any flat bed)

I didn't diffuse intentionally the image. However, I did do plenty of tweaking or exposure and coloring, which may have added up to the same result. So, in the interest of fairness, below is the scanned image without any adjustments in PhotoShop, except for using it to resize the image to the same size as the others.

russelljtdyer-rusty-citypark-20091026-rangefinders-3.jpg


I still think this the results I'm getting from the Epson scanner is a much better than from the store. Keep in mind that the first image I presented was not an original image, but a digital image made from the negative by the store I used. This image here and the first one are both scanned images from the negative. One was done with much lower resolution and rapidly with the whole roll of negatives, while the other at higher resolution settings and more slowly.
 
Maybe your monitor is way out of calibration and that's why the store scan looks bad to you.
Like the others above, the store scan looks fine to me but the Epson scan looks too soft and has a strong magenta cast.
Sharpen it up and get rid of that magenta!
 
bigeye said:
Though more difficult to use, I've found the Silverfast scanning software produces significantly sharper and better colored scans than the Epson software, in most cases.

- Charlie
Click to expand...

Do you switch between the Silverfast and Epson depending on the negative?
pkr
 
tlitody said:
Yeah but you could have done a better job of it and much faster on an IQSmart3 instead of one of those toy scanners :p
Click to expand...

The Creo IQ my Lab used cost $50K. I don't have that kind of money for a flatbed that will be out of date in 24 months. I pay for high end scans as I need them.

I think if you're going to take a cheap shot at the people on this thread, you might tell them what an IQ cost. The lab had to run $15K a year from the machine to cover the lease payments..
 
PKR said:
The Creo IQ my Lab used cost $50K. I don't have that kind of money for a flatbed that will be out of date in 24 months. I pay for high end scans as I need them.

I think if you're going to take a cheap shot at the people on this thread, you might tell them what an IQ cost. The lab had to run $15K a year from the machine to cover the lease payments..
Click to expand...

If you took the trouble to look you'd find that they cost only a third of what they used to cost and second hand you can get them for very little (relatively speaking). i.e. in the UK you can expect to pick one up for maybe £3000 or £4000 in good condition and if you're lucky on ebay for a lot less.
 
tlitody said:
If you took the trouble to look you'd find that they cost only a third of what they used to cost and second hand you can get them for very little (relatively speaking). i.e. in the UK you can expect to pick one up for maybe £3000 or £4000 in good condition and if you're lucky on ebay for a lot less.
Click to expand...

Kodak now owns Creo and I haven't tracked the prices. So At $15K + 10% sales tax = $16.500 , surely everyone on this thread will dump their Epson 700 and buy a Creo. As for ebay, who does the repair work on IQ scanners and what do they charge?

I've got to think you're very wealthy.

I would prefer to pay a trained operator for a quality wet scan, on the latest hardware, than drop $16K, but that's just me.

Here's the current published discount.. that I found:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Creo EverSmart Supreme, 5600x14,000, the high point of the high-end, currently about $45,000, down from $54,950.


http://www.cameras-scanners-flaar.org/Scitex_prepress_flatbed_scanner/Scitex_flatbed_scanners.html

Maybe prices are cheaper in the EU?

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:
russelljtdyer said:
I still think this the results I'm getting from the Epson scanner is a much better than from the store. Keep in mind that the first image I presented was not an original image, but a digital image made from the negative by the store I used. This image here and the first one are both scanned images from the negative. One was done with much lower resolution and rapidly with the whole roll of negatives, while the other at higher resolution settings and more slowly.
Click to expand...

You and I can't be seeing the same thing on our monitors because version #2 is horrible. Here is my ten second attempt at #2 in Photoshop to make it look 'OK' on my screen. Hope you don't mind.

Steve
 
russelljtdyer said:
I still think this the results I'm getting from the Epson scanner is a much better than from the store. Keep in mind that the first image I presented was not an original image, but a digital image made from the negative by the store I used. This image here and the first one are both scanned images from the negative. One was done with much lower resolution and rapidly with the whole roll of negatives, while the other at higher resolution settings and more slowly.
Click to expand...

The result you're getting is lighter and less contrasty. The lab probably applies some auto-contrast in order to make the images ''pop'' more.
However, keep in mind that those minilab scanners they use are actually very good, i.e. much better than your Epson. They might only do low-res scans and set everything to auto but the hardware is still miles ahead of what the average film enthusiast uses.

And I also have the suspicion that your monitor is way off as I'm sure you would also not like what we see :). There's no point in spending a lot of time tweaking your photos on an uncalibrated monitor.
 
Last edited:
PKR said:
Thanks for a "current" price on a different unit.. I'm running off to place my order..

You're a hoot!

p.
Click to expand...

I said IQSmart3 and it is YOU who is trying to compare it with some ancient model YOU used to use. Pretty dumb thing to do IMO when you can buy the current version IQSmart3 for a third of what YOU think YOU will have to pay. The word Plonker comes to mind.
 
tlitody said:
I said IQSmart3 and it is YOU who is trying to compare it with some ancient model YOU used to use. Pretty dumb thing to do IMO when you can buy the current version IQSmart3 for a third of what YOU think YOU will have to pay. The word Plonker comes to mind.
Click to expand...

I've never "used" one. Only paid for scans. Careful reading will reveal the statement..
Originally Posted by PKR

"The Creo IQ my Lab used cost $50K. I don't have that kind of money for a flatbed that will be out of date in 24 months. I pay for high end scans as I need them."


You're a very funny guy.. do you own stock in kodak ? I can't believe you're so invested in this topic.. Post on.. I'll check in now and then..
 
Last edited:
250swb said:
You and I can't be seeing the same thing on our monitors because version #2 is horrible. Here is my ten second attempt at #2 in Photoshop to make it look 'OK' on my screen. Hope you don't mind.
Steve
Click to expand...

I did anotehr one too using the last (rusty3) scan.
I agree that the monitor he is using is probably not colour calibrated.
View attachment 81860
 
Last edited:
You should apply some sharpening to the V500 scans and they will look alot sharper.
 

Attachments

  • russelljtdyer_rusty3_addjus.jpg
    russelljtdyer_rusty3_addjus.jpg
    33 KB · Views: 0
PKR said:
Do you switch between the Silverfast and Epson depending on the negative?
pkr
Click to expand...

I've been playing with the V700 over the weekend with 135 TriX and 120 kodak 100G. I figured out most of Silverfast's quirks and it has significantly improved the pictures. I sent the 100G out and had good tif scans returned with it from NCPS. Used these as my reference.

What I found worked best (120) was emulsion up and all scanner options off, with USM and white balancing done in PS. Nothing special, but the V700 beat the raw mid-level scans from NCPS. When the NCPS scans were sharpened and leveled, too, there was no appreciable difference. I was very happy with both the shop scans and the V700/SE/PS product.

As stated by others before, 35mm is less delightful. There is a softness that never goes away, particularly after cutting yourself on the 120 scans. While the 120 (and 4x5) carrier is perfectly good, if not too durable, the 35mm is pretty awful. I used my feet along with my hands to load it and film cupping remains. I'd like to know how much better the ANR glass works.

I finally found the Silverfast function to find and "frame" the strips - it's buried in a menu, but does an ok job. Silverfast has a pretty bizarre layout that takes some time to work out, but it does a better job than the easy-to- use Epson scan app.

- Charlie
 
bigeye said:
I've been playing with the V700 over the weekend with 135 TriX and 120 kodak 100G. I figured out most of Silverfast's quirks and it has significantly improved the pictures. I sent the 100G out and had good tif scans returned with it from NCPS. Used these as my reference.

What I found worked best (120) was emulsion up and all scanner options off, with USM and white balancing done in PS. Nothing special, but the V700 beat the raw mid-level scans from NCPS. When the NCPS scans were sharpened and leveled, too, there was no appreciable difference. I was very happy with both the shop scans and the V700/SE/PS product.

As stated by others before, 35mm is less delightful. There is a softness that never goes away, particularly after cutting yourself on the 120 scans. While the 120 (and 4x5) carrier is perfectly good, if not too durable, the 35mm is pretty awful. I used my feet along with my hands to load it and film cupping remains. I'd like to know how much better the ANR glass works.

I finally found the Silverfast function to find and "frame" the strips - it's buried in a menu, but does an ok job. Silverfast has a pretty bizarre layout that takes some time to work out, but it does a better job than the easy-to- use Epson scan app.

- Charlie
Click to expand...

I keep reading that to get really good scans from 35, one should use a dedicated 35mm film scanner. There seems to be a consensus that the larger film sizes aren’t as critical. I’ve thought about looking for a used Minolta or Nikon or maybe trying a Plustek. I think the illumination may be an issue.
There is a short piece on film scanning by Ctein in the current TOP. The article is down the page a bit.

“A Perfunctory Guide to Converting Photographic Film to Digital Prints, Part 1

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html


The high-end Epson’s offer a wet scan kit. You might look into this if you’re using an Epson.

When I did a lot of wet printing, I always used a glass negative carrier. Thanks for the detailed reply. pkr
 
Last edited:
I didn't add anything to the general knowledge, but do confirm that 35mm is noticeably softer. What did surprise was the quality of 120 scans (they leapt up with a little fiddling). But, this really becomes a "miniature" vs "medium" argument as much as anything. 'Fine' performance threshold doesn't seem to get down to mini with flatbeds.

But, what matters is what you're doing with the scans. It is adequate, even with 35mm, for 95% of my prints. The few large or really good ones go out for a scan.

I actually began with the V300, which is much faster, easier and cheaper to use with 35mm and the results aren't too far off the V700's. If I were only doing 35mm, I'd still be using it. I only went to the V700 for larger formats. (And the larger formats ruin your eyes for 35mm every which way...)

Cheers,

- Charlie
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom