DavidH
Overweight and over here
So, I read everywhere that the Doug Fisher holders are the dogs do das for the Epson V700/V750...
Can I ask why? What does it offer compared to the Epson efforts? Anyone got any practical experience with it? I'll happily buy one if it has genuine advantages but haven't found any quantifiable report on it...
Thanks
Can I ask why? What does it offer compared to the Epson efforts? Anyone got any practical experience with it? I'll happily buy one if it has genuine advantages but haven't found any quantifiable report on it...
Thanks
jshelly
Established
I second this request.
Thanks in advance
Thanks in advance
mfogiel
Veteran
I believe you are referring to the variable height MF holders with optional anti newton ring glass for the flatbeds.
I have an Epson V750, and have the Doug's holder with glass.
In the first place, the height adjustment of the holder lets you focus your film plane properly, and this alone is probably worth 40% of the resolution. Apart from this, the film is much flatter, though it is being only pressed down from above, either by the t locks, or by the glass.
I've had some minor issues with the t-locks, as some are tighter than others, so you should buy them in excess when you order, to use those with the best fit. Most of the time the t locks are sufficient to hold the film flat. Otherwise you can use the glass, which is ok, but I have found at times, especially when using the highest resolution settings (6400) some artifacts in my scans. I think it has been more a problem of the scanner rather than the glass itself, because I have modified my Nikon MF film holder for the Coolscan 9000, and I actually use Doug's glass to keep my MF film flat there (this has saved me about 400 eur necessary to get the Nikon glass holder) with great success and no artifacts.
To wrap up. I think Epson V750 is a very good scanner, it makes a nice job scanning medium and large format film (for up to 4-6 times enlargement), but it cannot do miracles, and if you want a 13x19 print that does justice to Leica lenses, you have to forget the flatbeds and go to the dedicated film scanners ( I've heard great things about the KM 5400).
Taking your pictures with state of the art 35mm film cameras and lenses to scan them on a flatbed is simply irrespectful of your imaging chain, its like putting a bottom of your milk bottle in the place of your enlarger lens.
From the little I've learned about the final MTF of your photo, it is a result of multiplication of the MTF's of single components - the problem being that you cannot go over 1, so each multiplication subtracts quality,
If you use the sharpest film and lenses to stay as close as possible to MTF=1, and then you multiply this by 0.3, it just does not make sense, it works better to get a scanner with a high MTF and use CV or Canon lenses, the final result will be better.
I have an Epson V750, and have the Doug's holder with glass.
In the first place, the height adjustment of the holder lets you focus your film plane properly, and this alone is probably worth 40% of the resolution. Apart from this, the film is much flatter, though it is being only pressed down from above, either by the t locks, or by the glass.
I've had some minor issues with the t-locks, as some are tighter than others, so you should buy them in excess when you order, to use those with the best fit. Most of the time the t locks are sufficient to hold the film flat. Otherwise you can use the glass, which is ok, but I have found at times, especially when using the highest resolution settings (6400) some artifacts in my scans. I think it has been more a problem of the scanner rather than the glass itself, because I have modified my Nikon MF film holder for the Coolscan 9000, and I actually use Doug's glass to keep my MF film flat there (this has saved me about 400 eur necessary to get the Nikon glass holder) with great success and no artifacts.
To wrap up. I think Epson V750 is a very good scanner, it makes a nice job scanning medium and large format film (for up to 4-6 times enlargement), but it cannot do miracles, and if you want a 13x19 print that does justice to Leica lenses, you have to forget the flatbeds and go to the dedicated film scanners ( I've heard great things about the KM 5400).
Taking your pictures with state of the art 35mm film cameras and lenses to scan them on a flatbed is simply irrespectful of your imaging chain, its like putting a bottom of your milk bottle in the place of your enlarger lens.
From the little I've learned about the final MTF of your photo, it is a result of multiplication of the MTF's of single components - the problem being that you cannot go over 1, so each multiplication subtracts quality,
If you use the sharpest film and lenses to stay as close as possible to MTF=1, and then you multiply this by 0.3, it just does not make sense, it works better to get a scanner with a high MTF and use CV or Canon lenses, the final result will be better.
Last edited:
R
rich815
Guest
I used them for my 2450 as the holders included were crap. Much more sturdy. However the first ones he sent me had cracked and were broken in the mail. That said when I bought a 4990 I found the Epson holders more than adequate and sturdy and when compared to the Fisher holders the Epson ones actually held the film at a height that gave me better and sharper scans. That can be variable scanner unit to scanner unit mine just happened to work better at the height the Epson holders held.
Although I have not seen them I'm guessing the holders for the 750 are as good or better than the 4990 as I did watch as the holders get better and better from my Epson 1200U to 2450 to 4990.
I would recommend testing using post-in notes in varying heights to see if you get any improvement in sharpness laying the film almost flat, then adding a few post-it's at a time. Only if you do see improvement above the standard holder will you see improvement using Fisher variable height holders. Since it appeared mine was best almost on the glass and the Epson holder held the film lower than the standard no-adjustable Fisher holder it would not have benefited me with my Epson scanner unit.
Overall I was not thrilled with the t-locks as some were too loose and came out just as I placed the holder into my unit, and in time they also changed their tightness. It's why I eventually stopped using it and used the Epson holder finding the 4990 one just fine. You could also just put varying thickness of post-it note paper under the Epson holder too to vary your height. Or at least try and see if it works.
All this said, and as mentioned above, do not expect miracles in sharpness by just varying the height. The Epsons can give excellent results for web use of your images or printing up to about 10x10 but if you want to ultimate in sharpness, tonality and dmax you will have to go dedicated film scanner. I'm a big proponent of the Epson flatbeds and have some great prints from my MF scans but recently got a Nikon 9000 and while useful within their limitations the results are truly night and day.
Although I have not seen them I'm guessing the holders for the 750 are as good or better than the 4990 as I did watch as the holders get better and better from my Epson 1200U to 2450 to 4990.
I would recommend testing using post-in notes in varying heights to see if you get any improvement in sharpness laying the film almost flat, then adding a few post-it's at a time. Only if you do see improvement above the standard holder will you see improvement using Fisher variable height holders. Since it appeared mine was best almost on the glass and the Epson holder held the film lower than the standard no-adjustable Fisher holder it would not have benefited me with my Epson scanner unit.
Overall I was not thrilled with the t-locks as some were too loose and came out just as I placed the holder into my unit, and in time they also changed their tightness. It's why I eventually stopped using it and used the Epson holder finding the 4990 one just fine. You could also just put varying thickness of post-it note paper under the Epson holder too to vary your height. Or at least try and see if it works.
All this said, and as mentioned above, do not expect miracles in sharpness by just varying the height. The Epsons can give excellent results for web use of your images or printing up to about 10x10 but if you want to ultimate in sharpness, tonality and dmax you will have to go dedicated film scanner. I'm a big proponent of the Epson flatbeds and have some great prints from my MF scans but recently got a Nikon 9000 and while useful within their limitations the results are truly night and day.
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeL
Go Fish
Like Rich I've been very happy with the 9000. But unless you get the film flat it's not a huge improvement. In thread linked below I posted an example using Nikon's holder and then modified with a $38 piece of anti-Newton glass. By modified I just removed Nikon's hold-down and put the glass in place. A piece of electrical tape prevents it from moving on one end and the weight holds down all but very curled negatives. And then I bring out the books from college that I never read for some flattening time.
Keeping the film flat
Keeping the film flat
R
rich815
Guest
Not to send the thread off on a tangent, but the rotating glass holder for the 9000 makes ALL the difference and is worth it's weight in gold.
Richard
Richard
MikeL said:Like Rich I've been very happy with the 9000. But unless you get the film flat it's not a huge improvement. In thread linked below I posted an example using Nikon's holder and then modified with a $38 piece of anti-Newton glass. By modified I just removed Nikon's hold-down and put the glass in place. A piece of electrical tape prevents it from moving on one end and the weight holds down all but very curled negatives. And then I bring out the books from college that I never read for some flattening time.
Keeping the film flat
DavidH
Overweight and over here
Thanks for the help...
I'm using the V700 for 645 MF film and have been generally pleased with the results so far. I ran tests on initial scans with the epson holders - to set the height - there was one setting that gave better results than the other 2. I like the idea of using PostIt notes to test further - good simple advice...wish I'd thought of it...
The epson holders are flimsy, but I've had no real problems with film flatness - if the height of holder is tested as a non issue then I guess the doug fisher ones dont offer me much extra.
"Taking your pictures with state of the art 35mm film cameras and lenses to scan them on a flatbed is simply irrespectful of your imaging chain..."
I use a KM5400 for 35mm. But it should be remembered that film scanners are expensive (buying the KM was the single most expensive purchase I'd made in photography at the time!) - and out of the range of many for whom photography is a hobby...
cheers
I'm using the V700 for 645 MF film and have been generally pleased with the results so far. I ran tests on initial scans with the epson holders - to set the height - there was one setting that gave better results than the other 2. I like the idea of using PostIt notes to test further - good simple advice...wish I'd thought of it...
The epson holders are flimsy, but I've had no real problems with film flatness - if the height of holder is tested as a non issue then I guess the doug fisher ones dont offer me much extra.
"Taking your pictures with state of the art 35mm film cameras and lenses to scan them on a flatbed is simply irrespectful of your imaging chain..."
I use a KM5400 for 35mm. But it should be remembered that film scanners are expensive (buying the KM was the single most expensive purchase I'd made in photography at the time!) - and out of the range of many for whom photography is a hobby...
cheers
iml
Well-known
I use a V700 too. I assumed (because everybody said so) that I would need improved holders for MF. Large prints from 6x6 on A3 paper look fine to me with the standard holders, so I'm not going to bother. They are flimsy, and they do need a bit of height adjustment, but they seem to work OK.
Ian
Ian
Jamie123
Veteran
I don't know what the holders for the V750 look like but the main reason why I bought one of Doug Fisher's holders for my Epson 4990 is that it lets me scan film strips of three 6x6 frames as opposed to the Epson holder that only takes two-frame strips.
S
svwa
Guest
Epsons failure filmholders
Epsons failure filmholders
For me it is a scandal that Epson provides such bad and flimpsy filmholders to such an exellant scanner as V700. The price in Sweden for the scanner was about 700 $ and the filmholders are like picked up from a cheap plastic modell DIY-kit.
Curved film are impossible to get flat in the Epson filmholders and the scann-result in these cases are bad and useless.
Furthermore one must also always use white cotton gloves, becourse it is impossibly to get the film in place without touching the filmplane / filmemulsion.
The immediate existens of third part film holders - like Doughs - is a clear evidence of the failure of Epsons engineers in this respect.
Recovery Epson !!!
Epsons failure filmholders
For me it is a scandal that Epson provides such bad and flimpsy filmholders to such an exellant scanner as V700. The price in Sweden for the scanner was about 700 $ and the filmholders are like picked up from a cheap plastic modell DIY-kit.
Curved film are impossible to get flat in the Epson filmholders and the scann-result in these cases are bad and useless.
Furthermore one must also always use white cotton gloves, becourse it is impossibly to get the film in place without touching the filmplane / filmemulsion.
The immediate existens of third part film holders - like Doughs - is a clear evidence of the failure of Epsons engineers in this respect.
Recovery Epson !!!