john341
camera user
I am thinking of getting a negative film scanner and the V500 has come up at a good (?) price around $300. Does anyone have any experience with this model. Thanks. John
Epson v500
- Thread starter john341
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 68
- Views 16K
jammcat
Lick My Lens Cap
Terrible price, great scanner.
BH selling for $144 new:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496399-REG/Epson_B11B189011_Perfection_V500_Flatbed_Photo.html
BH selling for $144 new:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496399-REG/Epson_B11B189011_Perfection_V500_Flatbed_Photo.html
john341
camera user
kokoshawnuff
Alex
Wonderful scanner for the price. I never made a print larger than 8x12 when I had a V500, but it looked like it could have produced decent results even larger.
john341
camera user
This is new territory for me .. is the V500 suitable for scanning 6x6 negs do you think, as well as 35mm?
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
135 for web use, fine. For 120 you can get scans good enough for 8x10 prints easy. I've had mine for 2 and a half years, and for the price its very good. If I want better scans I send out, once in a blue moon.
kokoshawnuff
Alex
Any flatbed will produce better results as the negative gets larger (6x6 will be great), but always had good experiences with 35mm too
john341
camera user
I appreciate the replies - sounds ok for me and the price is pretty reasonable. Thanks again all!
wojtek
Established
Forget it for 35mm, dynamic range is quite pathetic. For 6x6 and above it's actually pretty good.
charjohncarter
Veteran
You can adjust the black and white histograms to include all 35mm negative information. Then readjust in PS or whatever later. I've never had this complaint about the V500.
Sunny day outside, no artificial light inside:
boomguy57
Well-known
I like it for 120, but for 135 I find it isn't the best, and I've tried a lot of settings. For web use it's sufficient, but for making large prints I wouldn't trust it to be honest.
There aren't a lot of affordable options for scanners, however...
There aren't a lot of affordable options for scanners, however...
k__43
Registered Film User
I'd consider a canon 8800f or 9000f, their resolution is about the same.
I had one and compared it to the V500. I found the V500 had a slight advantage in shadow detail on slides so I kept it.
disadvantages are:
- known for weird lines on medium format scans (just rescan solves the issue but it is annoying)
- can't scan BW400CN .. it really looks like ****, dunno why
- the negative holders are a joke! with the canon you can at least scan 3 frames of 6x6
it is ok for medium format and for internet sized scans of 35mm (well actually you can print them too, but I prefer the output of a plustek dedicated 35mm scanner)
I had one and compared it to the V500. I found the V500 had a slight advantage in shadow detail on slides so I kept it.
disadvantages are:
- known for weird lines on medium format scans (just rescan solves the issue but it is annoying)
- can't scan BW400CN .. it really looks like ****, dunno why
- the negative holders are a joke! with the canon you can at least scan 3 frames of 6x6
it is ok for medium format and for internet sized scans of 35mm (well actually you can print them too, but I prefer the output of a plustek dedicated 35mm scanner)
nakedcellist
Established
I have one. Together with silverfast it works quite well. It is good for medium format. It's usable for 35mm. Still struggling with it and silverfast settings to avoid blowouts.
Dwig
Well-known
If you are having issues with one particular film or group of similar films it may be the automated dust removal. Disable Digital ICE and, if using EpsonScan, the non-ICE based dust removal options.
froyd
Veteran
Compared to minilab scan produced at higher resolution than possible on a v500, (Costco's Frontier machines,e.g.) wouldn't the advantage of the flatbed be that despite its lower technical specifications, it allows the user to decide which setting are more appropriate to the image recorded on the negative, for instance, compensating for underexposure or recovering more fine highlight detail in the images that warrant it?
v_roma
Well-known
This is my thinking as well and why I keep wondering whether I should get a scan. There are pro labs that will do those types of adjustment for you during scanning but a handfull of rolls scanned at those labs would pay for a scanner. And, obviously, even pro labs can't read your mind as far as what you want you want the scan to look like.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
This is actually really not true at all, as someone already pointed out :bang: The v500 can handle difficult negatives better than any scanner I have ever used, period.
The V500 is slightly worse than my old Minolta Scan Dual II for 35mm, so for a flatbed it is actually very good. As for 120, I don't think there is a cheaper way to scan that yourself in really good quality than a V500.
Sure, it is not an Imacon or Nikon 9000, but for something this cheap it is excellent. Check out for yourself, the original is scanned at 2400dpi:
Germany 2012: Volkswagen Museum by Ronald_H, on Flickr
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Weird. I have never tried to scan that film on my V500, but in my Coolscan V is works very well, much better in fact than 'real' BW.
Btw, Infrared dust reduction will work for BW400CN, as it is a C41 film.
Joe AC
Well-known
Hey Roland, thats great. How large have you printed with this scanner and 35mm negs? I have the V600 and am trying to get the best results that I can get out of it for prints. Can you share your scanning technique?This is actually really not true at all, as someone already pointed out :bang: The v500 can handle difficult negatives better than any scanner I have ever used, period.
The V500 is slightly worse than my old Minolta Scan Dual II for 35mm, so for a flatbed it is actually very good. As for 120, I don't think there is a cheaper way to scan that yourself in really good quality than a V500.
Sure, it is not an Imacon or Nikon 9000, but for something this cheap it is excellent. Check out for yourself, the original is scanned at 2400dpi:
Germany 2012: Volkswagen Museum by Ronald_H, on Flickr
Thanks
Joe
Paddy C
Unused film collector
The real question is: what are your options?
If you understand and accept the limitations of the V500 (I have a V700) then you'll be fine and probably happy.
You'll need to develop you scanning/post processing workflow and keep your print size reasonable.
As I said, what else is there? Are you going to drop $15K on an Imacon (or whatever they cost) or pay for lab scanning all the time?
If you understand and accept the limitations of the V500 (I have a V700) then you'll be fine and probably happy.
You'll need to develop you scanning/post processing workflow and keep your print size reasonable.
As I said, what else is there? Are you going to drop $15K on an Imacon (or whatever they cost) or pay for lab scanning all the time?
