punkzter
Established
Hi,
I have, up to now, done most of my developing and scanning at Dwayne's photos. But I am considering making the move to doing my own scanning and developing.
I was curious to find out if anyone knows how the output from an epson v550 would compare to the scans that I get from a service like Dwayne's.
Thanks!
I have, up to now, done most of my developing and scanning at Dwayne's photos. But I am considering making the move to doing my own scanning and developing.
I was curious to find out if anyone knows how the output from an epson v550 would compare to the scans that I get from a service like Dwayne's.
Thanks!
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I have this scanner.
Movie film 35mm:
bw 35 negative:
C-41 6x6:
6x9 bw negaive:
half-frame:
double frame:
6x9 C-41:
Movie film 35mm:
bw 35 negative:
C-41 6x6:
6x9 bw negaive:
half-frame:
double frame:
6x9 C-41:
punkzter
Established
What is the max print size that you could make with 35mm film? and with 120 6x6 film?
raid
Dad Photographer
Dwayne's
=========================================
=========================================
punkzter
Established
So, should I expect the scans that come from a v550 to be slightly worse than what a lab could provide? i.e. lower resolution?
x-ray
Veteran
Dwaynes probably uses a dedicated film scanners with accurate color profiles. Scanning color negs isn't as easy as it looks if you're after really good results. I'd go with Dwaynes if you're wanting really good results.
In all honesty Epson flatbeds aren't fantastic for small film unless you buy custom film carriers and spend a lot of time on getting color accurate. I have a V750 and only use it for scanning whole rolls for digital contacts or 8x10 negs. Everything from 5x7 and smaller I scan on my imacon 848. Dedicated film scanners of good quality are superior to flatbed.
Look for one of the Pako scanners.
In all honesty Epson flatbeds aren't fantastic for small film unless you buy custom film carriers and spend a lot of time on getting color accurate. I have a V750 and only use it for scanning whole rolls for digital contacts or 8x10 negs. Everything from 5x7 and smaller I scan on my imacon 848. Dedicated film scanners of good quality are superior to flatbed.
Look for one of the Pako scanners.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^ $ ? Peter
x-ray
Veteran
I forgot, I hate scanning color negs. Transparency film is a breeze but color negs are a pain.
02Pilot
Malcontent
In my experience, Dwayne's scans are adequate for small to medium prints; 35mm comes in at a nominal 3600x2400 resolution. I wasn't thrilled with them, as I found some scanning artifacts were present.
The scans from Precision Camera, by contrast, were excellent. Resolution was lower (3000x2000 nominal) but no artifacts and better colors. They offer a deal for RFF members that makes their work that much more attractive.
I've also scanned color with a Canon 8800F and PrimeFilm XA. I could never get satisfactory results with that flatbed, though the Epson may be better in that regard. The PrimeFilm is slow and the software is lousy, but the results are very good once you've jumped through the hoops.
It really all depends on what you want to do with the photos once they're scanned.
The scans from Precision Camera, by contrast, were excellent. Resolution was lower (3000x2000 nominal) but no artifacts and better colors. They offer a deal for RFF members that makes their work that much more attractive.
I've also scanned color with a Canon 8800F and PrimeFilm XA. I could never get satisfactory results with that flatbed, though the Epson may be better in that regard. The PrimeFilm is slow and the software is lousy, but the results are very good once you've jumped through the hoops.
It really all depends on what you want to do with the photos once they're scanned.
Ronald M
Veteran
Nothing is as good as you can do yourself provided you have a good scanner which you probably can not afford, say Heidelberg.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
Perfectionism can be a curse in scanning. I was there, so I know.
For ten years struggled with an obsessive need to get perfect scans and the more common sense approach that adequate is good enough. I had a Nikon Coolscan which unfortunately passed away in 2013. Checking OL prices for its replacement even almost induced cardiac arrest and I decided to look elsewhere.
Being retired and on a budget, after a bit of a search I eventually bought a secondhand Plustek 7600i on Ebay. Also Vuescan software.
Not long after I lucked into an Epson V500 (technically secondhand but never unpacked from its original box) for my 120 negatives and slides.
This may be going somewhat against the grain (pun intended) of this thread, but even with the V500 and given a bit of effort, I routinely get even 35mm scans that satisfy my clients looking for images for publication. I've yet to sell an image used as a two page spread, but for smaller images (one to four columns) in newspapers and magazines, V550 scans are adequate with some post processing and the Plustek scans are needle sharp right off the scanner. No client has yet complained.
If you shoot only 35mm, I suggest you check Ebay and acquire either a 7600i or one of the later models secondhand. They will scan only 35mm and do as good work as you will ever want or need.
We have less choice in scanners nowadays than in the past and it's important to opt for the best possible quality, but I've found that the Epsons are no slouches in that area.
Much of your success in scanning lies in reading up on the technical data for the particular scanner and then testing, testing, testing. I selected 12 images with variations in exposures, lighting, contrast etcetera, and scanned them with different settings. I also kept detailed notes.
This may be important to you. The Epson will let you scan more than one 35mm image at a time. With the Plustek, it's push-pull for every new image.
If anyone is interested in prices, the Plustek cost $A110 and the Epson $A95 on Ebay. Both were complete with everything but I couldn't use the Silverfast software for the Plustek and opted not to invest in it. Vuescan suits my needs for both scanners.
For ten years struggled with an obsessive need to get perfect scans and the more common sense approach that adequate is good enough. I had a Nikon Coolscan which unfortunately passed away in 2013. Checking OL prices for its replacement even almost induced cardiac arrest and I decided to look elsewhere.
Being retired and on a budget, after a bit of a search I eventually bought a secondhand Plustek 7600i on Ebay. Also Vuescan software.
Not long after I lucked into an Epson V500 (technically secondhand but never unpacked from its original box) for my 120 negatives and slides.
This may be going somewhat against the grain (pun intended) of this thread, but even with the V500 and given a bit of effort, I routinely get even 35mm scans that satisfy my clients looking for images for publication. I've yet to sell an image used as a two page spread, but for smaller images (one to four columns) in newspapers and magazines, V550 scans are adequate with some post processing and the Plustek scans are needle sharp right off the scanner. No client has yet complained.
If you shoot only 35mm, I suggest you check Ebay and acquire either a 7600i or one of the later models secondhand. They will scan only 35mm and do as good work as you will ever want or need.
We have less choice in scanners nowadays than in the past and it's important to opt for the best possible quality, but I've found that the Epsons are no slouches in that area.
Much of your success in scanning lies in reading up on the technical data for the particular scanner and then testing, testing, testing. I selected 12 images with variations in exposures, lighting, contrast etcetera, and scanned them with different settings. I also kept detailed notes.
This may be important to you. The Epson will let you scan more than one 35mm image at a time. With the Plustek, it's push-pull for every new image.
If anyone is interested in prices, the Plustek cost $A110 and the Epson $A95 on Ebay. Both were complete with everything but I couldn't use the Silverfast software for the Plustek and opted not to invest in it. Vuescan suits my needs for both scanners.
Last edited:
Scrambler
Well-known
I would agree with ozmoose though i havent worked as hard as him at the scanning. I have an older Plustek and would stress that you need an LED light source. The older ones are too fragile and unreliable at this stage. The numbers after the first are unimportant. Vuescan is the best option because your license isn't tied to the scanner so if you change scanner or even want to try something else Vuescan will do it. And quality is very good: I really don't think it matters for quality. I use a MF flatbed and older Canon dedicated 35mm scanner. For some images I prefer the flatbed. Slightly lower definition but it doesnt give grain aliasing. So smooth tones are smooth. Otherwise oversample and shrink your image. Which takes ages.
michaelwj
----------------
The move from sending film out for processing and scanning to doing it yourself can end up being a rabbit hole of despair and frustration but also satisfying. Be warned.
From what others have said the v550 should be fine. I second the use of Vuescan too.
My main advice is to follow a tutorial (Chris Crawford has a good one) and stick to it for a while. You will never get perfection, strive for acceptable and you will be much happier!
Colour negative is a PITA but you can adjust WB in post.
From what others have said the v550 should be fine. I second the use of Vuescan too.
My main advice is to follow a tutorial (Chris Crawford has a good one) and stick to it for a while. You will never get perfection, strive for acceptable and you will be much happier!
Colour negative is a PITA but you can adjust WB in post.
Prest_400
Multiformat
I've got a V550 (V600 sans a Software License) and used it to scan my 120 film. CN is indeed a bit of a PITA to correct, and I've spent hours on some good frames tinkering adjustments. Need more training to finetune.
Looking forward to quejai's scanner project. ATM Won't be an early adopter but fresh ideas are something great to see.
E6 can be quite a breeze, in 120. Just set the black and white points, plus some rough WB and that is. At 2400ppi without ICE a 6x9 scans quite quick. Strangely my unit seems to have irregular ICE, oftentimes it doesn't work or do anything.
35mm CN I just send out and have scanned at development. Admittedly I don't shoot that much so the cost is kept at bay. I found out a lab in UK that does reasonable prices on Large Frontier TIFF scans, and had my 120 done there too. Gives much more of that popular film look easily and I don't spend more time swearing at the scanner.
Looking forward to quejai's scanner project. ATM Won't be an early adopter but fresh ideas are something great to see.
E6 can be quite a breeze, in 120. Just set the black and white points, plus some rough WB and that is. At 2400ppi without ICE a 6x9 scans quite quick. Strangely my unit seems to have irregular ICE, oftentimes it doesn't work or do anything.
35mm CN I just send out and have scanned at development. Admittedly I don't shoot that much so the cost is kept at bay. I found out a lab in UK that does reasonable prices on Large Frontier TIFF scans, and had my 120 done there too. Gives much more of that popular film look easily and I don't spend more time swearing at the scanner.
dmr
Registered Abuser
I was under the impression that Dwayne's used a Fuji Frontier, same as Walgreens used to use except for higher resolution settings.
punkzter
Established
What is the deal that precision camera offers?
rbiemer
Unabashed Amateur
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/modules.php?name=Jig
RFF front page, left side, pink box that reads "Free developing with Ultra Hi-rez scans."
I used Dwaynes for quite a long time but have switched to Prescision Camera. About the time Kodachrome was going away. My scans from Dwaynes were ok, but the negatives returned to me were getting more and more scartches and water spots.
Rob
RFF front page, left side, pink box that reads "Free developing with Ultra Hi-rez scans."
I used Dwaynes for quite a long time but have switched to Prescision Camera. About the time Kodachrome was going away. My scans from Dwaynes were ok, but the negatives returned to me were getting more and more scartches and water spots.
Rob
punkzter
Established
So, realistically, the move would be towards scanning and developing B&W negatives. Both 35mm and 6x6 120.
Does upgrading to a v700 take care of some of the issues that the v550 has? The cost difference is fairly large ($120 vs $400 or so on ebay)
Does upgrading to a v700 take care of some of the issues that the v550 has? The cost difference is fairly large ($120 vs $400 or so on ebay)
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
I have tested the Epson V500 for scanning color negatives for post processing and printing.
I can make a sharp print 6x the linear size of the film from a good sharp negative. So, an 8x10 from the full frame of a 35mm negative will be good. 16x20 won't. (I do like a sharp print, one you can bring right up close to the eye.)
The V500 will resolve, in my tests, about 2000 line-widths per inch in one direction, but not as much in the other. Here are details:
In my tests, I found this equivalence for making prints: V500 scans of medium format = Coolscan scans of 35mm = 10MPx digital (my Nikon D200 at the time).
Precision will do better; they return a 24MPx file, 4000x6000, 13MB jpegs, from 35mm.
If you have a digital camera, have you looked at camera-scanning? To do better than a flatbed for medium format, that's the way I would go today.
I can make a sharp print 6x the linear size of the film from a good sharp negative. So, an 8x10 from the full frame of a 35mm negative will be good. 16x20 won't. (I do like a sharp print, one you can bring right up close to the eye.)
The V500 will resolve, in my tests, about 2000 line-widths per inch in one direction, but not as much in the other. Here are details:
In my tests, I found this equivalence for making prints: V500 scans of medium format = Coolscan scans of 35mm = 10MPx digital (my Nikon D200 at the time).
Precision will do better; they return a 24MPx file, 4000x6000, 13MB jpegs, from 35mm.
If you have a digital camera, have you looked at camera-scanning? To do better than a flatbed for medium format, that's the way I would go today.