Epson V700 and Doug Fisher / better scanning 120 holder

T

TJV

Well-known
Local time
9:32 PM
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
595
Has anyone out there had experience with using Doug Fisher's / Betterscanning.com's V-Series Variable Height Dual MF Film Holder with the Epson V700 / V750? I'm thinking that getting a V700 and one of these holders is a better option than the way more expencive Nikon 9000ED. This aftermarket holder seems to hold the film a lot flatter and it's height adjusters are a lot more variable.

Any opinions?

Thanks
 
I have one of Doug's MF holders with AN Glass inserts and use it with the Epson V750. It certainly makes for flatter and sharper scans than the OE version that comes with the scanner as its infinitely adjustable at multiple points across the base of the film holder (the OE only has 3 adjustment settings). I have the Nikon Coolscan 5000 and for me, the 35mm scans are much better than from the Epson using the MF holder and taping the 35mm film to the AN Glass Inserts.
When i have the money i will buy the 9000 as well.
 
Have you scanned any MF film using these holders? That's what I'd buy it for. The 9000ED is obviously the ultimate in home scanning but the v700 with these aftermarket scanners sound ok.
T
 
Last edited:
TJV,
I have the Epson V750 with Doug's glass holder and also the CS 9000. My point is:
Epson is ok for up to 4- 6 times enlargement, especially for the B&W silver halide film - it just seems to dig through silver better than the CS 9000, so for me if you shoot 6x7 or bigger and do not enlarge too much, it is ok, when you have your 1/100 mega shot you should scan it on Imacon or drum scanner anyway. For 35mm it is no good, and overall it is also quite slow and the dust handling is not so easy. If you want to get real quality from film, including colour slides, you should go directly to CS 9000 or better.

This is an example of the V750 scan (desaturated Astia 100):http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1107516242/in/set-72157601234693316/

And this is an example of a B&W silver scan done with the CS 9000:http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/930797593/in/set-72157600948019467/
 
Last edited:
I use the V700 for 35mm and MF. I get very good prints up to A3 from both formats. The Epson MF holders are a bit flimsy, and a pain to load, but they are capable of giving pretty good results.

All the Rolleiflex stuff here was scanned using the V700 and Epson holders:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=6884

One day I'll try the Doug Fisher holders, but I haven't found it unusable as it is out of the box.

Ian
 
Just received my BetterScanning MF film holder and ANR insert a couple of days ago, for my Epson 4490. I bought it specifically to deal with some very stiff and badly curled Chinese film - Lucky SHD-400, but also use Ilford films.

I've only spent a few hours playing with it. With the Ilford films, using the ANR glass insert means the film is perfectly flat, which makes for a good scan. With the Lucky film the curl is sufficient to lift the ANR glass clear of the film holder! I can push it down flat, but it springs up again. I'm going to fashion some sort of clips to hold the glass down, or fit some more of the rubber buffers that are fitted to the film holder to allow the lid of the scanner to push the film holder down firmly on the glass platten.

Apart from this, I think the film holder and ANR glass will give me the best possible chance of getting a decent scan from the Epson 4490 scanner.
 
I've got a 4990 that I use for 67. I've found the standard holders fine, but I use labs for developing my negatives, if you home developed your negs they might have a lot more curl and I think this is what makes the standard holders 'unusable' for some people. If you look at my flickr or my website all the film images on there were scanned with the 4990. I've also found that if scanning and printing is your workflow avoiding over exposure is critical to getting good scans. You can't really add a bit of exposure like you might do wet printing to give you a bit of safety with tricky exposures.
 
ChrisN
The solution, is to put your negs on a warm plate, press with a book and keep for a couple of hours this way - obviously keep them in the sleeves... it is apparently a good way to flatten any film.
 
TJV said:
Have you scanned any MF film using these holders? That's what I'd buy it for. The 9000ED is obviously the ultimate in home scanning but the v700 with these aftermarket scanners sound ok.
T
Click to expand...

Yes i scan all my 120 film on it at this present time.
 
This is the problem with film as I see it... There is no real world solution to scanning MF film that cost less than a black market kidney. All my MF stuff is on E6 and I like to archive, but not necessarily print, large 20x30" (@300dpi) files. My work kind of depends on it. Like most people shooting MF film, I don't want the scanning process to be the weakest link in the chain and spoil my investment in gear. I have a Nikon 5000 neg scanner which stuns me with the detail it resolves from a 35mm frame. If I scan my MF frames on a lesser scanner, that perhaps resolves a lot less detail than my dedicated 35mm scanning setup, then what's the point in shooting MF at all? I guess the moral of the story is that if you want the best you have to be prepared to pay for it...

Maybe the V700 is the best option for small proofing work and prints.
 
often a second trip through C41 chemestry, because of the relatively warm temps, can straighten out film.

ChrisN said:
Toby - what do the labs do that results in less curl?
Click to expand...
 
TJV said:
If I scan my MF frames on a lesser scanner, that perhaps resolves a lot less detail than my dedicated 35mm scanning setup, then what's the point in shooting MF at all?
Click to expand...

I think you're worrying too much. I get excellent scans from both 35mm and MF without too much effort, and frequently make large prints. I'm sure if I directly compared the output of the V700 to some much more expensive scanner I would be able to see differences, but the V700 is by no means a poor scanner, quite the opposite. You will get really good results with it, unless there's something wrong with the workflow (like everything, you need to experiment a bit at first).

Ian
 
A friend and I did a test between a Canon 9950F, A V700 and a Nikon 8000. We scanned each of the negatives on each scanner, using the scanner's native holders. We were not interested in the 100% on screen view, we were only interested in the final printed output.

The short story is that examining the final prints, the Canon was visibly softer than the V700 and 8000, and less shadow detail on slides. For prints up to approx. 16x20" from a 6x7 negative, there was virtually no difference between the V700 and 8000, much to our surprise.

I'd say go with the V700, and get the fluid mount kit from betterscanning. For those few very special negatives, pay to get them scanned on the Imacon or drum scanner.
 
I've been disappointed with the results from my Epson 4990. Yes, it is the prior generation. But it, too, was touted as being almost as good as a Nikon scanner. So I keep the 4990 for scanning prints while I save my pennies for a Nikon 9000.

I suspect that there is a great deal of sample-to-sample variation with Epson scanners.
 
TJV said:
All my MF stuff is on E6 and I like to archive, but not necessarily print, large 20x30" (@300dpi) files.
Click to expand...

Luckily for 6x7 film, that translates to only scanning at 3000dpi. But as you mentioned the resolving detail is what matters here.

If you're doing this professionally, be prepared to heavily invest. If you're doing it for fun, you're taking it way too seriously. ;)
 
If you're doing this professionally, be prepared to heavily invest. If you're doing it for fun, you're taking it way too seriously.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sort of a professional. I say sort of because I make my money teaching photography at university but my "real" job is long project work, sort of doco, sort of art... I don't want to sound like a git but I do need to invest wisely because at the end of the day a lot of my prints get bought for public and private collections.

I see a few Nikon 8000 scanners on ebay at the moment and judging by prior auctions they will sell for between $600 - $700US. Like someone said above, I guess I can always pay for really important scans for massive output, especially since most of my work end up in books and not on the wall. Thoughts?

The V700 is really tempting me and the new units one year warrenty, combined with the fact I can buy local, seems like a big plus.
 
TJV, unless you have to scan bigger than 6x9, there's no contest, To bring a high dpi Epson scan to what I get right out of the box from CS 9000, I need to apply a 2/200 USM to start with, and this is just the beginning. It is not to say you won't get scans, but if you are after MF quality, there is no discussion, You could as well shoot with a Nikon D40 to get a result like 4.5x6 with Epson... Although it will not show up too much on screen, here's a comparison of 2 shots made with the same lens and film, the first scanned on V750:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1151910889&size=l

and this one scanned on CS 9000:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1151897301&size=l
 
Your experience is very different from mine. As you say, it's hard to tell from web images, but I get great results using Epson Scan, scanning as 16 bit grayscale at 2400-3000 dpi, and doing nothing more than applying a bit of USM (generally 125%, 0.3 pixels, threshold 2) and levels adjustment in PS Elements, a maximum of 30 seconds post processing. The prints look terrific, far better than anything I can get from any digital camera I have ever owned. I expect the 9000 is a bit better, but it costs an awful lot more.

Rolleiflex 3.5 Tessar, Acros, V700:

img614.jpg


img613.jpg


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