remegius
Well-known
Well...my truth. I spent the better part of this afternoon trying to get the best possible scan from a 35mm BW400CN neg, and nothing I did was capable of matching the 3087x2048 scans I get from Costco. Nothing. I tweaked, I fiddled, I tried different scanning resolutions (with Vuescan), but all for naught. The V500 is a nice little scanner, and it does a credible job with MF negatives, but it just doesn't cut it for 35mm. At least IMHO. Fortunately Costco is five minutes away, and the scans they turn out with C41 BW films have printed very well, up to 11x14 so far. Still, I would like to be able to turn out very good 35mm scans at home, so I'm going to begin investigating whether or not that is possible without having to sell my soul.
Cheers...
Rem
Cheers...
Rem
martin s
Well-known
That's just your negatives way of telling you to do wet prints.
martin
martin
remegius
Well-known
paulhart
Established
I get excellent MF scans from my V500, but my CanoScan FS4000US beats it for 35mm scans. I'm due to pick up my Doug Fisher frame for MF film tomorrow, hoping that the V500 will then produce even better images.
I let Peak Imaging (a good outfit in the UK) scan my last MF film, and was pleasantly surprised to find that I was able to do better with my V500.
I let Peak Imaging (a good outfit in the UK) scan my last MF film, and was pleasantly surprised to find that I was able to do better with my V500.
mike kim
Established
I don't know about Costco, but the scans I get from the V500 look better than the ones I get from Walgreens. I think it's fine for web, which is the only reason I scan for.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I use Peak for processing C41, but don't like the Fuji scans of 35mm - they suggested that the MF scans from the Durst are better, but to be honest, I think that the only way to get good outsourced scans is to pay the (very high UK) price for an imacon or drum scan (or find someone who knows how to get the best from a Nikon and pay them).
I am pleased with my Nikon 5000, but wish I'd stumped up the extra for a 9000 when prices were lower than now... There are also some good deals currently on imacons, but they are out of my league at the moment (unless lots of UK people want to either share a scanner or use a new scanning service
)Mike
mcgrattan
Well-known
I get fairly inconsistent results with 35mm in my V500, too. However, they are better than any of the cheap priced scans I can get from minilabs, and generally print OK. They just aren't quite as good as those I've had both from a larger Epson flatbed [the 10000XL] and from a Nikon film scanner.
The fixed focus on the V500 is a pain in the arse, tbh.
The fixed focus on the V500 is a pain in the arse, tbh.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
V500 is great for the money but when I started printing for shows, I realized how soft the scans were. Saved up for a Coolscan and never looked back...though if I ever return to medium format I will pick another one up.
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Focus, or rather the lack of and the effort it takes to get it right, is the issue with all Epson prosumer flatbeds. Still, it is possible - but at 15 minutes setup per strip to get barely more than half Nikon 5000/9000 out-of-the-box quality, it is hardly efficient.
remegius
Well-known
You will not be disappointed with this frame. I got mine about a week ago, and I'm very pleased with it. Wish he'd do the same for 35mm.
Sure, it works OK for the web, where you hardly go above 1024x768, if that. But I scan for prints, and it is there that the V500 just doesn't work for me.
Cheers...
Rem
david.elliott
Well-known
I routinely print up to 8x10 from my 35mm v500 scans. The prints look great to me.
Certainly better than both local pro lab and costco scans.
Certainly better than both local pro lab and costco scans.
Thardy
Veteran
I get good 35mm scans from my Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm not sure if you can find them anymore. I got a new one from ebay for $200 a couple of years ago.
edit: It's a 35mm film scanner.
edit: It's a 35mm film scanner.
Gerry M
Gerry
Rem,
For 35mm scans; have you tried putting the neg, emulsion side down, directly on the glass and then covering with ANR glass?
Works satisfactorily for me. But maybe my level of acceptance isn't very high.
Gerry
For 35mm scans; have you tried putting the neg, emulsion side down, directly on the glass and then covering with ANR glass?
Works satisfactorily for me. But maybe my level of acceptance isn't very high.
Gerry
remegius
Well-known
remegius
Well-known
It worked. At least the scan that I did below looks better to my eye than the scans I have been doing using the Epson frame. I'll have to actually do some comparisons and see what turns up.
Cheers...
Rem
Cheers...
Rem
Roma
Well-known
Rem,
did you use the ANR glass and place the negative directly on the scanner glass?
What's a good place to get ANR glass inexpensively?
did you use the ANR glass and place the negative directly on the scanner glass?
What's a good place to get ANR glass inexpensively?
Gerry M
Gerry
Roma,
I place the neg directly on the scanner glass, emulsion side down, and then cover with ANR glass, etched side down.
ANR glass is available from Doug Fisher at Betterscanning.
Gerry
mike kim
Established
That looks pretty good, Rem. Would you mind posting comparison pics when you do them?