lic4
Well-known
Seems wise to me; i didn't know such a thing existed.
mfogiel
Veteran
Jamie, you are not necessarily being cheap, but the best solution is not to add too many glass surfaces to the equation, as a flatbed has it's own glass to start with, and then there are 2 extra problems: Newton's rings, and height adjustment. You could cope with the Newton rings by using a cut out thick paper mask to place on top of the negative and below the top glass. You also could try placing the negative, mask and glass on top of the glass plate of the scanner and scan in the 8x10 mode.
jamiewakeham
Long time lurker
Hmm. I'd wondered about just putting the negs straight onto the glass of the flatbed and pinning them down with a sheet of ANG, but evidence seems to be that the height of the neg above the bed is critical to sharpness.
Wonders - how do shooters of 8x10" film get round this? Is it just that their negs are so damn big that they don't need the extra sharpness?
If I can find some ANG I'll give this a try...
Wonders - how do shooters of 8x10" film get round this? Is it just that their negs are so damn big that they don't need the extra sharpness?
If I can find some ANG I'll give this a try...
agi
Well-known
clintock said:
Thanks for this link. The toothpick DIY trick worked for my 9950f as I was getting major Newton Rings.
kuzano
Veteran
You should definitely try the OEM MF holder....
You should definitely try the OEM MF holder....
That way, when you compare it to the one you are using, you will immediately throw the OEM one in a recycling bin somewhere. One of the problems with our society is that we hang onto worthless crap and drag it around through move after move.
Furthermore, if you are keeping the OEM one because you may someday sell the scanner and give the new owner the OEM one instead...... Would you really do that to someone????
You should definitely try the OEM MF holder....
The guy I bought my Epson 4490 from sold me the 120 holder he'd gotten from Doug as well. I haven't even tried the stock holder. At some point I may get the glass Doug offers, too, if I get good and tired of the occasional Newton rings
That way, when you compare it to the one you are using, you will immediately throw the OEM one in a recycling bin somewhere. One of the problems with our society is that we hang onto worthless crap and drag it around through move after move.
Furthermore, if you are keeping the OEM one because you may someday sell the scanner and give the new owner the OEM one instead...... Would you really do that to someone????
venchka
Veteran
OR, you keep the original holder in case something happens to the good holder and you HAVE to make a scan before the replacement good holder arrives.
OR, you use the orginal holders from time to time to remind you how good the good holders really are.
OR, you use the orginal holders from time to time to remind you how good the good holders really are.
venchka
Veteran
Keep us posted on your results/impressions/likes/dislikes about the betterscanning holders. I have a scanner headed my way and I have started a Betterscanning holder fund.
sfb_dot_com
Well-known
Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but...
I remember other threads from on here where the 35mm mounts were slated and the 120 ones deemed ok. I have the V750, and do not (generally) have this problem. I therefore find the OEM mounts perfectly OK for my needs. There are lots of ways in which poor results, note I use the word poor deliberately, can be obtained using these scanners. Getting good results OTOH does require patience, but once a workflow has been arrived it can be achieved consistently.
I feel that on this forum overall, there is far far too much obsessing over 'sharpness' and not enough on other equally important components of what makes a picture 'good' as opposed to 'poor'
Oh well, I expect some backlash from this post, but I feel the point had to be made. By all means, spend the money on these mounts. If you are doing a lot of scanning, or most of your film stock is curly, it may be helpful. However, I feel that greater changes can be made by paying more attention to other aspects of the workflow.
Regards to all
Andy
I remember other threads from on here where the 35mm mounts were slated and the 120 ones deemed ok. I have the V750, and do not (generally) have this problem. I therefore find the OEM mounts perfectly OK for my needs. There are lots of ways in which poor results, note I use the word poor deliberately, can be obtained using these scanners. Getting good results OTOH does require patience, but once a workflow has been arrived it can be achieved consistently.
I feel that on this forum overall, there is far far too much obsessing over 'sharpness' and not enough on other equally important components of what makes a picture 'good' as opposed to 'poor'
Oh well, I expect some backlash from this post, but I feel the point had to be made. By all means, spend the money on these mounts. If you are doing a lot of scanning, or most of your film stock is curly, it may be helpful. However, I feel that greater changes can be made by paying more attention to other aspects of the workflow.
Regards to all
Andy
robertdfeinman
Robert Feinman
I got one very soon after he started making them for my Epson 4870. I had trouble with
the Tlocks not staying in place when I moved the holder from my light box to the scanner. The slight flexing when I lift the holder changes the tension on them.
This turned out to be more of an annoyance than the original holder even though I can
scan two 6x7 at a time instead of one.
I haven't tried the glass option, but I remember spending a lot of time cleaning glass carriers in my enlarger and wouldn't look forward to that again. Perhaps with digital dust removal during the scanning process it isn't an issue.
the Tlocks not staying in place when I moved the holder from my light box to the scanner. The slight flexing when I lift the holder changes the tension on them.
This turned out to be more of an annoyance than the original holder even though I can
scan two 6x7 at a time instead of one.
I haven't tried the glass option, but I remember spending a lot of time cleaning glass carriers in my enlarger and wouldn't look forward to that again. Perhaps with digital dust removal during the scanning process it isn't an issue.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Andy,
One thing to keep in mind is that the V750 mounts are a lot better than some of the previous ones. I don't know what the V700 is like but for the 3200's (which are similar, I think, to the 48xx line), you actually crinkled your film when you put it in the holder, unless it was cut to the exact size of the holder opening. And I don't think it was for 6x6 so you almost certainly would end up bending part of your film.
I'm not sure that I understand you comment about sharpness vs the other attributes that make a photograph good. They are not mutually exclusive. But if I take a photo that is "good" (by whomever's standards it is deemed as such), I would want the scan to be as sharp as possible, so that I can get the most detail out of it. Certainly a holder that bends film isn't going to do that for me across the entire frame.
I am not lashing out at you on this, but you are making a few presumptions about the workflow of others. The betterscanning mounts don't solve all of the issues such as flatness, by the way. For instance, the t-mount 120 holders and even with the AN glass, if you have film that bows in the middle, it'll still have that and you will lose sharpness in the middle or sides (depending on whether you have the adjustable height model).
allan
One thing to keep in mind is that the V750 mounts are a lot better than some of the previous ones. I don't know what the V700 is like but for the 3200's (which are similar, I think, to the 48xx line), you actually crinkled your film when you put it in the holder, unless it was cut to the exact size of the holder opening. And I don't think it was for 6x6 so you almost certainly would end up bending part of your film.
I'm not sure that I understand you comment about sharpness vs the other attributes that make a photograph good. They are not mutually exclusive. But if I take a photo that is "good" (by whomever's standards it is deemed as such), I would want the scan to be as sharp as possible, so that I can get the most detail out of it. Certainly a holder that bends film isn't going to do that for me across the entire frame.
I am not lashing out at you on this, but you are making a few presumptions about the workflow of others. The betterscanning mounts don't solve all of the issues such as flatness, by the way. For instance, the t-mount 120 holders and even with the AN glass, if you have film that bows in the middle, it'll still have that and you will lose sharpness in the middle or sides (depending on whether you have the adjustable height model).
allan