I hate my V500 ;)

Kenny, sorry for the late reply... school calls. Night before the deadline 🙂

Anyway, if you still want the answer... YES I did sharpen them. I do it in lightroom, I set the sharpening to 20. I do this for all my photos though, digital or film... so take it with a grain of salt.

I'd say the epson V500 can get most of the detail from the negative... though it definitely does fudge some details. My best scans are of film that's been flattened prior to scanning. Flattened film can get you quite a bit of detail! I've been thinking of getting some ANR glass to ensure that I get flat scans.
 
I have the Canonscan 9000f which apparently is very similar to the V500. I also have the Plustek 7600, and I can see a noticeable difference in the quality of the Plustek vs flatbed. The files are slightly sharper and have a higher DPI on the plustek, raising the DPI on the flatbed doesn't seem to make much of a difference above 2400 setting.

I use the flatbed for MF and LF scans, the results are really fantastic. It's quite good for 35mm too if you know how have your scanning technique down pat, I tend to scan in RAW and convert in PS as it's much faster and controllable. As others have mentioned, sufficient sharpening is the key.
 
Have you ever considered wet printing with an enlarger? If you have and it's not an option, no need to read any further.

If you have not, then you might want to give it a shot. Optical enlarging with a good lens gives the ultimate quality from a negative. You might want to read Henning Serger's posts on APUG, where he discusses film resolution, scanning vs optical printing etc. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/110218-research-development-film-3.html
 
Hey guys

Thanks for the replies! I didn't fall asleep until 3am yesterday night again haha. It's quite funny how I get worked up when I think I have done a mistake with a purchase. I will probably keep the v500 for MF, but I will definitely buy another scanner for 35mm. I just can't live with the fact that the actual resolving power of the v500 is so low, but I guess we're all different.

After reading some reviews it seems my best choice is the Reflecta ProScan 7200 because it actually delivers 90% of it's marketed resolution according to a pretty thorough review site I found for neg scanners. Turns out when I looked closer that it was in fact only "slightly" more expensive than the v500 as well, so my biggest regret is not taking more time to research it before..
 
What is "Sandgrit" glass? I can't find any info on this. Is this the proper spelling?

Highway 61 said:
There is ONE WAY (not two) to scan MF films with a flatbed scanner and here it is :
  • throw the film holders away
  • make the scanner window glass CLEAN
  • put the film ON THE GLASS and EMULSION SIDE DOWN
  • cover the scanner glass - and the film strip(s) - with a custom cut sandgrit glass sheet (fine pattern), SANDGRIT SIDE DOWN
  • close the scanner hood
  • preview, select the scanning area and scan your MF film strip(s) as TIFF files
  • export the file into PhotoShop, invert horizontally (scanned like this, the photo is left/right inverted), and post-process your images.
Used like this, any Epson scanner will do it perfectly, even the old low-cost models, and the V500 will be at its best.

The sandgrit glass sheet (price : a few cents at any hardware store) is there to avoid the Newton rings. It's a way less expensive solution than the BetterScanning holders and it works like a charm.

Ah and put some good fabric adhesive tape around the sandgrit glass sheet edges not to cut your fingers each time you want to scan something.
Click to expand...
 
kennylovrin said:
...

I used Epson Scan, and I turned everything off, so this is without any sharpening at all, no exposure adjustments, no post processing etc.
Click to expand...

venchka said:
One more time.............with one possible change: Set the output range to 0-248, instead of 0-255. This will avoid blown highlights. something Ken Lee probably doesn't have to worry about since his negatives are perfect. Good luck.

Ken Lee's Scanning Tutorial

Once upon a time, not too laong ago, I was always in a rush to get my negatives on the scanner as soon as they were dry. "Oh but no!" My negatives were plagued with curl. 120 Efke 25 was the worst. I couldn't even get the negatives to lie flat enough to close the holder lid. Meanwhile, I was working my way through negatives from the late 60s & early 70s without a problem. Then the lightbulb went on. I now place my fresh film in negative sleeves and weight them down with 2-3 books by Ansel Adams. Hoping that a pinch of Mr. Adams' wisdom will somehow seep into my negatives. After a week or 3, the negatives are much flatter.

Good luck. Scanning is an acquired art. Practice. Practice. Practice.

Wayne
Click to expand...

You won't get very far ignoring the exposure and output settings as outlined in Ken Lee's tutorial. Scan files need a decent head start. Lightroom provides a nice finish.

Wayne
 
Can you elaborate more on the Sandgrit Glass Sheet? Perhaps post a photo of your setup. I am thinking of buying a scanner for MF and am intrigued by your methodology. BTW, I have NO experience w scanning film myself... just sent a $310 order to custom lab at Precision Camera and they have been doing a good job, but that amount buys more than 1/2 of a V700 scanner!

Regards,

Kent



Highway 61 said:
There is ONE WAY (not two) to scan MF films with a flatbed scanner and here it is :
  • throw the film holders away
  • make the scanner window glass CLEAN
  • put the film ON THE GLASS and EMULSION SIDE DOWN
  • cover the scanner glass - and the film strip(s) - with a custom cut sandgrit glass sheet (fine pattern), SANDGRIT SIDE DOWN
  • close the scanner hood
  • preview, select the scanning area and scan your MF film strip(s) as TIFF files
  • export the file into PhotoShop, invert horizontally (scanned like this, the photo is left/right inverted), and post-process your images.
Used like this, any Epson scanner will do it perfectly, even the old low-cost models, and the V500 will be at its best.

The sandgrit glass sheet (price : a few cents at any hardware store) is there to avoid the Newton rings. It's a way less expensive solution than the BetterScanning holders and it works like a charm.

Ah and put some good fabric adhesive tape around the sandgrit glass sheet edges not to cut your fingers each time you want to scan something.
Click to expand...
 
venchka said:
You won't get very far ignoring the exposure and output settings as outlined in Ken Lee's tutorial. Scan files need a decent head start. Lightroom provides a nice finish.

Wayne
Click to expand...

That is true, and when I do actual scans I adjust every scan individually. This however was about testing the actual incoming data quality and every adjustment I do is to the best of my understanding a software adjustment. Which is why I did it this way. The v500 is for me really a case of polishing a turd if I may say so. 🙂 the scanner just will not resolve more data just because I adjust things. The end result may look better, but its still only 3mp data from a 35mm negative, something I find unacceptable.

But we're all different, just because I have this view doesn't mean I am right in a universal sense. 🙂 I am just not satisfied with it, and I don't see software tweaks as a solution to this specific problem I have.

I have ordered the reflecta scanner, so it will be interesting to see if it is as much better as it seems. Will probably get it on Tuesday.
 
4800 dpi jpeg cropped 1mm x 1mm jpeg expired Gold 200 MC Rokkor 50/1.7 regular holder

4800 dpi jpeg cropped 1mm x 1mm jpeg expired Gold 200 MC Rokkor 50/1.7 regular holder

Might want to try sharpening on low. What's Ken Wee say about sharpening, venchka? want to give it a try? By sangrit I think he means anti reflective, framing supply places sometimes have it cheap.
 

Attachments

  • sharp_low_059a.JPG
    sharp_low_059a.JPG
    83.6 KB · Views: 0
  • sharp_off_1x1.JPG
    sharp_off_1x1.JPG
    28.8 KB · Views: 0
  • sharp_low_1x1.JPG
    sharp_low_1x1.JPG
    33.7 KB · Views: 0
ColSebastianMoran said:
Kenny -- The V500 can produce good scans, but if you scan and peep the pixels it's a recipe for lost sleep and disappointment. Scans that look fuzzy at the pixel level can be fine when printed and can look pretty good at magnifications on screen after sharpening.

Have you made prints or displayed screen images from your scans? If not, I suggest trying this.

Any scan from any scanner needs sharpening. Any capture from a pixelated sensor needs sharpening. Any 1:1 image that looks sharp has had sharpening applied.

Here's a long thread about V500/V600 scans... Look for my posts with sample images.

In particular, here is a file ready to print at 12x18" from my V500 scan of a 6x9 negative from an excellent lens (Mamiya Press 100 f/2.8 on tripod).

My conclusion: I like a sharp print. From my V500 scans, I can get good prints up to 6x the linear dimension of negative.

Here's my test image.

100201-Mamiya-100-f28-Cheers-Img6-v500-Scr.jpg
Click to expand...

Took me exactly one second to say to myself... "hey, that's the outside of the bar, Cheers." ...from the 80s TV show, Cheers. A closer look and sure enough, I see the sign.

Amazing what images are ingrained in our minds from television, but then I can't remember what I did yesterday.
 
I can use an V500 (it isn't mine) and I want to scan film, so I select "Professional Mode" and I try to select "Film" in document type, but it isn't available.

Can you help me? Which is the problem?

Thank you very much,
Xabier.
 
At a guess -have you removed the white sheet from the lid of the scanner? Try that - if it still doesn't let you chose film then I'm afraid I haven't a clue.

Adrian
 
>>I can use an V500 (it isn't mine) and I want to scan film, so I select "Professional Mode" and I try to select "Film" in document type, but it isn't available.<<

Have you tried completely unplugging the pigtail connector for the lid of the scanner from the base of the scanner and then plugging it back in firmly?

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom