Is the EPSON V700 scanner "good enough" for 35mm?

V

Vickko

Veteran
Local time
5:23 AM
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
2,827
Can I have your collective wisdom, is the EPSON V700 scanner "good enough" for 35mm?

For medium format?

For 4x5?

My quick internet search suggests that it isn't good enough for 35mm, but fine for the rest.

Assume wanting to print photos up to 8x10.

Vick
 
v700

v700

That's my experience too.

Good enough for web display or small prints from 35mm, but not 8x10 prints.

It is fine with 120 and LF sheet film.
 
I've done quite a lot of 8x10 prints from my V700's scans and they're plenty good enough for me ... it depends on what you want I guess!

You have to sharpen them a little beyond what looks acceptable on your monitor though to get a decent result.
 
Vickko said:
Can I have your collective wisdom, is the EPSON V700 scanner "good enough" for 35mm? -- Assume wanting to print photos up to 8x10.
Click to expand...
I have not printed any of my V700 35-mm scans that big (20 cm on the short side), in part due to negative comments about the scan quality. The largest prints I have made are about 20 cm (8 in) on the long side, and they are good. For small prints (10x15), the quality is certainly sufficient.

I am planning on doing larger prints, since the biggest I tried was so good. The quality at these sizes will probably depend on the subject matter and the post-processing effort.

Edit. Seeing what Keith just posted, I tend to agree with his take.
 
Last edited:
Good enough is very subjective. It really depends on what you plan on doing with your images. If you want to print large then I'd say no it's not good enough for 35mm. If it's for smaller prints or viewing on a screen then sure it's fine. It works well for me but my demands aren't very demanding.

It is very good for medium format and larger.
 
It is not good for film which is not flat. 35mm film tends to have a fairly significant arch.

You can counteract this with a piece of anr glass, which has worked pretty well for me.

It works very well for mounted slides (or negatives mounted in slide mounts). That being said, I wouldn't go much past 8x10 (from 35mm) on general principle. I don't do that in enlargers either.
 
Truly depends on your standards, I've seen great results from 35mm and flatbeds, actually really quite sharp. ANR glass helps *a lot*, and I think unless you're really fussy, the V700 is quite acceptable for 35mm unless you want to enlarge big.
 
A good question at this point may be "what are your alternatives?"

Dedicated 35mm scanners are either not any better, getting old and/or getting very expensive. And they only scan 35mm.
 
The V700 is good enough for me to print scanned 35mm frames in A3 size (420mm on the long side) but it requires flat film.
 
You may not see any difference unless you compare the file to a good dedicated film scanner. A flatbed is not as good as a film scanner just by it's innate design. In my experience, using an Epson 2450 (old, but well designed scanner), there was a noticeable drop off of quality from my 4x5 and 120 scans, which looked wonderful by the way, when I scanned 35mm. Why not get a Minolta Scan Dual II or III for your 35mm? That's what I did and it worked great. The Minoltas are not much money. I think it's just asking too much from a flatbed scanner to do a tiny 35mm neg. It would lose quite a bit of detail. But again, w/o a good scan for a reference point....maybe good enough.
 
I really depends on what is 'good enough' for you. I have a Microtek F1 which is about the same as the V700 (just makes more troubles :bang:). My experience is that you get a nice looking print (up close) with enlargement factor up to 4 or 5. That would mean print of about 5x7" from 35mm or 16x20" from 4x5.

But there is always a catch. You can indeed make a 8x enlargement from 35mm - about 8x10". However - that is still not a large image and one would have the tendency to look at it from close distance - and may not be satisfied with the quality. If you make a large print from 4x5" scan - say 22x30" (I did) - it is also already behind the edge quality wise. However it is still "just" 6x enlargement, but it is already a large print and usually you would not look at it from 10". I did a print of that size (pretty much a poster) from 4x5" from my F1 and it looks pretty nice (no doubt that better scan would yield even better print).

The medium format falls in between.

Not to forget is that true resolution is not everything - D-max is also important as is the (true) bit depth of the final scan. Both of these will have strong impact on the quality of the image and on how the image will handle post processing.

A lot of depends also on the subject (detailed landscape or portrait) and on the film used (slow speed slide film or 400 ISO BW).

I personally do not bother with 35mm - not only because of the quality, but also because of the time needed to scan so many frames. Scanning really is the least attractive part of the process (at least for me)
 
The truth is, that the quality of 35mm scan from a good, dedicated scanner (like Nikon or Minolta ones) will always surpass the quality which you can get from even best flatbeds. I've seen a couple of Epsons in action and not a single one could stand up to my Konica Minolta Scan Dual IV (not to mention better models of Minoltas).

The main difference is in the shadows, and highlights.
 
Larry H-L said:
That's my experience too.

Good enough for web display or small prints from 35mm, but not 8x10 prints.

It is fine with 120 and LF sheet film.
Click to expand...

X3

In 35mm, it's better than a proof. Need to send out any of your best, but it's fine for the all the rest.
 
I have once found a scan comparison of 6x6 slide on flickr - one sacn was made with Epson V700 (or there about) and one with Coolscan 9000. While both scans looked good, even resized down to only 1024x1024 the difference was obvious - much finer and more natural looking detail from the Nikon (like better micro contrast). To me the reason is obvious - as the scans from flatbed are simply not really sharp/detailed even when you scale down to much smaller size, part of the softness will remain. Indeed a lot can be improved with suitable resizing and sharpening technique, but the final result will not be able to match the clarity and detail from better scanner.

In the end - it is matter of what one needs/wants and can afford.
 
Matus said:
I have once found a scan comparison of 6x6 slide on flickr - one sacn was made with Epson V700 (or there about) and one with Coolscan 9000. While both scans looked good, even resized down to only 1024x1024 the difference was obvious - much finer and more natural looking detail from the Nikon (like better micro contrast). To me the reason is obvious - as the scans from flatbed are simply not really sharp/detailed even when you scale down to much smaller size, part of the softness will remain. Indeed a lot can be improved with suitable resizing and sharpening technique, but the final result will not be able to match the clarity and detail from better scanner.

In the end - it is matter of what one needs/wants and can afford.
Click to expand...

I agree with this proposal.

Just because you enlarge it less doesnt mean you can make up for fundamental differences in a negative or scan unless the enlargement factors are very different.

A good 35mm neg/slide printed to 8x10 looks better to me than a slightly mushy 6x6 negative printed to the same size. And similarly, the result out of my university's coolscan 9000 absolutely blew the doors off of anything I could get out of one of the flatbeds with inserts (which we had to use for a while).
 
If I were to buy a scanner just for 35mm, it wouldn't be a flatbed. I have the v750 so that I can inexpensively scan 4x5. Sometimes I rent time on an Imacon for better 4x5 scans, but it depends on the purpose of the final output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom