Making prints with v700 - how big?

P

pryan9

Member
Local time
7:06 PM
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
47
So Ive been thinking about buying a v700 for awhile now and wanted to know what I could expect for making prints. How big can I go with 6x6 medium format negs before it starts to resample and create pixels? What about 35mm?
 
Thanks for the link. After a quick glance it seems that if the scanning resolution is really only 2300 I wouldn't have enough pixels to print an 8x12??
 
pryan9 -- I don't have the V700, but I do have a V500. I like my prints sharp enough, regardless of size, that I can move my naked eye right up close and still see good sharp detail, not mush.

With the V500, I am happy with the sharpness of prints 6x the linear dimension of the negative. That gives me 12x18 prints from 6x9 negatives. For 35mm, an 8x10 would be just a little stretch, but probably good from a good negative.

The V700 is better than the V500. It's true realized resolution is probably 2000 to 2300 ppi (not the advertized 6400 ppi). You'll do a lot better on 35mm with a dedicated film scanner such as a Coolscan V or 5000. Or, send negatives to Precision (a sponsor here) for scans which are excellent.

Google my name with V500 for more.
 
The question is not simple.

Headline - the epson will manage around 2400dpi real resolution. I generaly scan at 3200dpi to try and extract this.

Then you need to decide what you want from the picture and what the subject matter is like.

I printed sharp scans from 35mm Rollei 80S scanned on both the epson and the Nikon 9000 and at 18 by 12 inches the Nikon scan was slightly, but definitiely, better. More and clearer detail. However, most people wouldn't notice unless they were looking for it...

So, better than people think and useable for a lot of stuff, but not the absolute best - Nikon, Imacon, drum...

It is though great value and well worth the money. It does medium format and large format too:)

Mike
 
One thing to note about the V700 - whilst its optical resolution is 2,300 dpi or so, it has been suggested you still need to scan at 6,400 (which is where it swaps lenses) and then downsize the image to 2,400 (so that the image is not so large and largely full of "non-existent" information). So some "resizing" is unfortunately inevitable (even if it is only downsizing) if one wishes to optimise the file size for the actual resolution contained within the files.
 
I have printed a couple of Hasselblad frames at 1m x 1m and 35mm up to A3 size, all scanned with the V700 (Epson film holder).
 
Betterscanning film holders should allow you to extract all the information possible.
16x20 from 6x7 negatives are a piece of cake with the older Epson 4990. If you need to go really big, you can print at 175dpi if you view at the appropriate distance.
 
Can someone explain for me what these numbers, from the Epson website, mean?

V700
OPTICAL RESOLUTION Dual Lens System
6400 x 9600dpi (Super Resolution Lens) with Micro Step Drive
4800 x 9600dpi (High Resolution Lens) with Micro Step Drive

If this is "Optical Resolution", not up-resed or interpolated, why are some folks stating the V700 has an optical resolution of 2300 dpi? Not arguing, just trying to make sense of it.
 
I just printed a 6x7 image at 48x38", which was scanned on a V700 at not full resolution. It looks amazing on good paper, I was really impressed. A little grainy, but thats Rodinal for you!

The printer I use has some really large (atleast 30" on the long side) prints taken with a Leica M7 which he scanned with a V700. They are remarkable, but like he says, scanning and (develoing for scanning) is an art just as darkroom printing is.
 
If you scan to your print size at 300dpi, in other words you create a customized target size and then scan to that at 300dpi, you can go as big as you like with this scanner, assuming of course you get the film nice and flat in the holder, I have created my own masks that go in the 4x5 film holder that work best for me, I have printed as big as 1.2 x 1 meter from a 6x9 negative that looks great scanned that way. I did several tests when I purchased mine and discovered that by far the best results are from scanning at 300dpi to a target size, over scanning to original size at any other higher dpi then resizing.

By the way, this is the method used by commercial drum scanners for the printing industry etc, which is why if you have ever had a scan done professionally they will ask you what size you want to print to.
 
Last edited:
scanning is a skill as valuable and essential as any other aspect of your work, give 5 people the same scanner and same neg and you will get 5 distinctly different scans. read this for some great advice http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V750/page_2.htm it is very good. especially take notice of the +- settings on the film holders and move them to + for sharper scans! they come for some strange reason set on -? never could figure that out!
 
Harry S. said:
I just printed a 6x7 image at 48x38", which was scanned on a V700 at not full resolution. It looks amazing on good paper, I was really impressed. A little grainy, but thats Rodinal for you!

The printer I use has some really large (atleast 30" on the long side) prints taken with a Leica M7 which he scanned with a V700. They are remarkable, but like he says, scanning and (develoing for scanning) is an art just as darkroom printing is.
Click to expand...

My experience is that slightly thinner negs scan far better, if I know I am going to be scanning negs I shoot normal but hold back slightly on dev time, keeping temp agitation etc as normal, it's something though you would have to experiment with, for me it is now instinctual and I go with my feelings, therefore it helps to dev film soon after shooting so you can remember what the light was like etc :)
 
aperture64 said:
I think there is a lot of misinformation about scanning. I have read the betterscanning holders are the way to go and improve image quality. On the other hand, I have read that they didn't make a difference, except for film that is curved. I also once started a thread on here a while ago that asked how people scan and why. I used an 8x12 inch scan as an example. I didn't understand why some people scan at 2400 dpi at 100%. Or scan at 6400 dpi at 100% and down size the image. Or scan with an output of 8x12 at 300 dpi. The result of the thread was a lot of "how I do it" and not "why I do it" answers. No one could give a concrete answer to the benefits of having a huge file. I think everyone subscribes to the idea that bigger is better and a huge file has lots of information, but there is a limit as to how much the scanner can record. I have even done my own tests on my V700 and had to look for a long time to find the difference in scan variations of the same negative.
Click to expand...

So why not tell us the result of your experiments ? I cannot speak for other forum members in other threads, but the information on "why I do it" is easy to find with a simple Google search (as is the answer to the optical resolution question: Epson use a reasonably crappy optical lens and judge "optical performance" by the maximum DIGITAL resolution - surely no one here would ever get caught up in believing a manufacturer's quoted specifications as an absolute without some form of "massaging" from the marketing department).

Here is a website which discusses the resolution and the reason to downsize:

http://filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV700Photo.html

Here is a reasonable discussion (be warned though - it is a forum) from people discussing their results, what they do and why:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00WFNG

I personally have been doing a lot of research on the V700 recently (versus the Coolscan 9000), and have not found anyone who suggested the betterscan holder did not provide at least some benefit.

Here are some other sites just to add to the discussion of actual resolution:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18887

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/resolution-epson-v700-1914/

http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_1.htm
 
aperture64 said:
That's what I meant by "No one could give a concrete answer to the benefits".
Click to expand...

What is more concrete and cast in stone than my total process from loading film to hanging prints delivers the quality I look for in a photograph? Quality that requires little to know adjustment in Lightroom? Quality that a few people have been willing to pay money for?

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

My scanning procedure is dead bang simple.
Epsonscan running on an Epson 1680 scanner.
Set black & white points to the ends of the histogram.
Adjust gamma to suit my eye and taste for the particular image.
Scan at: 2400 for 35mm slides, 2100 for 6x6 & 6x7 negatives, 1600 for 4x5.
Save as 16 bit TIFF files.
Open in Lightroom
Crop, adjust, sharpen as needed.
Print.
Done.

I tried the green channel only thing. I couldn't see any difference. As for oversampling and downsizing, I'm not even sure that I know how to do it. I don't do it because I am satsfied with my results to date.

That's my story. Cast in stone. I am sticking to it.
Why? Becasue it works for me. 'Nuff said.

ps: Does anyone know what the real resolution of photo inkjet paper is? Given the cost of Epson scanners and the quality that can be achieved, they are a miracle.
 
Last edited:
Biggest I've ever printed from 6x6 film scans with the V700 is 50cm by 50cm, looks great to my eye. I'd be confident about going quite a bit bigger too, but it really depends on personal standards.
 
I have never had a problem with sharpness from the V series Epson flatbeds. However, quality is not all sharpness and I have never been able to get a good quality scan from one, and it has never translated well into a print for me. Some claim to be successful with the V700, but maybe they have more skill on the computer than I or we have different standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom