Post any scanned film image with name of scanner here

Asim

Well-known
Local time
6:58 AM
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
235
Post the following here:
1. A scanned photo
2. The name of the scanner used
3. The name and format of film scanned (35mm, 645, 6x6, 6x7 etc)
4. Any other thing you might feel is important.

I'd like to see how the scanners compare by seeing all our users' results.
 
tumblr_ms737wNG2s1qh1w8lo1_1280.jpg


Epson V700
Fuji GW670
Kodak 160 Pro
 
Nikon Coolscan V @4000dpi Silverfast SE 8 Plus scanning software, Kodak Gold 200 (not expired). I think there is just too much grain here, even with the Silverfast. I am beginning to wonder if they have the processing temps jacked up too high so the color film is grainy. Seems even too much on Fuji 100. I recall Agfa Optima II 100 was just so much smoother. I have to try Ektar 100. Anyboyd else have issues with grainy images related to C-41 processing? I'm ready for the home kits. This is G1 35mm f/2 at f/8 I believe.
hc.jpg
 
9533372016_6db897f3a0_c.jpg


Plustek 8100
35mm Acros
td-201 developer
ZM C Sonnar f1.5
All settings in scanner software (Silverfast 8) no other post processing
 
Your request is useless, unless you only want to scan for small screen viewing.
My advice, if you want to print occasionally something at least as big as 30x45cm:
For 35mm, you need a scanner that resolves at least 3800 dpi for a good quality 15 times enlargement.
For MF, you will need at least 2300 dpi, for a 9 times enlargement ( Epson V700 makes just that, provided, you can keep the film flat, and "focus" the holder).
For LF, most of the flatbeds will do OK for a small enlargement.

Mind you, this has to be EFFECTIVE resolution - e.g. Epson V750 resolves at most 2300 DPI.
You can have a look at my flickr link - 99% of that was scanned with Nikon CS 9000, and you will find a comparison between V750 and CS 9000 in the technical section.
 
Back
Top Bottom