mcgrattan
Well-known
I always think people really struggle with post-processing [no offense intended! Honest!]. I used to get better results from an ancient and not-good-at-all Perfection 2400 than I see a lot of people producing from both Coolscans and V series Epson scanners. It's really worth learning how to use sharpening and level adjustments properly.
For me, personally, the results I got from a Perfection 10000XL [the A3 format flatbed scanner] were easily good enough when compared to a Coolscan. Not quite as sharp, not quite as much shadow detail, but quicker and easier by a factor of 10 and with much less need to fiddle with settings to avoid obtrusive grain. I did prefer the Coolscan for 35mm slide film, but on black and white and colour negative film, the 10000XL was pretty solid.
For me, personally, the results I got from a Perfection 10000XL [the A3 format flatbed scanner] were easily good enough when compared to a Coolscan. Not quite as sharp, not quite as much shadow detail, but quicker and easier by a factor of 10 and with much less need to fiddle with settings to avoid obtrusive grain. I did prefer the Coolscan for 35mm slide film, but on black and white and colour negative film, the 10000XL was pretty solid.
maddoc
... likes film again.
Now don't go insulting one of Doc's favorite lenses, the pre-asph summilux.I borrowed one and this was a crop of a f2 shot of a negative I just scanned.
The 50mm Summilux pre-ASPH E46
Indeed one of my favorite lenses !
MikeL
Go Fish
Oops, I should have clarified Doc, it's the 35mm pre-asph. I'd like to get one at some point, but I have too much as it is.
I'm with mcgratten, post processing can really influence the scan. Both of the above could be improved, but they are 100% crops. The difference isn't noticeable when you look at the scans at a normal size.
To me, buying a coolscan for web scans is like me buying a 35mm summilux asph. I get clean, sharp-to-the-corners, crappy photographs.
I'm with mcgratten, post processing can really influence the scan. Both of the above could be improved, but they are 100% crops. The difference isn't noticeable when you look at the scans at a normal size.
To me, buying a coolscan for web scans is like me buying a 35mm summilux asph. I get clean, sharp-to-the-corners, crappy photographs.
Now don't go insulting one of Doc's favorite lenses, the pre-asph summilux.
No insult to one of Doc's favourite lenses intended
The softness in the image has more to do with the scanner settings There's also more detail in the shadows in the first crop, and the shadows in the second crop look very blue (at least on my monitor they do).
Here's an animated gif of the two crops. Should be easier to spot the differences with the images overlayed.
Last edited:
gdi
Veteran
I overlooked the OP's comment about web use only - you are right, no need for a $500 scanner for that. I'd probably go with this for $119 ...
http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/consumer/consDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=53540925
(Printing with a wide carriage printer changes things of course.)
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I have tried over and over and over to get good web results from my V500. It is fine for someone that barely does any post-processing. But I do a lot of levels adjustments, color adjustments and sharpening. After lots of tests, this is the best I could get out of my V500.
And this is the best I could get from my Walmart scan.
And this is the best I could get from my Walmart scan.
venchka
Veteran
One thing I have found when dealing with digitized film images and software manipulation: Less is more.
On the other hand, I may not be trying to get the same effect that you are. I am also scanning black & white negatives.
YMMV.
On the other hand, I may not be trying to get the same effect that you are. I am also scanning black & white negatives.
YMMV.