wakarimasen
Well-known
Thanks Robin - I am downloading now.
Best regards,
RoyM
Best regards,
RoyM
Glenn2
Well-known
The Epson 3200 does quite a decent job with the standard film holders, but you might be able to get a bit more sharpness with a custom, adjustable holder. I haven't bought one of these yet but am sure giving it serious thought.... http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/mainintro.html
Be sure to look at this link on the above site... http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_advantage.html
This is the sort of results I've gotten scanning 6x6 Rolli negs with the E-3200.... http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=627693
Most of these are E-3200 scans of 4x5" negs, 3 people shots were with 6x7 roll back.... http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=613188
Be forewarned, scans of larger negatives can generate huge files that may strain your computer power and storage space. A full resolution scan of 4x5" can generate a 500MB drive clogging TIF. Best keep things reasonable.
Presently have about 3TB of storage and recently upgraded to an i7 machine running Windows7 64 bit. Larger files are now much easier to deal with. Have been trying to archive half a century of my personal negatives as well as some my father shot while he was young. What a job!
Glenn
Be sure to look at this link on the above site... http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/vb_advantage.html
This is the sort of results I've gotten scanning 6x6 Rolli negs with the E-3200.... http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=627693
Most of these are E-3200 scans of 4x5" negs, 3 people shots were with 6x7 roll back.... http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=613188
Be forewarned, scans of larger negatives can generate huge files that may strain your computer power and storage space. A full resolution scan of 4x5" can generate a 500MB drive clogging TIF. Best keep things reasonable.
Presently have about 3TB of storage and recently upgraded to an i7 machine running Windows7 64 bit. Larger files are now much easier to deal with. Have been trying to archive half a century of my personal negatives as well as some my father shot while he was young. What a job!
Glenn
Dwig
Well-known
Odd things will happen anytime there is a very regular uniform size texture or pattern in the original, whether its film grain or half-tone dot patterns. What resolution it happens at depends on the frequency of the pattern in the original. We've all seen it happen with scans where the originals were printed material. It can also happen with film that has a crisp regular grain pattern.
I've never seen it when scanning color film, but color film has no true grain after processing. What it left are somewhat soft dye clouds where the grain had been.
With conventional B&W, I've encountered some pretty horrible interference between the scanning frequency (resolution setting) and the grain frequency. Rescanning at a somewhat different resolution, either higher or lower, is the cure.
The worst case I've encounterd involved a roll of Autographic 127 film my grandfather shot during WWI. I don't know what film type it was but assume Verichrome (pre-Verichrome Pan). The film had be shot and processed under poor conditions (processed in an poorly heated uninsulated frame bunkhouse during the winter of 1917-18. It had very regular and rather course grain and produced rather nasty results at my default scanning resolution for that old 127 film (1200ppi). I bumped the scans up to 2400ppi and the problem vanished. Most of his negs from the period scanned fine at 1200ppi.
not_in_good_order
Well-known
I agree wholeheartedly.
wakarimasen
Well-known
Super images Glen - I especially like your Land Rover, by can't agree with your opinion of snow!
Best regards,
RoyM
scottyb70
Well-known
I just bought a Microtek 120 artixscan with 3 holders. I compared the scan from the microtek to a scan from the nikon coolscan 9000 and there is such a subtle if any difference. The only problem with the microtek is it doesn't have digital ice. I just blow off my negs before I put them into the scanner and really don't have a problem
I am suprised no one mentioned this scanner.
I am suprised no one mentioned this scanner.
Chris101
summicronia
That looks like a very nice scanner - I have an i800, and it's da bomb for a flatbed. Unfortunately Microtek has scaled back their offerings in North America (or is it just the US) and does not sell that scanner here.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It was discontinued here several years ago. Polaroid sold it under their name as well, but they too quite selling it a long time ago. Was said to be an excellent scanner.
mark-b
Well-known
Question about the V500 and V700: how's the dust & scratch removal software on b&w film?
mfogiel
Veteran
You cannot use digital ICE dust remover with silver emulsions.
And to repeat a simple point: the final output quality is primarily dependent on the quality of the weakest element in your imaging chain. If we could shoot on film with a MTF of 1, with lenses with a MTF of 1 and scan with a scanner with a MTF of 1, then we would have no quality loss. Alas, we have to accept lower MTF values, and the final product is the MULTIPLICATION of the three. So, it makes as much sense to use a sharp film and a good lens, as to use a good scanner. People who buy a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad and then scan on a flatbed get a result comparable to shooting with a Seagull and scanning on a good scanner. It might appear to be more sexy to go around with a nice camera and scan in the privacy of a closed room on a crappy flatbed, but the end result will be a Seagull shot. To who says, that it depends on the enlargment size, I reply - sure, but for postcards, you might as well use a half frame compact film camera, and avoid the expense of sophisticated gear.
And to repeat a simple point: the final output quality is primarily dependent on the quality of the weakest element in your imaging chain. If we could shoot on film with a MTF of 1, with lenses with a MTF of 1 and scan with a scanner with a MTF of 1, then we would have no quality loss. Alas, we have to accept lower MTF values, and the final product is the MULTIPLICATION of the three. So, it makes as much sense to use a sharp film and a good lens, as to use a good scanner. People who buy a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad and then scan on a flatbed get a result comparable to shooting with a Seagull and scanning on a good scanner. It might appear to be more sexy to go around with a nice camera and scan in the privacy of a closed room on a crappy flatbed, but the end result will be a Seagull shot. To who says, that it depends on the enlargment size, I reply - sure, but for postcards, you might as well use a half frame compact film camera, and avoid the expense of sophisticated gear.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I have said the same thing many times on RFF and few are willing to listen. People buying top-level expensive cameras then skimping on the scanner or using a cheap printer. Why bother.
Speaking of Seagull's, my son's mother had one years ago and it was built like crap but had an EXTREMELY sharp lens! I'd say that using a flatbed with it would have not done justice to it. Its lens (the 4-element tessar-type) was sharper than the 80mm f1.9 lens on the Mamiya 645 camera I was using at the time. Unfortunately the camera, which she bought new, lasted a mere 9 rolls of film before breaking. A perfect example of a quality system ruined by cheaping out on part of it (the mechanical parts). Kind of like shooting a Hasselblad or a Leica and scanning on a Flatbed scanner
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Everybody doesn't have the budget for top-level, Chris. My most expensive outfit is the Contax IIa with a CZJ 5cm/2. Top-level in its day, for sure. Less than $200 for me. My Epson 4490 cost $80 used. Works for me, and I want to be able to discuss this with other members without the incessant "don't even bother" from pros like you, or from wealthier amateurs than I am.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You aren't who my comment was aimed at. There are a lot of guys here who are well off financially, who own multiple Leica bodies and lenses, Hasselblads, etc. and a cheap scanner because they don't want to spend the money for a better one (don't not can't!). Hell I am dirt poor. You'd be shocked to know how little income my son and I get by on, since my sales of my work are the only income I have. There are a lot of guys here making middle class or higher incomes and for them $2000 for a new Nikon 9000 or $1000 for a used 8000 is not a purchase that will cause them to skip meals....they're the ones I keep poking fun at. I'd kill for a job making even 1/4 what some of these dudes make.
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
Granted, but you made the very same argument before to Disaster_Area, who was making a valid point about diminishing returns.
The OP has a fixed budget. Discussing what other people could be spending but aren't has very little relevance.
By the way, I never assumed you were wealthy. What I'm saying is that, as a pro, your criteria and priorities are different. For an amateur, a top-level scanner is unlikely to pay off versus using a flatbed most of the time and giving important scan jobs to a pro shop.
The OP has a fixed budget. Discussing what other people could be spending but aren't has very little relevance.
By the way, I never assumed you were wealthy. What I'm saying is that, as a pro, your criteria and priorities are different. For an amateur, a top-level scanner is unlikely to pay off versus using a flatbed most of the time and giving important scan jobs to a pro shop.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
I'll post a comparison... I posted this shot earlier in the thread, scanned on my V500, below is a crop from the center. I entered a 36X36 print of this shot in a juried exhibit and made it into the show as one of 30 pieces out of over 500 entrants. Will dedicated/drum scanners do a better job.. yes... but if it's good enough for a gallery print it's probably good enough for a lot of "professional" work as well. Don't discount flatbeds out of hand... I think a lot of the bad results people are getting can be put down to bad scanning technique, it definitely took me quite a while to get the hang of getting the most out of my scanner.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
Tough to argue with that. My only "clients" are my family and friends. They can get ok prints quickly or wait a while and get good prints.
Andy Kibber
Well-known
@ Disaster Area: You've posted that staple picture before, haven't you? I like it.
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
Yeah.. I posted it earlier in the thread... and I think on a couple other threads as well. I hadn't posted the center crop though. It was taken with my Yashica 124g wide open at f3.5 with a Rolleinar #2 close up lens, on 100 or 200iso film.. either Rollei Retro 100 or Fomapan 200, can't remember which.
A drum scan would probably have done a better job, but if I can get a 36X36 print off the flatbed scan that looks as good as it did I don't see the need for the extra expense. I'd rather spend the cash on better lenses.
johannielscom
Snorting silver salts
at the risk of sounding like a perfect noob, what is MTF and where can I find this for older scanners?
My 35mm is a Minolta ScanDual IV (top 3200 dpi satifies my not-too-professional needs), my 6x9 is an Epson GT-7000 Photo , a 1997 top-of-the-line scanner, capable of 6000dpi.
But, where to find anything on MTF for gear like that?
mrisney
Well-known
I have and it's not cheap, at $75.00 a scan per file, and after a few scans that I was less than pleased with, the colors were all wrong, they scanned in the borders of the negative so I have "KODAK" in black and orange on the sides, ugggh. I am thinking that the only way I will be happy, will be to do it myself. So I read theses forums, and everybody chirped up how great the V700/V750 was, so I spent $600, and then another $100 for ANR holders from betterscanning. The results ? muddy, and grainy, loss of detail that I could see with my lupe especially on negative scans, and color management is a real challenge.
When I get a complimentary scan from Citizen Photo in Portland Oregon, they use a Noritsu koki qss-32_33, after they do C-41 process, and I get a CD back of my images, all for $12 - not bad! When I want to take an image out of the batch to the next level, and work with it for print, I really like my Epson R2880 BTW, I need something to do that with, I am thinking the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is going to solve that gap, it's not the Epson V700/EpsonV750 I tried that.