Nh3
Well-known
I'm a film zealot but I have to confess that for color digital is the only way.
So, if you're shooting color and nothing else (never shoot b&w and color at the same time but that's a different topic) then invest on high quality lenses and a decent DSLR. But most importantly shoot only in best lighting conditions.
So, if you're shooting color and nothing else (never shoot b&w and color at the same time but that's a different topic) then invest on high quality lenses and a decent DSLR. But most importantly shoot only in best lighting conditions.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Nh3
Well-known
Do a comparison of your DSLR with Ektar on a subject that you know really well and the same lighting condition. Analyze the results and make your conclusion.
In case the Ektar results were so good that they justified the cost and work involved then sell the DSLR and use the money to shoot with Ektar only.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, that's all a bit reductive. There's also the pleasure of using my film cameras to factor in, and the subjectivity of such a comparison as it changes from photo to photo. For instance, I'm annoyed by the softness of a scanned neg when what I want is sharpness, but there are times when sharpness doesn't matter much to me; it depends on the subject. At other times, I appreciate the particular palette of colors that a scanned negative will give me; at other times I prefer the greater post-processing versatility of digital. And then there's the crop factor--if I want a color image shot with the 15mm Heliar at full frame, I have no choice--film is the answer.
For instance, this photo:
That was taken with the 15mm Heliar on Ektar, and I couldn't have gotten that result any other way.
So my ideal would be to have a scanning solution that would satisfy me, for the few times when I absolutely need to use color film. I'm probably destined to be slightly dissatisfied forever, but hell, slight dissatisfaction is the engine of creativity. Huzzah!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
For "the world" in my post, read, "our little world."
That is exactly why it is not likely that any new and improved high end film scanners will be introduced. Our little world is just too small to cater. I agree that it is needed and would be appreciated but the market, I think, is just too small and the price would be too high especially considering the current economic conditions.
Bob
Nh3
Well-known
Well, that's all a bit reductive. There's also the pleasure of using my film cameras to factor in, and the subjectivity of such a comparison as it changes from photo to photo. For instance, I'm annoyed by the softness of a scanned neg when what I want is sharpness, but there are times when sharpness doesn't matter much to me; it depends on the subject. At other times, I appreciate the particular palette of colors that a scanned negative will give me; at other times I prefer the greater post-processing versatility of digital. And then there's the crop factor--if I want a color image shot with the 15mm Heliar at full frame, I have no choice--film is the answer.
For instance, this photo:
That was taken with the 15mm Heliar on Ektar, and I couldn't have gotten that result any other way.
So my ideal would be to have a scanning solution that would satisfy me, for the few times when I absolutely need to use color film. I'm probably destined to be slightly dissatisfied forever, but hell, slight dissatisfaction is the engine of creativity. Huzzah!
Compromise, that's the word. You can never have the best of all worlds, you must decide on the best compromise, and compromise only happens with reduction.
You must make hard decisions and trim your gear to the bare minimum - the best compromise.
Compromise.
funkaoshi
Well-known
I bought a V500 earlier this week, have used it a little since then, and think it works well enough. I'm not sure if it's good enough for big prints, but scanning to make prints is something i'm not interested in doing. (Why bother scanning to print when you can take your negative to a lab and get it done directly?)
kevin m
Veteran
What lab makes color prints directly from a negative nowadays? They're almost all scanned, the only question is who scans it, you or your lab.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
it's funny what people consider affordable. as someone said, many spend tons of money on lenses, then want a $300 scanner that can resolve all that detail. I just spent $600 on a V750 for MF and LF. Cheaper than an Imacon (which wouldn't do my 5x7 anyway - and I would have considered if it it were quicker to use and could do that size) and leaves the door open for 8x10 down the road. But I think $600 is a pretty good deal considering the money I've spent on lenses.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
I actually do think $600 is reasonable for a good scanner. For those who have used both, does the V750 actually give better results than the V500? I assumed they were the same, save for the larger scanning bed.
funkaoshi
Well-known
Toronto Image Works for starters. I suspect there are pro labs in most large cities that still do this. I get your point though. Still, I think if you are serious about making large prints, you'd probably still want your negatives scanned on a drum scanner or something along those lines. For stuff to put in a photo album, I suspect at 4490, v500, etc, will do you well enough. If I had the money I'd have bought a Coolscan, but it's hard to justify when a flatbed is 1/5 of the price.
Tuolumne
Veteran
Flat bed scanners are used for alot more things than film. I think film may even be an after thought of the designers of these products. I think what we want is a flat-bed where film was the foremost thought of the designers and other media the after thought. I think there should be a market for that, considering how many other uses a high quality flat bed can be put to.
/T
/T
charjohncarter
Veteran
The world needs a good film scanner, forget price.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Even for places that still do prints directly from the negs, there's something to be said for being able to control your image more completely before sending it off to be printed. Straightening horizons, adjusting color and contrast, etc.
Ideally, one would have a close relationship with his or her printer, who would know what one is after and how to achieve it. But that kind of relationship is probably out of reach, financially, for hobbyists and amateurs. On balance, then, I'm happy enough adjusting my scanned images and then sending them off to Mpix or wherever. I just could use a little more sharpness, is all.
I know there are people who don't see the point of doing this, but film shots still do look like film shots when printed from scans. I'm sure they don't compare to wet prints, but inkjet is getting nicer and nicer, and it's a good compromise for someone of my level of ambition.
Tuolumne
Veteran
For me the advantage of control that you get from an inkjet far outweighs the benefits of a wet print done by someone else. If you haven't tried a modern inkjet, you don't know what you are missing.
/T
/T
kaiyen
local man of mystery
with something like the V700 and V750, I'm not sure that's the case.
Reflective material scanning is basically perfected. A $50 scanner can do a tremendous job scanning a piece of paper, or even a photo print.
But the V700 and 750 are designed for photo film scanning, plain and simple, IMO. If you look at the designs - dual scan heads, the way the glass and transparency light heads are oriented to reduce scatter - they put a lot of engineering into them.
allan
Reflective material scanning is basically perfected. A $50 scanner can do a tremendous job scanning a piece of paper, or even a photo print.
But the V700 and 750 are designed for photo film scanning, plain and simple, IMO. If you look at the designs - dual scan heads, the way the glass and transparency light heads are oriented to reduce scatter - they put a lot of engineering into them.
allan
kaiyen
local man of mystery
The 700 and 750 both have dual lens systems. I don't have a v500 (I wish I could justify that!) but that's a big difference. Also look at the photo-i review for some notes on how the glass/TPU system is designed on the 750. That's why I got it over the 700.
allan
allan
kevin m
Veteran
I understand there are many at the lower cost end of the RF scale who are shooting with Canonets, Feds and the like for whom $1,000 is just too much money to spend on photography, but if you own any RF gear with the name "Leica" on it, then you shouldn't bitch about paying a grand to scan your own film. The Nikon scanners are very, very good and, unlike a DSLR, they don't depreciate to nothing in two years.
If you're shooting with an aspherical Summilux and scanning on a flatbed, you've got the equation wrong way 'round.
If you're shooting with an aspherical Summilux and scanning on a flatbed, you've got the equation wrong way 'round.
fbf
Well-known
f you're shooting with an aspherical Summilux and scanning on a flatbed, you've got the equation wrong way 'round.
I will second this. If you only shoot b&w and do most your work in dark room, that's another case.
1k is not too much for a decent scanner considering it can guarantee scan quality from 35mm to 6x12.