Thinking Of Purchasing A Scanner.

F

Fujiowski

Established
Local time
5:32 AM
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
87
Hello, this is my first post. I have 3 film cameras:

  1. Nikon F100
  2. Fuji GA645
  3. Fuji GW690III

I have been using The DarkRoom for my film developing and scanning. For the scanning I use their medium quality which they state is good for up to 11x14 prints.


I'm thinking of purchasing the Epson Perfection V800 scanner. However I have never used a scanner before.


I have several questions:


1) How easy is it to use the scanner?
2) Do you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the image during or after scanning? One of the reasons why I like film over digital is that I don't have to spend any time in LightRoom adjusting the image.
3) Since the Darkroom's medium quality scanning is only good for 11x14 prints and since my monitor is much bigger (24") and a lot of people have even bigger monitors maybe using my own scanner and scanning at the best quality would be an improvement?

4) When scanning the negatives, do you have to have a profile for each brand of film?

5) Any other tips or advice?
 
I can only comment on my Canon 9000 mark 2. It is dead easy to use with the supplied 35mm and 120 negative holders. Great scans at 4800 dpi, little if any need to process with photoshop elements. I have not used Lightroom. I have a 24 inch monitor.
 
Last edited:
I only have something to add to 2): Negatives will require much more post processing than slides. With slides, you can set white and black points and call it a day.
 
Fujiowski said:
Hello, this is my first post. I have 3 film cameras:

...


1) How easy is it to use the scanner?
2) Do you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the image during or after scanning? One of the reasons why I like film over digital is that I don't have to spend any time in LightRoom adjusting the image.
3) Since the Darkroom's medium quality scanning is only good for 11x14 prints and since my monitor is much bigger (24") and a lot of people have even bigger monitors maybe using my own scanner and scanning at the best quality would be an improvement?

4) When scanning the negatives, do you have to have a profile for each brand of film?

5) Any other tips or advice?
Click to expand...

  1. Easy – if you just want to make a scan. Not so easy of you want to make a high-quality archival scan. The hard part is avoliding dust and fingerprints. If you scan a psuedo-raw (flat, linear scan) file, then it the process itself is quick. Some people use multi-pass methods which increase the scan time.
  2. Yes. Except for crops to just scan the image region of the film and inversion, I make no other adjustments.
  3. Unless you just need a quick and dirty scan to make a virtual contact sheet, always scan at the highest quality settings.
  4. I don't use profiles during the scan. I do use them afterwards. I usually make custom profiles in Lightroom.

There are many different workflows. All are useful.

You can do a set of automated, quick scans to make a virtual contact sheet. Then you can select frames that worthy of additional time and effort.

Or, you can look at the film with a loop or magnifying glass. I use a small light box and skip the virtual contact sheet step.

For keepers I find the scanning process to be tedious. Everything must be perfectly clean. I bought a bundle of thin white-cotton gloves. Dust is your enemy. Before my Espon scanner died, I discovered internal dust contamination. I did not store that scanner properly.

I only scan using VueScan. Except for crops as mentioned above, I scan to VueScan raw DNG at 48 bits per pixel.The VueScan raw DNG really is not a raw file. It is a flat, linear scan. When the scan is complete. I save the raw DNG file. These are called virtual scans. It is possible to make non-destructive adjustments to this file using VueScan. I usually make very few adjustments (crop and invert) at this point. However, it is possible all of the final rendering in VueScan. You can render as many different versions as you like. I save the virtual VueScan rendered image as a lossless compressed TIFF file.

Color scans are imported into Photoshop where the color balance parameters are optimized. That file is imported into Lightroom for further rendering optimization.

B&W scans go straight to Lightroom for post-production. Occasionally I use the SilverEfex Pro 2 to optimize the image rendering.

I usually spend much more time optimizing film scan rendering compared to digital camera raw file post production.

One can apply presets at several stages in the workflow. VueScan has presets. There are many PS and LR presets. There are Silverfast presets. Of course, you can create your own presets.
 
TerryMcC said:
I can only comment on my Canon 9000 mark 2. It is dead easy to use with the supplied 35mm and 120 negative holders. Great scans at 4800 dpi, little if any need to process with photoshop elements. I have not used Lightroom. I have a 24 inch monitor.
Click to expand...

Which software do you use for scanning?
 
A thread was recently started pointing out that Adorama is now offering refurbished Epson scanners in case you want to save some money.

Doug
 
Some excellent advice, that about keeping your negatives pristine is the biggest time saver of all. I use a Plustek Opticfilm120 with Silver Fast 8. I have never yet managed to get it to batch scan so find 35mm a trial. The results are excellent though. As it lacks large format capability I have just bought an Epson V800 but have yet to give it a go.

I only develop black and white and have a rigorous policy of minimal fiddling. I've found time can vary, but cleaning up 35mm dust spots is the largest, followed by small amounts of fiddling. It is up to you how much time you can spend, but my view is that a good negative might need some small cropping or contrast adjustments, but beyond that is not for me.
 
Fujiowski said:
...
I'm thinking of purchasing the Epson Perfection V800 scanner. However I have never used a scanner before.
...
Click to expand...
A very good choice, particularly for medium format.

Epson's EPSONscan software is very good. For a first time scanner user I highly recommend that you stick with it, at least until you get to the point that you can get very very good scans. There is other excellent software out there, but absolutely none of their advantages come without complexity that will only impede the beginner.

At home I still use EPSONscan with my old v700, though at work I use Hasselblad's FlexColor with our Imacon 848. I used EPSONscan's automatic functions at first, but quickly moved to using the "Professional" mode and making manual tweaks the the level, curves, and sometimes color to achieve good full range files that contain all of the tonal range. I do the real adjusting in Photoshop rather than attempting to get "final" images directly out of the scanner.

The big time consuming chore is cleaning the scanned image. Dust and scratches are a real issue, particularly when you are scanning with large images as your final target. Keeping the film and scanner clean is paramount. With most films, the DigitalICE dust removal option in EPSONscan is valuable. EPSONscans other dust removal option should only be used for those films where DigitalICE doesn't work and only for scans targeting small prints. It produces ugly artifacts that become visible in large prints. If I can't use DigitalICE then I rely on manual retouching in Ps.
 
My recommendation is the Epson V600 scanner. My experience is that B&W negatives scan beautifully. B&W scans result in a positive image. Color slides also scan beautifully. However, again in my experience, color negatives are a lot more problematic; but chromogenic negatives scan very well as do color (C41) negs scanned as B&W. Not having either LR software or a printer (yet), I have 5x7 prints made at a local Walgreens; results are spectacular IMHO. Epson V600 was highly recommended by the salespeople at B&H in NYC; theire recommendation was very sound.
 
1) The Epson flatbed scanner is very easy to use... many recommend different scanning software, but you might want to give Epson Scan a try at first. Keep it simple until you know what you want.

2) As others have said, dust and scratches are not your friends and typically I do a bit of clean up in post processing

3) I normally have my 35mm scans printed at 300mm (11.8 inches) on the long side YMMV. It's a standard size here and framing etc are set up. For some reason February is discount month for enlargements and frames in my area...

4) After the initial setup, the only settings I do with Epson Scan is the type of film (monochrome, color negative, reversal film).

5) I have my film developed at a lab. If you do, and have a choice of labs, work with the one that does the cleanest work. If you are getting a lot of dust and/or scratches discuss the problems. I use a mom & pop camera shop and they are very supportative with my requests. In some ways digital requires less post processing effort than scanned film. When you do reversal film don't have the frames mounted.

Enjoy...
 
I have a question which is slightly off topic, but is related to the OP’s mention of the Epson V800, and was hoping someone here might be able to provide a solid answer.
Nobody ever seems to mention the V850, people always seem to stop with the V800 or something farther down the Epson line, and I was wondering why. Yes, the resolution and Dmax specs listed for the two scanners are identical as listed by Epson. But, the V850 is about 20 percent, or more, faster, credited to what Epson calls “high pass optics”, coated lenses instead of uncoated, and a better “high reflection” mirror. Better optics seems like something which would matter to photographers, yet, I usually hear people recommending the 750 or the cheaper 800 over the 850 because “the resolution specs are identical”. Since no one believes Epson’s claimed resolution for any of these scanners, I am not sure why they readily believe the specs are identical, though I guess the cheaper bit might influence that. “We don’t believe the specs, but we are ready to believe they are identical.”
Neither contrast nor color saturation are described by resolution specs anyway.

My question is, does anyone have side by side experience with the V800 and the V850, comparing actual scans, who could weigh in on this? Or, does everyone just go with “internet knowledge” “published specs are same, so same”. And cheaper, bingo.

If we demand modern lens coatings on new lenses for the obvious benefits, why would we not want the same thing, for the same exact benefits, in a scanner, which is just a camera stuck in a box together with a bright light?
 
i really like my V850 output. just blow/dust off the negatives before mounting, keep the scanner glass surfaces ultra clean, and you'll be saving yourself a lot of time in post.


Regarding the V850 v V800, i've not done extensive side by side testing, but my V850 seems 15 to 20% faster to scan than my friend's V800.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
...credited to what Epson calls “high pass optics”, coated lenses instead of uncoated,...
Click to expand...

Much cheaper scanners have coated lenses.

But, yes, there it is, a $250 question, and nobody seems to care to answer it.

Then again, not many reviewers did elaborate side-by-side M9 chrome vs. M9 black tests ;)

A decent 850 vs. 700 review. Maybe it can answers some of your questions...
 
Fujiowski said:
1) How easy is it to use the scanner?
2) Do you have to spend a lot of time adjusting the image during or after scanning? One of the reasons why I like film over digital is that I don't have to spend any time in LightRoom adjusting the image.
3) Since the Darkroom's medium quality scanning is only good for 11x14 prints and since my monitor is much bigger (24") and a lot of people have even bigger monitors maybe using my own scanner and scanning at the best quality would be an improvement?
4) When scanning the negatives, do you have to have a profile for each brand of film?
5) Any other tips or advice?
Click to expand...

1. Easy to hard. Up to you. Ultimately, some scans will go quick and easy, and some you will need to spend a little more time. Likely to help achieve your best results with a "keeper" image.

2. Yes to no. Decent initial scans won't need much work afterward. Some scans of difficult negatives may want some work. Keeper images that you want to make as good as possible might benefit from time in Lightroom (or similar).

3. Maybe. It depends...

4. It can help. I find I have a few profiles, but I can get perfectly fine scans with a "generic" profile.

5. Make sure you match your scanner purchase with your desired scan quality. There are scanners out there that probably won't meet your standards. I have an Epson V500 that definitely does not meet my standards for MF scans. I don't bother doing 35mm scans with it. I have a Minolta Scan Dual IV for my 35 scanning that is adequate, but I wouldn't mind better quality... I have friends with Epson V700 and V800 scanners that make MF scans I find acceptable. I have another friend with a Nikon scanner (can't remember the model) that makes even better MF scans. In terms of cost, the Epson V700 (and up) seem like a decent price to performance purchase.

Also remember softwares can be different, with different people "clicking" with different software. I use VueScan because I mostly like the interface (it could use some improvements though) and because it will work with all my scanners, some of which are old. So I have one common and familiar interface for all scanners.

Research how to go about scanning. I think Chris Crawford (our very own RFF Chris Crawford) has a good tutorial for B+W negative scanning. I started with his process and got good results. Chris emphasizes that a good scan can appear "flat" upon aquisition and you will need to make adjustments in Lightroom (or whatever) to make the image pop. This is the appropriate way to proceed (in my opinion) because it maximizes (optimizes?) the capture of information from the negative. But, requires a processing step after scanning. Many people attempt to get a great-looking image at the scan. That can lead to disappointment with some negatives, and loss of information for others. Or not; it depends on several factors.

And don't forget scanning takes time. Sometimes it takes a lot of time. This is why you'll see discussion about batch scanning, whole strip scanning, and the Pakon scanners. Because scanning takes time, many of us develop work flows to optimize time spent. For example, when working with MF negatives, I only scan the negatives I deem best on the light table. I used to scan the entire roll so I could evaluate images as positives (and sometimes go back and scan the "keepers" with more attention to detail). Today, I've honed my skills to evaluate negs on the light table and be brutal with selection. I've cut wasted time dramatically (very, very dramatically!).

....and I'm done.
 
Larry Cloetta said:
I have a question which is slightly off topic, but is related to the OP’s mention of the Epson V800, and was hoping someone here might be able to provide a solid answer.
Nobody ever seems to mention the V850, people always seem to stop with the V800 or something farther down the Epson line, and I was wondering why. Yes, the resolution and Dmax specs listed for the two scanners are identical as listed by Epson. But, the V850 is about 20 percent, or more, faster, credited to what Epson calls “high pass optics”, coated lenses instead of uncoated, and a better “high reflection” mirror. Better optics seems like something which would matter to photographers, yet, I usually hear people recommending the 750 or the cheaper 800 over the 850 because “the resolution specs are identical”. Since no one believes Epson’s claimed resolution for any of these scanners, I am not sure why they readily believe the specs are identical, though I guess the cheaper bit might influence that. “We don’t believe the specs, but we are ready to believe they are identical.”
Neither contrast nor color saturation are described by resolution specs anyway.

My question is, does anyone have side by side experience with the V800 and the V850, comparing actual scans, who could weigh in on this? Or, does everyone just go with “internet knowledge” “published specs are same, so same”. And cheaper, bingo.

If we demand modern lens coatings on new lenses for the obvious benefits, why would we not want the same thing, for the same exact benefits, in a scanner, which is just a camera stuck in a box together with a bright light?
Click to expand...

Apart from any output differences (which appear minor), the 850 comes with an extra set of holders and colour management stuff (targets, calibration device, etc) which makes up a huge proportion of the price difference.
 
I guess it all depends on what you want to do with the scans. Make large prints? Post online?

I don't think monitor size has much to do with it. I have a 13" macbook pro and a 12 core mac tower with a 27" monitor. I don't even view images the full size on either monitor.

I have two Epson flatbed scanners and two film scanners. I can tell you though the Epsons are pretty good, the film scanner absolutely beats them in terms of resolution. I'm able to make tack sharp 18 x24" prints from 35mm slide film with scans made from my film scanner.

I do post work in LR or PS. It's almost a must if you want the best looking images for your scans. I enjoy that part of the process though.

My 2nd film scanner I just got used and haven't even opened yet is the Nikon 9000 ED. I look forward to seeing what I can get with medium format scans with this. I like the ability to print very large. I suspect I'll be satisfied.
 
I may get run out of town for saying this...

Scanning sucks! I gave up. If I want digital images I use a digital camera. If I want to shoot film, I shoot film and it ends there.
 
michaelwj said:
Apart from any output differences (which appear minor), the 850 comes with an extra set of holders and colour management stuff (targets, calibration device, etc) which makes up a huge proportion of the price difference.
Click to expand...

I am not challenging your assessment, just trying to clarify if you have had both scanners in hand to do side by side comparison tests of the scans each produces when you say output differences “appear minor”. I dont know if you meant that you did that and the differences appeared minor, or if you are repeating the prevailing opinion, based on published specs, and not actual comparisons, that the differences are minor. I don’t own either, but will be getting one of them subsequent to a move into large format. The 850 has coated optics, the 800 uncoated. This is a not a minor difference anywhere else lenses are evaluated for output. It just seems, on the face of it, that it would not be a minor difference here either, especially in a scanner’s lighting environment. Lenses are lenses. If the quality of output from the 850 were not noticeably better than that from the 800, that would be quite odd, verging on the inexplicable.

Would like to stress that I am not arguing with anyone, only asking questions. I have heard for a long time that the results from both scanners “are the same”, but when pressed, I have, up to this point, always found that assessment has never been based on actual side by side testing, only on the presumption that because the specs are the same, the output would be the same. It makes no sense to me that the results from uncoated lenses would be the same as the results from coated lenses, which explains my curiosity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom