JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I am not a happy camper right now.
I have had an Epson V500 for a while. Before I got it, I had always had my negatives scanned at my local Wal-Mart after getting them developed. I bought my own scanner so I could save money and stop having to pay Wal-Mart to scan my negatives, and I have been scanning myself for a couple of months. I also though that I would be able to do a better job If I scanned them myself.
Today, I decided to compare of one of my old Walmart-scanned pictures on my computer, and then take the same negative, and scan it with my Epson V500. The results do not make me happy at all.
The Walmart scan is very obviously waaay sharper and has way more detail. Also, the colors are just way better in the Walmart scans. I knew I wasnt buying a very, very expensive Nikon scanner, but these results are pretty bad. I thought that the Epson would be just as good for internet use (the final pictures at a low size, around 600px), but at this size, there is still significant difference from the Wal-Mart scans. I am really disappointed and have no idea what Im going to do. All I wanted was to make all my pictures available on the web somewhere, but now I dont think my scanner can handle it.
I have had an Epson V500 for a while. Before I got it, I had always had my negatives scanned at my local Wal-Mart after getting them developed. I bought my own scanner so I could save money and stop having to pay Wal-Mart to scan my negatives, and I have been scanning myself for a couple of months. I also though that I would be able to do a better job If I scanned them myself.
Today, I decided to compare of one of my old Walmart-scanned pictures on my computer, and then take the same negative, and scan it with my Epson V500. The results do not make me happy at all.
The Walmart scan is very obviously waaay sharper and has way more detail. Also, the colors are just way better in the Walmart scans. I knew I wasnt buying a very, very expensive Nikon scanner, but these results are pretty bad. I thought that the Epson would be just as good for internet use (the final pictures at a low size, around 600px), but at this size, there is still significant difference from the Wal-Mart scans. I am really disappointed and have no idea what Im going to do. All I wanted was to make all my pictures available on the web somewhere, but now I dont think my scanner can handle it.
ItsReallyDarren
That's really me
What kind of software are you using to scan your images and how familiar using it? Scanning software takes a bit to learn how to use. Also I think with the Epson scanners there is a little bit of focusing that needs to be tweaked to get the sharpest quality.
What I noticed about scans from mini labs are that they are indeed looked sharper and have more color but I can get the same results from my scans after a bit of photoshop. When I make scans I try to preserve as much detail from the film, that way I have ample room to adjust and tweak with the image. The initial results are rather dull and flat but can be easily manipulated.
Also, it could be a dud scanner. If things dont get better try exchanging it for another one.
What I noticed about scans from mini labs are that they are indeed looked sharper and have more color but I can get the same results from my scans after a bit of photoshop. When I make scans I try to preserve as much detail from the film, that way I have ample room to adjust and tweak with the image. The initial results are rather dull and flat but can be easily manipulated.
Also, it could be a dud scanner. If things dont get better try exchanging it for another one.
MikeL
Go Fish
Hi Jeremy,
Something is wrong with your methods or your scanner. I have a V500, and it's plenty good at getting sharp scans. Many flatbed scans are improved with some sharpening, but if you are having problems with images you are posting to the web, something is wrong.
Something is wrong with your methods or your scanner. I have a V500, and it's plenty good at getting sharp scans. Many flatbed scans are improved with some sharpening, but if you are having problems with images you are posting to the web, something is wrong.
swoop
Well-known
I have a V700. It performs much better than my old Canon 9950f. Which were better still than the Kodak Photo CD's I got from Rite Aid.
It's probably your scanning method. Make sure the film is flat and properly loaded. Also, check your scan settings. What resolution are you scanning at? Is sharpening enabled? Even though my scanner came with Silverfast, I still use the standard Epson software. I like its layout better and it performs great.
It's probably your scanning method. Make sure the film is flat and properly loaded. Also, check your scan settings. What resolution are you scanning at? Is sharpening enabled? Even though my scanner came with Silverfast, I still use the standard Epson software. I like its layout better and it performs great.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Jeremy, I have a V100, baby sibling of what you have, and I find its scans satisfactory. The Wal-Mart scans may seem better because of (excessive?) sharpening. You might like to look in your scanner's manual and restore all settings to default. If things do not improve, maybe the unit is defective.
historicist
Well-known
Scans from minilabs usually have something like auto levels and auto colour adjustment applied to them, so they look good out of the box, whereas home scans require further adjustment.
I've got a V500, and its pretty good with 35mm, not quite as good as my Collscan IV, but close. The only thing I find really annoying is that the ICE doesn't work nearly as well as it does on the Nikon.
I've got a V500, and its pretty good with 35mm, not quite as good as my Collscan IV, but close. The only thing I find really annoying is that the ICE doesn't work nearly as well as it does on the Nikon.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Trust me. I hope more than anything that I am doing something wrong. But after trying many different things last night, I couldn't ever get the detail I get from the Wal-Mart scans. Its not just how the pictures look right after the scan. Its how they look after curves adjustments and an Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. I will take some screenshots of what Im talking about when I get home after school.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i don't know what is up with your v500.
I use a v700 since more than a year, i have enlarged 35mm to above 30x45 cm, with good results, i have scanned medium format (6x6) frames from a pre-war rolleiflex, tri-x 400, delta 3200, fp4+, and printed at 40x40 cm with excellent sharpness and tonality.
The scanner can resolve the grains of tri-x 400, as well as the grains of fp4+ exposed at iso200 and developed in diafine. (PanF+ at 50 has already too small grains.) My limitation is by the film and the lens and technique, not by the scanner, - except some iso100 slide film where i can see more shadow details in the deeeep shadows with a strong loupe, than the scanner can resolve.
BUT
the Epson software is messed up with respect to colour management. Be sure you know what happens with your images. Also, be sure you use the scanner at its optimum by putting your film to the proper distance from the glass window. Don't know if it is the case for the v500, but for the v700 you can adjust the height of the film holders and it helps a lot testing it in more settings.
Finally, i already cleaned TWICE the scanner window INSIDE. It cane with considerable dust speckles and some faint fogging; and after a year it developed serious fogging in the inside. Probably due to plastic components outgassing in there and precipitating on the window. This also help top increase contrast, shadow detail and smoothness of scans.
The bottom line is, whenever i got less than satisfactory results from a scan, it was either my mistake with the software, or my mistake with the film / exposure.
I use a v700 since more than a year, i have enlarged 35mm to above 30x45 cm, with good results, i have scanned medium format (6x6) frames from a pre-war rolleiflex, tri-x 400, delta 3200, fp4+, and printed at 40x40 cm with excellent sharpness and tonality.
The scanner can resolve the grains of tri-x 400, as well as the grains of fp4+ exposed at iso200 and developed in diafine. (PanF+ at 50 has already too small grains.) My limitation is by the film and the lens and technique, not by the scanner, - except some iso100 slide film where i can see more shadow details in the deeeep shadows with a strong loupe, than the scanner can resolve.
BUT
the Epson software is messed up with respect to colour management. Be sure you know what happens with your images. Also, be sure you use the scanner at its optimum by putting your film to the proper distance from the glass window. Don't know if it is the case for the v500, but for the v700 you can adjust the height of the film holders and it helps a lot testing it in more settings.
Finally, i already cleaned TWICE the scanner window INSIDE. It cane with considerable dust speckles and some faint fogging; and after a year it developed serious fogging in the inside. Probably due to plastic components outgassing in there and precipitating on the window. This also help top increase contrast, shadow detail and smoothness of scans.
The bottom line is, whenever i got less than satisfactory results from a scan, it was either my mistake with the software, or my mistake with the film / exposure.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Lately (only lately) i started using ICE ("quality" setting - takes 7 to 10 minutes for a 6x6 frame at 2400 dpi). I realized how great it is.
With larger pieces of junk sometimes i can see the remainings, but easy to clean up with healing brush in photoshop. The small specks completely clean up with ICE. Both on slides and colour neg.
I just wish it would work on traditional black and white too
With larger pieces of junk sometimes i can see the remainings, but easy to clean up with healing brush in photoshop. The small specks completely clean up with ICE. Both on slides and colour neg.
I just wish it would work on traditional black and white too
Aziz
Established
I've been using the V500 for my 35mm scans with no real problems. Your always going to have to tweak the levels and curves and probably do some sharpening in post processing before you get a satisfactory scan, but that goes with every scanner.
Scanning color is another issue, still very fixable in post processing as well.
My recommendation to you is to not scan above 2400, don't do any processing in scan and adjust levels, curves, sharpening, and color in Photoshop.
Scanning color is another issue, still very fixable in post processing as well.
My recommendation to you is to not scan above 2400, don't do any processing in scan and adjust levels, curves, sharpening, and color in Photoshop.
pesphoto
Veteran
maddoc
... likes film again.
.... I thought it only happened to my V700 :bang: Thanks a lot for that tip !!! So far I only cleaned the fogging from the outside and it helped to some degree. The V700 is great WHEN optimized ... (adjustment of height) AND the film is 100% FLAT. The Epson film-holder, especially for 35mm film, doesn't hold curly film flat. I only get reasonable results by using ANR glass inserts, which are fixed with small stripes of rubber band to press the film as flat as possible.
oscroft
Veteran
If you're using the EpsonScan software, try switching on the Unsharp Mask and see if that helps - Epson scanners can give quite soft images without a bit of unsharp mask. (It's better to apply USM later using something like Photoshop, but a quick go with the USM in the EpsonScan s/w might help to tell if that's the problem).
Also, if you make high resolution scans and then resize them smaller (eg for web use) they can also go soft, such that they look less sharp than scans made at the lower resolution directly. Applying some edge sharpening helps to fix that - I apply some for all of my images resized for web use.
Also, if you make high resolution scans and then resize them smaller (eg for web use) they can also go soft, such that they look less sharp than scans made at the lower resolution directly. Applying some edge sharpening helps to fix that - I apply some for all of my images resized for web use.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Jeremy, just a suggestion, post two pictures, side-by-side, one from your V500 and the other from Walmart. So the others who has good results with it can confirm visually.
It's easy for us to think we have a good enough result until we compare it with something else.
It's easy for us to think we have a good enough result until we compare it with something else.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
How come no scanning above 2400? I like the sound of that, as I'd prefer quicker scans, but I'm curious how come you think that.
My V500 is due to arrive today. I got it not because the store scans aren't satisfactory, but because they can't scan some of my frame sizes...
myoptic3
Well-known
If your scanner does a worse job than the Walmart scans, you are in trouble. Walmart scans leave out a huge amount of detail, leaving the shots looking like digital images w/ apparent sharpness but no shadow detail. If you have never seen a neg scanned w/ a good film scanner, then you would never know what is missing. If you just want internet resolution, you may as well buy a cheap digicam because you will get the same results as a Walmart scan, and you won't have to buy film and pay for the negative development.
Aziz
Established
From my experience, scanning above 2400 showed no increased resolution, just file size. When I would crop down to a specific size (ex. 6 in X 9 in) and zoomed in at 100% on a 2400 scan vs. a 3XXX scan, there was really no difference in quality.
Please do experiment for yourself though. You may find differing results.
Please do experiment for yourself though. You may find differing results.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I can concur with that one - resolution-wise there's no improvement above 2400.
However, i wonder if it helps against noise, to scan big and reduce, in case of deep shadows on a slide film, e.g. ...
However, i wonder if it helps against noise, to scan big and reduce, in case of deep shadows on a slide film, e.g. ...
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Scanning now on the V500. For various reasons, this roll is overexposed so it's hard to tell if I like it or not.
But the main problem is that the negs are slightly curved lengthwise, and so won't be entirely in focus. Can I just lay them down on the glass instead?
But the main problem is that the negs are slightly curved lengthwise, and so won't be entirely in focus. Can I just lay them down on the glass instead?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Well, I can certainly see where Jeremy is coming from. Right off the bat, the images are awful. Completely washed-out, too blue, and no black at all. I can get more or less the same quality as store scans with some adjustment in editing software, though.
I had no trouble laying the negs down on the glass, with a clean, thin glass sheet over them. The seem to have focused fine this way. But wow, the initial result is disappointing.
I assume that, like anything, you need to learn the system?
I had no trouble laying the negs down on the glass, with a clean, thin glass sheet over them. The seem to have focused fine this way. But wow, the initial result is disappointing.
I assume that, like anything, you need to learn the system?