Unhappy with Epson V500

Mabelsound,

in the preferences options or stg like that, there is a checkbox "auto adjust" or something similar. It is checked by default. This means whenever you change the marquee size or position he redoes the auto adjust.
If you uncheck the box, you can drag the marquee e.g. around ONE or part of one frame, push the auto adjust button (the first button on the left above the ICE etc options) or is it called auto exposure button?:), and it adjusts for that marquee. Then you can drag your marquee wherever you want, he will NOT change the exposure/colours/etc. until you press that button again.
 
All right, so you can do multiple marquees then? That's excellent news, makes it even better.

Does it do a separate adjustment for the contents of each marquee, or does it average them?
 
I'm using an Epson 2450 with Epson scan and you can adjust each image separately. it then scans each one as you adjusted it, very useful. Tried silverfast but just wasn't feeling it even though image techs I work with love it.
 
mabelsound said:
Does it do a separate adjustment for the contents of each marquee, or does it average them?
Click to expand...

separate.:)

You can adjust them all separately, with or without zooming in for better view, then select a folder and base filename and start - he will do batch scanning adding an incremental number to the base filename, of all frames (marquees) that are selected.
 
Well, now that I figured it out, I like it a lot. Here's a few I just scanned...I just accepted the autoadjust, and tweaked the exposure and blacks in Lightroom. Left the dust thing off, as you can see. I like these images--they're adequate for my needs. I can see how you'd want better, but for $200, I'm bowled over.

http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604625329843/

I do wish the manual were better written...I was very confused for a while there.
 

Attachments

  • 2425851386_209114970c.jpg
    2425851386_209114970c.jpg
    184.9 KB · Views: 0
  • 2425040453_c85ca1b66d.jpg
    2425040453_c85ca1b66d.jpg
    146.7 KB · Views: 0
  • 2425849546_24d7cae3ba.jpg
    2425849546_24d7cae3ba.jpg
    153.8 KB · Views: 0
mabelsound said:
Well, now that I figured it out, I like it a lot. Here's a few I just scanned...I just accepted the autoadjust, and tweaked the exposure and blacks in Lightroom. Left the dust thing off, as you can see. I like these images--they're adequate for my needs. I can see how you'd want better, but for $200, I'm bowled over.

http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604625329843/

I do wish the manual were better written...I was very confused for a while there.
Click to expand...

WOW! Those are great. The one of the chicken is soo sharp. I pulled it into photoshop at full-size and I can take up the USM a great amount and not get the wierd pixely look that I have been complaining about getting when I try to sharpen my Epson scan.

Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
 
Glad you figured it out, mabelsound.
Results look great for the sizes shown. I've got a Canon 8800F on the way - hope I can get to grips with it without too much pain.
 
JeremyLangford said:
WOW! Those are great. The one of the chicken is soo sharp. I pulled it into photoshop at full-size and I can take up the USM a great amount and not get the wierd pixely look that I have been complaining about getting when I try to sharpen my Epson scan.

Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
Click to expand...

Sure! First, I got an uncut roll of negs from the lab and immediately wound them up against the curl and fastened them with tape. An hour and a half later I unrolled them, laid them flat, and cut them into strips of five exposures, which I removed from the protective sleeve only as I scanned each.

Next, I loaded them into the stock film holder as the manual says. My settings were 2400dpi, 24-bit, everything turned off except USM on low. No ICE, etc. Since these were normal 35mm frames, I previewed them in thumbnail mode. I allowed the software to auto-adjust the color and contrast of each frame to eliminate the cyan cast, then scanned them as TIFs into a folder on my desktop, with extra space around the edges so they wouldn't get cropped.

When this was finished I imported them into Lightroom, straightened and cropped, and adjusted both blacks and exposure so the highlights were just beginning to show. I thought about boosting the vibrance and saturation just a little, to get that AGFA intensity, but decided to go with the cooler stock colors. I do think the V500 tends toward flatness, but the color information is definitely there if you choose to draw it out.

I do think Lightroom is really special. I love the results I get with it--adjusting blacks first and then exposure seems to be key. It's superb at drawing out what's already there, as opposed to slathering sugar all over everything.
 
BTW, I can't fault the Zeiss glass I was shooting with either. Contax G1 + 90mm. Awesome lens...though it didn't always focus on what I thought it was focusing on...
 
JeremyLangford said:
Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
Click to expand...

Jeremy, I just did a scan with the V500 at similar settings to Mabel and on a Nikon 9000. At 100% there is a difference in detail and contrast, but it is not huge. You might see a difference at 8 x 10, but only with a close inspection of both side by side. Good luck with finding the right settings, it's plenty capable once you learn how to use it.
 
hans voralberg said:
Jeremy, I honestly suggest you trying to get decent negs to start with and dont pull hell out of USM :p (half-joking, no offense)
Click to expand...

Ha. I know you're jealous of my fisheye pictures. Its ok though.

Im definately not givin up on the V500 anytime soon. I think I mainly just need to stop pushing the USM so hard. I just love when I can get pictures super sharp.
 
Last edited:
Heres a self-portrait I just got finished scanning and photoshopping. It looks fine to me, but I would be scared to see how it would compare if it were done by a better scanner. I think the better scanner would just allow me to be able to use the USM more effectively and get an overall sharper picture. Im thinking about getting a drum scan of one of my favorite pictures, and then comparing it with the V500 scan. I just want to make sure that I am getting as much detail out of the film as I want. I dont want to have worst pictures, just because I wouldn't give in and get a better scanner. I want to take advantage and use the fact that I am shooting onto film, which holds an amazing amount of detail.

20zy26e.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom