V300 doing a good job?

[paulfish4570]

I am slowly getting the hang of the little device, and a bit of Photoshop.
What say ye?

 

[Matus]

Looks fine to me. However at this size (corresponding to about 650 spi scan) it is hard to judge on the details. Give us a 100% crop at 2400 spi, than we talk

 

[Michael Markey]

Looks ok to me , Paul. I use the 500 and am happy with it although I haven`t played around with all the settings.
I usually scan at 1200 and reduce in windows to web size.

Michael

 

[batterytypehah!]

Looks good, Paul, but this is an easy one to scan. You have nice areas of full white (highlights in the foreground, probably the boats and tents, too) and at least close to full black (under the docks) to work with.

Those are the shots I usually get right, too... Scenes without the full range are more challenging.

 

[bigeye]

I think it's a fantastic product for proofing, web/iPad viewing and small prints, it's really quite good - much better than web sneering would lead you to believe. (A light box and loupe costs more than a V300 and are hardly as useful.) Scan and silvine the negatives, archive the majority on flickr/whatever and send off the great ones to an Imacon.

The shadows get a bit lost, but it isn't that bad.

I bought a V700 a few months after the V300 for larger formats. The 300, being dedicated to 35mm and LED, works faster than choosing the frames with the lamped 700 on 35mm.

- Charlie

 

[paulfish4570]

I have been scanning at 16/3200 TiFF, then converting to gif/jpeg for the web. I think I will try 8/1200 for speed.
All of my gallery additions recently have been scans of self-souped negs, if you want to look at some more.
This one, for example, has a bunch o' tones:

Boy, this is a whole 'nother thang for me ...

 

[je2a3]

Good job, I like the shot a lot!

 

[paulfish4570]

Thanks to all.