Gilo25
Established
Is the V500 and/or the V750 adequate for 35 mm as well? The lab I am using claims that's what they have but the quality of the 35 mm scans they produced for me (from slides, bw, and color neg) is nowhere near as good as the images you posted above. Obviously it has to do with the way the scanner is set/handled, but I wonder if there is any way to find such settings reasonably easily or whether it is painful trial and error process which doesn't necessarily lead to good results, eventually. As a matter of fact, scanning represents such a bottleneck for me that it makes sometimes wonder if it is really worth shooting film. At least with a high end digital camera you consistently get the same results, while with scanning there are so many variables involved that more often than not you risk to throw away a beautiful shot just by scanning it.
Last edited:
martin-f5
Well-known
first of all, none of the photos are shown in that quality wich they realy have.
The rff server software kills half of the quality.
Second, I'm realy new to this scanner nad have no large experience to it,
so this are the very first results without doing anything special.
You may have a look at wray's photos, they are linked to an externel srever and they show the real quality.
Guys, it's fantastic what you get out of this "cheap" epson and the original software.
You nay have a look to my other thread :
v500 & xpan
there I've postet a screen shot.
Thanks to all
The rff server software kills half of the quality.
Second, I'm realy new to this scanner nad have no large experience to it,
so this are the very first results without doing anything special.
You may have a look at wray's photos, they are linked to an externel srever and they show the real quality.
Guys, it's fantastic what you get out of this "cheap" epson and the original software.
You nay have a look to my other thread :
v500 & xpan
there I've postet a screen shot.
Thanks to all
Gilo25
Established
At how many dpi did you scan those images?
martin-f5
Well-known
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Martin, I just want to comment on your pictures.
They are all great! you have an excellent eye for composition and light. I love especially the Xpan shots.
About the scanner, I think these results are adequate for web viewing, trying to get much better quality from any flatbed scanner IMHO is counter-productive.
BUT, if you want to print your pictures big digitally, then maybe find a drum-scanner.
They are all great! you have an excellent eye for composition and light. I love especially the Xpan shots.
About the scanner, I think these results are adequate for web viewing, trying to get much better quality from any flatbed scanner IMHO is counter-productive.
BUT, if you want to print your pictures big digitally, then maybe find a drum-scanner.
martin-f5
Well-known
Hello Will,
I don't print photos on a inkjet printer,
I print them in my darkroom,
the scans are only for web viewing,
so the quality is realy more than expected.
I should make a accout at flickr to show wich quality is possible with the V500,
but therefor we have wray!
He's the best
Gilo25
Established
Just to give you an idea, I am attaching 2 sample details (actual pixels) of what I got from my 'custom lab' which uses Epson 4990. Both images were scanned at 300 dpi. The landscape image is shot on Velvia 100 slide and the 'portrait' is shot on Reala 100 negative. I can understand the 'portrait' may not be that great since I used an old Summar at full aperture and in low light, but for the landscape I used a Summicron 50. I find both scans totally unacceptable.
Any suggstions on what the problem can be?
Any suggstions on what the problem can be?
Last edited:
wray
Well-known
It looks to me like they scanned at 300 dpi then enlarged the image afterwards in imaging software. If you scan at a low dpi you have to enlarge the image in Epson's software then import into your imaging program. For example here's an old Kodachrome transparency that I scanned at 360 dpi with 1000% size increase in the Epson scan software before importing into Photoschop.
Gilo25
Established
Wray, thanks. I don't think they enlarged it after scanning it. They just scanned it at 300 and at that size. But the result is awful and I haven't managed to get much bettert than that. Colors are also off most of the time. But what puts me off is the noise. That's why I was so amazed by the scans showed by martin-f5. I don't think it has to do with the negative or the slide because the slide, in particular, is grain-free and well exposed.
I am a bit reluctant to get myself a v700 (or any scanner for that matter) if this is what I would get...
I am a bit reluctant to get myself a v700 (or any scanner for that matter) if this is what I would get...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Gilo, the first image has a square-ish aspect ratio. Obviously it is cropped. How much cropped?If i heavily magnify a part of the slide film, it looks like this. If it is not heavily cropped from full frame, i suspect stg wrong with the film or the developing.
The second one is loaded with noise. It is a film grain issue again, imo, not scanning issue.
Maybe the film was underexposed badly? Maybe it was too old?Maybe developing was screwed up? This can also lead to sharpness issues.
The second one is loaded with noise. It is a film grain issue again, imo, not scanning issue.
Maybe the film was underexposed badly? Maybe it was too old?Maybe developing was screwed up? This can also lead to sharpness issues.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I scan everything on a v700, and most images look good, be it slide film, negative, BW, 35mm or 6x6. The ones that look bad are badly exposed or developed.
You may check my gallery for samples.
You may check my gallery for samples.
martin-f5
Well-known
with those results I'd digg a hole and burry the scanner :bang:
there's realy more possible and you don't need a graduate at oxford
or a drum-scanner
it's so easy,
open the scanner, open the "uplight-flap" and put in the film,
start the software-> preview and adjust a little till you see want you want to see,
than scan,
that's all
please let me know if can't see the photos?
and crop:
there's realy more possible and you don't need a graduate at oxford
or a drum-scanner
it's so easy,
open the scanner, open the "uplight-flap" and put in the film,
start the software-> preview and adjust a little till you see want you want to see,
than scan,
that's all
please let me know if can't see the photos?
and crop:
Gilo25
Established
Pherdinand, thank you. Both images are cropped: the original images are 2614 X 3932 pixels. Both are scanned at 300 dpi. I just cropped them in order not to attach a huge image, but still show the image in actual pixels.
While the actual slide looks good on the light box (hence, the bad quality of the scan doesn't seem justified), the other image is far from perfect, even when printed from the negative. The neg is an expired Reala 100, pushed one stop (it was exposed at 330 ASA). This certainly doesn't help the quality of the scan, but the fact remains that the 5x7 inches print from the negative doesn't look that bad.
The issue is that all the scans I got from this lab look more or less the same, no matter whether it is BW, slides, color negs (expired or not).
Unfortunately this is the only custom lab of the whole of Manila (where I am based) and I have no alternatives :bang:
I was finding it strange that a custom lab (however unprofessional) could handle a simple scanner like the 4990 and/or the V 700 that bad.. As a matter of fact ,what I showed you is already a back job (!): the first time all the images were straight green . So I asked them to re-do it. But when I saw the second output I started thinking that maybe when it comes to 35 mm film no scanner can handle it properly unless it is a drum scanner (which of course is not available here). But what martin f5 has posted here seems to prove the opposite, hence my query to you all: is it worth getting myself a v700 and scan my own stuff because the problem lies in the way they scanned, or should I just go back to digital, since maybe the issue is that they can't develop film properly??? (or both:bang...
While the actual slide looks good on the light box (hence, the bad quality of the scan doesn't seem justified), the other image is far from perfect, even when printed from the negative. The neg is an expired Reala 100, pushed one stop (it was exposed at 330 ASA). This certainly doesn't help the quality of the scan, but the fact remains that the 5x7 inches print from the negative doesn't look that bad.
The issue is that all the scans I got from this lab look more or less the same, no matter whether it is BW, slides, color negs (expired or not).
Unfortunately this is the only custom lab of the whole of Manila (where I am based) and I have no alternatives :bang:
I was finding it strange that a custom lab (however unprofessional) could handle a simple scanner like the 4990 and/or the V 700 that bad..
As a matter of fact ,what I showed you is already a back job (!): the first time all the images were straight green . So I asked them to re-do it. But when I saw the second output I started thinking that maybe when it comes to 35 mm film no scanner can handle it properly unless it is a drum scanner (which of course is not available here). But what martin f5 has posted here seems to prove the opposite, hence my query to you all: is it worth getting myself a v700 and scan my own stuff because the problem lies in the way they scanned, or should I just go back to digital, since maybe the issue is that they can't develop film properly??? (or both:bang...
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
As i said, the green and magenta dots you see in the negative image are "grains" and not related to the scanner.
Actually, the scan is good enough to resolve the grain, which is quite nice.
I'm not sure a drum scanner could do it better.
About the slide, well, it's quite sensitive to exposure and development too, but if it is heavily cropped, i would say it is okay for a 35mm scan.
Actually, the scan is good enough to resolve the grain, which is quite nice.
I'm not sure a drum scanner could do it better.
About the slide, well, it's quite sensitive to exposure and development too, but if it is heavily cropped, i would say it is okay for a 35mm scan.
martin-f5
Well-known
or should I just go back to digital, since maybe the issue is that they can't develop film properly??? (or both:bang
back to digtal?
oh my dear, not that,
b&w you can develop by your own,
and colorfilm development is a wide spread standard.
Buy a scanner and you'll get what you need.
P. Lynn Miller
Well-known
I just acquired an Epson V500 based on the scans shown here and various other forums by V500 users. I am very pleased with the scanner.
Here is my first scan -
The files produced by this scanner are plenty good enough for printing. While not as high quality as a drum scan, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference up to about 11 x14 enlargements with medium format. The photo above was 6x6 B&W negative scanned at 6400dpi, retouched and post-processed in Photoshop CS3, and printed as an 8" x 8" print. The detail and quality is as good as any drum scan I have ever used.
Here is my first scan -
The files produced by this scanner are plenty good enough for printing. While not as high quality as a drum scan, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference up to about 11 x14 enlargements with medium format. The photo above was 6x6 B&W negative scanned at 6400dpi, retouched and post-processed in Photoshop CS3, and printed as an 8" x 8" print. The detail and quality is as good as any drum scan I have ever used.
martin-f5
Well-known
first scan and perfect scan!
congratulations!
congratulations!
IK13
Established
Gilo25,
What kind of film were these? If it was scanned @300dpi and the result was 2614 X 3932 , then the film frame was 8.7 X 13.1 ?!? I really doubt that...
First - I wouldn't even call it a "lab" if they are scanning 35mm with 4990. That's plain unprofessional.
Second - Scanning film at 300dpi - you're joking, right? That's not enough for even prints scan, forget about film...
What kind of film were these? If it was scanned @300dpi and the result was 2614 X 3932 , then the film frame was 8.7 X 13.1 ?!? I really doubt that...
First - I wouldn't even call it a "lab" if they are scanning 35mm with 4990. That's plain unprofessional.
Second - Scanning film at 300dpi - you're joking, right? That's not enough for even prints scan, forget about film...
Gilo25
Established
IK13, thanks. The film was a normal 35 mm, one was slide, the other was a color negative. I have no idea what they did to reach that size.
I fully agree with you on the level of the 'lab': unfortunately that's what you get here...
And, no I am not joking: they scanned it at 300 dpi and I have even to ask for it because they would normally scan only at 72:bang:
I guess I 'll just have to buy a v500 or v700 and do it myself..
I fully agree with you on the level of the 'lab': unfortunately that's what you get here...
And, no I am not joking: they scanned it at 300 dpi and I have even to ask for it because they would normally scan only at 72:bang:
I guess I 'll just have to buy a v500 or v700 and do it myself..
Ben Blacket
Established
Gilo, i think those samples look quite good for 'actual pixels'. It appears to be resolving the grain in both. You said you shot wide open for the mirror portrait & it shows. The point of focus is on the mirror & her shoulders, albeit narrow & 'soft'. V700 (& presumably 4990/V500) scans are a bit soft, even when using a custom holder & adjusted to the optimum height. I think it's great that we scrutinise images on screen, at actual pixels or 100% - it helps us get the best out of our equipment. But remember the days in the darkroom when we only judged the final print, not each grain that hit the easel? Remember when big grain was ok & just par for the course if you wanted to get a shot in low light? Has anyone compared prints - one from the darkroom & one from V500/V700 & inkjet?