Huss
Veteran
Yes. Any image, whether you shoot film or digital needs PP if you want it to look the best.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
35mm film scanned with my Nikon D750
120 film scanned with my Nikon D750
Those look great, Huss
Huss
Veteran
Thanks Chris
Steve Ruddy
Established
I just did a capture using my Canon 5d Mark IV with a Canon 100MM 2.8 macro lens. So far it's blowing away the Epson v6oo flatbed scanner. Here is a full size jpg. I have done a curve adjustment to it but that's it. I think I'm seeing grain now not sharpening artifacts. Let me know what you think and disregard the dust and scratches.
Here is my DIY set up.
Here is my DIY set up.
znapper
Well-known
Steve, I have the Epson V750 flatbed and the maximum scanning-resolution for that is 2400dpi, anything above that and the scanner simply just enlarge the scan digitally.
Turn off sharpening
Scan at max native resolution
filmscanner.info says about the Epson v600:
"According to our resolution table, an effective resolution of 1560ppi results from that. This is less than a quarter of the resolution of 6400ppi declared by the producer. This is much too less for high quality scans of negatives or slides! For the 35mm format, some image files of only approximately 3,6 megapixels result. Any modern digital camera performs considerably more."
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html
I have found my v750 useless for scanning 35mm film, even after calibrating the height of the negative-holder, to achieve optimal focus, and I scan at 2400dpi. I only use it for medium format.
Try setting your scanner for 1560 (1400?) resolution and turn off sharpening and dust removal etc. (you can set the black and white points and also curves after the preview-scan)
Mjd-djm
Established
I could never really get to like any Ilford films using ilfotec dd-x. The grain looked ugly and lacked any real punch. I switched to LC-29 and now am really happy with the results. The developer can have a huge influence on your final image. I also have some perceptol and microphen to try. All part of the fun and flexibility of developing film.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
Ilford FP4+ is a great film. If I could use only one film...that would be it. I've used X-tol, PMK & now Pyrocat HD in glycol. 35mm, 120 & 5x7" pretty much my favourite film.
jawarden
Well-known
I like Ilfosol 3 for FP4 and other medium-to-slow traditional grain films, for what it's worth.
I've not tried LC-29 but I'm interested now that you've mentioned it. Ilford recommends Ilfosol 3 for FP4 and Ilfotec DDX for their Delta range of films, but their website doesn't say why a photographer would choose LC-29 for one film or another.
jawarden
Well-known
Indeed it is, and it's not adding the grainy grit to the image that the scanner was.
Now that you know what your DIY setup can do, perhaps dial in your scanner so it's showing you its best quality, and then decide. As others have pointed out, your original Epson scan was well beyond its actual resolving power and sharpening was used. If you follow znapper's scanning advice and Chris Crawford's post processing advice you'll have a far better image from your Epson than you currently do, and then you can compare that output to the Canon.
Steve Ruddy
Established
Right on, will do. Thanks for your help.
Steve Ruddy
Established
Thanks for the info and link. I remember reading that years ago and have always scanned at 3200 with no adjustments. For whatever reason I decided to try scanning sharpening this time. I will scan again and throw both camera and flatbed scans into their own PS layer. This way I can get a direct comparison. I'm not sure if the glass insert would help with the v600 quality. I'm really not sure if focus is optimum or can be improved. A big thing for me is getting a big file size. I was hoping for 50+mb that the v600 will give vs 30mb my camera gives, I guess I loose some of that cropping out the sides too. It seems like the V600 is good enough for internet sharing so I may get it as good as possible, then if I need a better and bigger file I can use my camera and take several shots and stitch them together.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
On the subject of what to expect from FP-4:
On the subject of what to expect from FP-4:
On the subject of what to expect from FP-4: I've been grieving the loss of Plus-X. I still have a brick or so in the freezer, but when that's gone, it's gone. Would FP-4 be a suitable substitute, or should I look elsewhere? What about Silvermax?
On the subject of what to expect from FP-4:
On the subject of what to expect from FP-4: I've been grieving the loss of Plus-X. I still have a brick or so in the freezer, but when that's gone, it's gone. Would FP-4 be a suitable substitute, or should I look elsewhere? What about Silvermax?
znapper
Well-known
Try scanning at 1400 DPI and then resize in photoshop or similar later, usually makes a better job.
No point scanning at more than the actual scanner resolution, unfortunately.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
If you read the online scanner tests, you often have to scan at the highest nominal resolution to get the highest actual resolution.
znapper
Well-known
The maximum resolution of the v600, from what I can read, is around 1560, which means that a scan at 2400 DPI (if he use the same software as me) is the "least" messy one, and has most scanning data available.
it says here (http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html )
' According to our resolution table, an effective resolution of 1560ppi results from that '
With my V750 I can scan at 12800 DPI, which is ridiculous, since the optical resolutionon that scanner is 2400 DPI.
The only thing you achieve when you scan above the actual resolution, is digital zoom, which is pretty crappy on these machines, as proven by the OP.
I have also done several test with a good negative myself, after correcting focus on my v750 and there are absolutely no more detail to be had above 2400DPI, you only get a bigger file, which just makes the details more blurry, due to interpolation done on the scanner.
So i disagree in regards of these flatbeds and the Epson software.
Now, it might be scanner-types and software that allow for several passes of the negatives, which might extract more data, but that doesn't apply to the Epsons afaik.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
The review you cited says that for the V600 you have to scan at 3200 to achieve 1560. Scanning at a lower resolution won't get you 1560. Scanning at higher than 3200 won't resolve more than 1560 either. In its companion review of the V800, it says you have to scan at 4800 to achieve maximum actual resolution of 2300. Scanning at less than 4800 won't get you there. Neither will scanning at higher than 4800 get you anything more.
Steve Ruddy
Established
This was how I understood it too, hence why I scan at 3200.
znapper
Well-known
I see, I stand corrected then, seemed to have missed out on that part 
Stupid that people have to scan at twice the resolution they actually get.
At least my tests with mine, indicated no difference between 2400DPI and "higher resolution" settings.
As for the artifacts, it seems strange to get those, normally you would get less grain, due to the low resolution.
Do you use noise-reduction?
I know that noise-reduction, combined with unsharp-mask can give pretty narly results sometimes.
Stupid that people have to scan at twice the resolution they actually get.
At least my tests with mine, indicated no difference between 2400DPI and "higher resolution" settings.
As for the artifacts, it seems strange to get those, normally you would get less grain, due to the low resolution.
Do you use noise-reduction?
I know that noise-reduction, combined with unsharp-mask can give pretty narly results sometimes.
Steve Ruddy
Established
From first roll of FP4+ D76 full strength.
D
Deleted member 65559
Guest
If I could only have one film, Ilford FP4+ would be it. I use it in 120 & 5x7".....& sometimes in 35. I used to use PMK as my standard developer, but I've changed over to Pyrocat HD in glycol. Results in darkroom printing on both graded and VC papers are really good.