At risk of being shot down in flames - disadvantages of flatbeds LESS then the V700

[hoffy]

Howdy all,

Wow, my first post here!

OK, I vowed and declared that when I took up this film photography malarkey again, I would not get into scanning negatives. It all kind of defeated the purpose of why I took up film photography, which was to print in the darkroom.

For B&W, this has worked out OK thus far - if I want to display something online, I scan the print I have already made with my el'cheapo MFC type scanner, tweak the contrast, clean up some dust, resize, sharpen and viola! At 800px on the longest side, it didn't really matter and I find what I have produced is good enough (I have to admit that I really wouldn't want to be pushing this bad boy any further)

But colour, well that's another story. While I have given optical RA-4 printing a try, I have hit a brick wall with equipment, which has seen that come to a halt. I have also been getting the lab that processes my negs to scan. Sometimes they nail it. Sometimes they miss it by so far, it's not funny.

Which leads me into my next question!

I want to get a scanner.... but frankly, I'd rather spend the money on more film. SO, I need to weigh up how much I can and am willing to spend.

My requirements are easy. For B&W, I WON'T be scanning negatives for the purpose of printing - it's as simple as that. For Colour, I might scan negs for printing, but to be honest, if I was printing bigger then 8x10's, I'd probably get the neg scanned by a professional lab and the idea is to eventually get this done optically myself again. Also, colour is about faithful reproduction, as opposed to out and out digital manipulation. I would also be scanning up to 6x7 negs and/or flat prints typically for online display. I can't really see myself producing contact prints, so one strip of negs at a time is fine.

SO, taking this into mind, would an Epson V500 suffice for what I want? Will I push it's limits? Will I pine for something else?

Any advice or thoughts are welcome
Cheers

 

[L Gebhardt]

I have never used the V500, but the Epson 4870 does a reasonable job with color negatives. Real resolution is around 2000dpi, and color negatives aren't dense enough to give it fits. The V500 is probably about the same in terms of real resolution and density. So for your stated purposes I think you would be satisfied, especially if you shoot medium format. 35mm will obviously show the limits of the scanner sooner.

Having said that I use a drum scanner for most of my scans, and there is an obvious quality difference between the two. But the Epson is faster, and good enough that I use if for proof scans.

 

[Eric Rose]

see if you can pick up a Nikon film scanner. I love mine. Tried flatbeds but was never happy with the results.

 

[hoffy]

see if you can pick up a Nikon film scanner. I love mine. Tried flatbeds but was never happy with the results.

OK, yeah, I get that. I suppose the question has to be asked, which one, especially considering a) I want it to do MF and b) price?

 

[artobest]

For your requirements, a Nikon Coolscan would be overkill. The Epson V500 will do fine.

 

[hoffy]

I was kind of thinking that a MF neg scanner is going to cost too much, even old crusty second hand ones, hence my question of 'which one'

OK, time for the next question.

I looked at the V range locally. The V500 is $426 in Australia! I checked at B&H and it was less then $200, but the item is only for sale in the US.....(the $AU is still pretty close to parity to the $US)

Apart from power adaptors (which I am sure I could source locally), is there anything preventing me using the US version here?

 

[bdial]

No, the power would be the only issue. And, a lot of stuff is designed to work on worldwide voltages, only the power cord or line adaptor is different. Often there is a little switch to move from 120 V to 2xx V.
That said, I just looked at the back of my 4990, and it doesn't have a switch, don't know about the V500 though.

I am somewhat in agreement with the opinions of flatbed vs something like a Coolscan for your purpose. The flatbed will certainly give you reasonable 8x10s, but I've never been quite happy with mine for MF and 35. Got a used Coolscan last year and it makes all the difference, but even used, they are typically more than double the Oz price you quoted for the Epson new.

 

[GRHazelton]

I use a V700 for scanning color and BW, 35mm and 6x4.5 cm film. My experience is that the stock carriers are fine for 35mm, I've scanned in negative color and made 13 x 19 prints on my R1800 which were very satisfactory.

The stock MF carrier is terrible. My scans from negatives shot with a tripod mounted Pentax 645n, 55mm lens, were wretched. The stock carrier won't keep the negatives flat, thus sharpness varies all over the place.

I bought betterscanning.com's replacement carrier and their anti Newton's rings glass. There is a rather lengthy and tedious height adjustment process which, when completed gives corner to corner sharpness using the ANG glass. While the carrier and glass aren't cheap they are worth the money. I'd guess that the resultant scans would be good for a 2 x 3 foot or larger print.

I shoot both film and digital. The film scans in BW and color make wonderful "contact" sheets with the advantage of Lightroom's cataloging capabilities. Since I don't intend to venture into color printing "wet work" the color scans go to a local photo store for printing. For BW I can get a locally made small print from the scan, and if I like it go to the dark side to do a silver print.

My feeling is that unless you go to a drum scanner or score a real bargain in a Nikon MF film scanner the Epson V700 is your best bet. Disclaimer: I haven't tried the V500.

 

[jeffreyg]

If there is a major difference in cost the 4870 with decent scanning software should work just fine (at least mine with SilverFast Studio has). I'm not familiar with the V500. If mine goes I would get the V700. I shoot MF and LF but have scanned 35mm negatives that I have taken with both a 35mm SLR and my Contax point and shoot (both on tripods) and scanned and printed 13x19 with excellent results. I'm sure the tripod and having stopped down helped.

HOME PAGE

 

[Alan Klein]

I have a V600. While I think from what I've seen from others, the V700 does a better job then both the V500 and V600. But it's more expensive. However, if you decide on the V500, you may want the V600 because it scans three 6x7 at one time vs. only on 6x7 on the V500. Also, the V600 does ICE on prints while the V500 doesn't. The cost difference in the US is pretty small between the V500 and V600. Yu can check my scans with the V600 with 35mm and medium format on my FLickr Alan Klein 100's photosets on Flickr Good luck on whatever you decide.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I want to get a scanner.... but frankly, I'd rather spend the money on more film. SO, I need to weigh up how much I can and am willing to spend.

My requirements are easy. For B&W, I WON'T be scanning negatives for the purpose of printing - it's as simple as that. For Colour, I might scan negs for printing, but to be honest, if I was printing bigger then 8x10's, I'd probably get the neg scanned by a professional lab and the idea is to eventually get this done optically myself again. Also, colour is about faithful reproduction, as opposed to out and out digital manipulation. I would also be scanning up to 6x7 negs and/or flat prints typically for online display. I can't really see myself producing contact prints, so one strip of negs at a time is fine.

SO, taking this into mind, would an Epson V500 suffice for what I want? Will I push it's limits? Will I pine for something else?

yes, I think with those criteria it would be. Personally I'd look seriously at a good used Epson 4870 or 4990, but there can be quite some product variation in these scanners. My 4870 is sharp (given what it is) but my 4990 looks like mush in comparison.

The extra width of these models over the 500 makes scanning a bit of volume easier.

Definitely for black and white these are OK. Since you said not scanning for printing I would imagine you mean scanning for web or other digital purpose right?

2000dpi will still give you a good result for that purpose. IE 1200dpi of 35mm will give you 1830x1330 pixels.

 

[Les Sarile]

You mightkeep an eye out for Epson scanner clearance at their site -> Epson Clearance Center

 

[mdarnton]

Do you have a DSLR? I'm doing all of my "scanning" on a copy stand with a Nikon D300 and Micro-Nikkor. It's working out great--better than any flatbed will do, for sure. Check my flickr page for the results--all of the recent B&W has been done that way. If you already have the equipment, as I do, it's not a big step.

 

[Les Sarile]

Michael, Do you have direct comparisons of scans from your DSLR vs a scanner that clearly shows your claim?

 

[mdarnton]

I do not. I have not found any reason to keep the scans: the loss of fine detail was obvious, and not hard to see--so much so that I didn't even save them. I'm not trying to get into an argument here: if you're interested, try it and see what you get. I did, and I'm doing what I do because of the results.

It's not just "my claim". Most of the things I've read along the way confirm what I'm seeing--flatbeds suck for 35mm--and in fact there are articles on the web about, for instance, museums setting up similar rigs for archiving because of the relatively poor quality of flatbed scanning, combined with the excessive time required. With better DSLRs, which I don't have, I expect even a greater difference. This might be the main reason I will upgrade.

My point, though is that if you already have a good DSLR, there's not any reason to buy a flatbed scanner.

If you want to find out the difference, try it and see what you get. Your results may be different from mine. It requires quite a careful setup, for a start.

 

[Les Sarile]

Michael,
As a test engineer for a few decades now I asked in the interest of science. On the net, it is not uncommon to see claims made without proof. Usually this is because most are not test engineers and make statements based on observations as fact with no evidence to support said observations. Since you now admit you have no proof I will leave it at that. This of course is not to say your observations are wrong, just without proof at this time.

BTW, nice collection of images on your site regardless of how you scanned them.

 

[mdarnton]

I am not a test engineer, so I don't have an engineer's hubris. Let's be totally clear, then: YOU have no proof. That does not mean I have no proof, and it does not mean that there is no proof.

It also doesn't even mean that your results would be the same. I suspect I'm a little better at setting up the copy situation than most people would be, and a little less skilled with the scanners then some people might be.

Maybe you should try it and see what you get.

Two warnings: first, alignment is critical and difficult. Using a mirror on the subject stage is really helpful for this. Second, you might think enlarging lenses would be the thing to use, but a good micro/macro lens is much better, and whatever you use needs to be used at it's best aperture.

Thanks for the compliment on the pix, too.

 

[pschwart]

It's working out great--better than any flatbed will do, for sure.

It's useful to know that your DSLR achieved a sharper scan than your flatbed scanning workflow. Beyond that, it's conjecture.

I am not a test engineer, so I don't have an engineer's hubris. Let's be totally clear, then: YOU have no proof. That does not mean I have no proof, and it does not mean that there is no proof.

It also doesn't even mean that your results would be the same. I suspect I'm a little better at setting up the copy situation than most people would be, and a little less skilled with the scanners then some people might be.

Maybe you should try it and see what you get.

Two warnings: first, alignment is critical and difficult. Using a mirror on the subject stage is really helpful for this. Second, you might think enlarging lenses would be the thing to use, but a good micro/macro lens is much better, and whatever you use needs to be used at it's best aperture.

Thanks for the compliment on the pix, too.

 

[nsouto]

For MF, an Epson flatbed of reasonably recent vintage should be OK. Not perfect, but OK.
I have a 4990 that was not so bad for MF.
For 35mm, I wouldn't bother: the results are not even on the ballpark of a dedicated film scanner.
Never tried a V700 or V500, so I can't comment on those.
Although I suspect they wouldn't be much different.

 

[mdarnton]

http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

 

[mdarnton]

http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

You guys are so funny: you know so much about things you don't try.

 

[Les Sarile]

I want to get a scanner.... but frankly, I'd rather spend the money on more film. SO, I need to weigh up how much I can and am willing to spend.

Michael,
The link you provided shows the use of a not so cheap Canon 1DsMKIII compared to a Coolscan 8000. Given the parameters provided by the OP, neither seems an option but that is for the OP to say. The link you provided also lists issues with DSLR scanning even with a much more substantial investment then a scanner not the least of which is when you apply the DSLR's limited resolution on a larger piece of film then 35mm.

Since you volunteered the possible use of a DSLR, don't laugh it off when people are asking you for proof or justification. In a community - such as ours, why reinvent the wheel when we can draw on other's expertise in the subject matter.

 

[artobest]

Apart from the issue of the critically delicate set-up of a DSLR-based scanning rig, there are many reasons why someone might not want to go down this road: for instance, the lack of ICE for cleaning dirty or scratched negatives, the absence of readily available presets for removing orange-masks from colour negatives, etc.

 

[Aristophanes]

I am not a test engineer, so I don't have an engineer's hubris. Let's be totally clear, then: YOU have no proof. That does not mean I have no proof, and it does not mean that there is no proof.

It also doesn't even mean that your results would be the same. I suspect I'm a little better at setting up the copy situation than most people would be, and a little less skilled with the scanners then some people might be.

Maybe you should try it and see what you get.

Two warnings: first, alignment is critical and difficult. Using a mirror on the subject stage is really helpful for this. Second, you might think enlarging lenses would be the thing to use, but a good micro/macro lens is much better, and whatever you use needs to be used at it's best aperture.

Thanks for the compliment on the pix, too.

Of course you'll need a macro lens for the flat field of focus. If you did not then any other lens would magnify the lack of sharpness and focus falloff in the corners.

 

[pschwart]

http://www.thedambook.com/downloads/Camera_Scanning_Krogh.pdf

You guys are so funny: you know so much about things you don't try.

Just for the record, I do not dispute the feasibility of generating quality scans using a DSLR. I have some experience with this, and my guess is others here do, too. My point was that you cannot reasonably extrapolate your very particular experience to all flatbeds for all users and workflows. I don't think anyone objects to opinions and conjecture, but this being a technical forum it's best not to present these as facts.

Personally, I have a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner, and I use these because the results are satisfactory for my needs and it is hugely convenient to have the devices always directly connected to my PC. If I had more room I might do more investigation of DSLR scanning, but for now I have tools that meet my requirements.