Epson V550 - Good enough for small self-published book?

[logan2z]

I'm thinking about producing a small, self-published book of some of my photographs, likely using Blurb. All of my photographs are on film so the negatives will need to be scanned for publication.

I'm planning on a small form factor for the book - 7x7 or 8x10 so the images will be relatively small.

I've got an Epson V550 that I use for producing digital contact sheets and for creating images to share on social media and forums. Scan quality is decent but certainly not state of the art. I'm wondering if the scans produced with the V550 will be of sufficient quality for a small book like the one I'm planning. I'd hate to have to ship my negatives off to someone to scan on a commercial scanner like a Noritsu if that's overkill for my purposes.

Does anyone have experience producing images for a book using a scanner like the V550?

 

[shutterfinger]

What format film are you planning to scan? Scan at the maximum optical resolution then resize in post to get the maximum from the scanner.
The V500, V550, V600 all have the same scanner specs for resolution and light source but the Dmax is only listed for the V600 and likely the same for the V500 and V550. Higher Dmax can produce better shadow detail.

 

[MattKing]

Personally, I would make darkroom prints (on RC Satin paper) and then scan the prints.

 

[Down Under]

I'll stay well away from commenting on the Epson V550, as I've never used one. I have a V600 and it has produced several small Blurb books for a photographer friend.

Bearing in mind a few basic points.

In my (very extensive) experience, the Epson Vs in the < 600 range, are entirely adequate for medium format but not so sheet-hot on 35. Okay for internet posts, but difficult to work with for lhe larger print images. We managed to get A4s that were passably good from my friend's Epson scans, but even then they tended to break up a little if inspected closely. Fine for distant viewing.

The actual setting up, scanning, inspecting and checking your images will consume hours of your life and precious time. You can plan to do other tasks while the Epson whirrs away and makes the images you want. Expect to have to rescan less well-exposed ones two or even more times. Think of all the house work you will get done...

Then the most time-consuming part of your scanning will be in post-processing, to adjust the color shifts and keeping contrast even throughout the selection of images. This will almost surely have you pulling out your hair by the roots, as I did (lacking all that much hair to damage in the first place).

I'm interested to find out why poster #3 recommends using Satin paper for prints to be scanned. In my experience, this paper is the most difficult I've found to work with in scanning. Nice, clean Glossy paper, not too contrasty and with even mid-tones works best for me.

I'm now preparing to scan a few hundred old family images which I will be printing first in what is left of of my home darkroom, on long-outdated but still usable Ilford MGIV Glossy, so please do tell us about your scanning experience with Satin.

 

[MattKing]

I'm interested to find out why poster #3 recommends using Satin paper for prints to be scanned. In my experience, this paper is the most difficult I've found to work with in scanning. Nice, clean Glossy paper, not too contrasty and with even mid-tones works best for me.

For me, and the scanners I have worked with, I've got the best results from Satin RC. I started using Satin on the recommendation of a couple of very good darkroom workers and instructors and photographic artists, and I found myself agreeing with them.
It might have something to do with how reflection is minimized, as well as how you need to print to optimize the appearance of a print on Satin.

 

[logan2z]

What format film are you planning to scan? Scan at the maximum optical resolution then resize in post to get the maximum from the scanner.
The V500, V550, V600 all have the same scanner specs for resolution and light source but the Dmax is only listed for the V600 and likely the same for the V500 and V550. Higher Dmax can produce better shadow detail.

This first book will probably be from 35mm negative film.

 

[logan2z]

Personally, I would make darkroom prints (on RC Satin paper) and then scan the prints.

Scanning prints crossed my mind as well. I have some prints of the work I intend to include in the book, but they're currently on glossy fiber paper. It's probably worth scanning a print (I'll try one on RC too) then scanning the negative from which the print was made and comparing the results.

 

[radiant]

Personally, I would make darkroom prints (on RC Satin paper) and then scan the prints.

I don't think that is directly comparable solution. One needs to be a real good darkroom printer to beat scanning + digital adjustment. Also that increases demand for the quality of negatives. And I'm not questioning logan2z's skills at all.

 

[radiant]

Scanning prints crossed my mind as well. I have some prints of the work I intend to include in the book, but they're currently on glossy fiber paper. It's probably worth scanning a print (I'll try one on RC too) then scanning the negative from which the print was made and comparing the results.

Please share when you have done that. Interesting comparison indeed!

 

[logan2z]

Please share when you have done that. Interesting comparison indeed!

Will do.

 

[petrk]

I have some scans from 5500 that I used in a photobook printed by Blurb. Good up to 4x5 dimension on the page. Acceptable in about 5x7, little less detail compared to scan of the 5x7 print made in the lab, I got better colors in 5500 and avoided oversharpening effect, but as I mentioned, lost some detail. I did not like bigger than that, or crops, but I think, some viwers (usual in my family) would not mind lesser quality and would be fine with larger print. If the technical quality is the only criterion, I would use a camera scan instead of 5500 for larger dimension than 5x7. However, I can imagine some images would look fine even on full page on book large as you intended. I think it is doable, you should go with your 5500 and test these technical and esthetic limits on your own. Be prepared to fool Blurb by resolution of scans, so maybe scan at more resolution than the optical resolution. Other recommendation is do not spread image on double pages, I had issue with Blurb it allways tried to resample part of image printed on right page leading to visible lose of detail. If you need to make a double page spread, or want to split the image by gut, rather make two plaseholders of image on both pages, insert the image on both of them and crop the appropriate part so they complement to each other like the real spread.
(Edited to add details)

 

[gone]

My experience w/ scanners is that you either get something expensive like a Nikon or you get a flatbed, but the difference in image quality between them for your purposes would be negligible. I once made a scan from a Nikon scanner and also w/ my ancient Epson 2450. Couldn't tell them apart after editing, only the file sizes were different at 2450 vs 4000.

My current scanner is more of a toy, a $60 Wolverine like you see on Amazon. It's used to proof 35mm negs in order to figure out which ones to print in the darkroom.

The scans look great!, you could certainly print them, the file sizes are big enough for 13x19. Here's a sample scan below. I found that the higher resolution scanners just accentuated the grain to a crazy level. They won't print like you see on a monitor, which is not so helpful.

 

[shutterfinger]

V500 - no D max listed; USB 2; 6400 dpi max hardware resolution; 6x12 medium format, 4 35mm slides, 12 35mm negatives.
V550 - 3.4 Dmax; high Speed USB; 6400dpi max hardware resolution; 6x22 medium format, 4 35mm slides, 12 35mm negatives.
V600 - 3.4 Dmax; high speed USB; 6400dpi max hardware resolution; 6x22 medium format, 4 35mm slides, 12 35mm negatives.
The other major difference is the Operating System they were designed to work on.
All should produce good quality scans.

 

[bernard_L]

6400 dpi max hardware resolution

Sampling density. Not resolution.
In other words (for the general readership; presumably shutterfinger is well aware of that), the image formed by the scanner lens in the sensor plane has (by necessity) a limited resolution. No amount of sensor resolution is going to make sharper than it is.
Scanner manufacturers like to quote sensor resolution. And I would check twice that it is not (even worse) interpolated resolution.

 

[radiant]

I've understood that V600 has optical resolution of about 1200dpi.

 

[shutterfinger]

A soft focus original will produce a soft focus scan even with sharpening.
A major factor in scanners is the lens quality. I had a Polaroid Sprintscan 35mm scanner that produced excellent scans due to the quality of the lens. The lens is what makes Nikon scanners so popular.
Epson states their resolution standard, they do not state if they make their lens or use another manufacturers lens.
The Epson resolution standard for all 3 scanners:
Optional optical resolution is the maximum scan resolution of the CCD elements, using the definition of ISO 14473. ISO 14473 defines optical resolution as the fundamental sampling rate of the scan sensor.
The stated hardware/optical scan limit is a reference number and nothing more. Will you see the difference between a 4800dpi and 6400dpi scan, likely not unless you have a very critical eye. Will you see the difference between a 2400dpi or 3600dpi and a 6400dpi scan, likely.
Look up some of the resolution post and read them rather than hijacking this thread into another useless debate as a reference number is a reference number and the test procedure and target used will produce different results compared to a different test method and target.

 

[radiant]

A soft focus original will produce a soft focus scan even with sharpening.
A major factor in scanners is the lens quality. I had a Polaroid Sprintscan 35mm scanner that produced excellent scans due to the quality of the lens. The lens is what makes Nikon scanners so popular.
Epson states their resolution standard, they do not state if they make their lens or use another manufacturers lens.
The Epson resolution standard for all 3 scanners:
Optional optical resolution is the maximum scan resolution of the CCD elements, using the definition of ISO 14473. ISO 14473 defines optical resolution as the fundamental sampling rate of the scan sensor.
The stated hardware/optical scan limit is a reference number and nothing more. Will you see the difference between a 4800dpi and 6400dpi scan, likely not unless you have a very critical eye. Will you see the difference between a 2400dpi or 3600dpi and a 6400dpi scan, likely.
Look up some of the resolution post and read them rather than hijacking this thread into another useless debate as a reference number is a reference number and the test procedure and target used will produce different results compared to a different test method and target.

There is one test done here: https://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV600Photo.html

That test ended up with effective resolution of 1560ppi.

 

[guangong]

My only experience is with a 750 scanner. Based upon my experience with this scanner I have produced book illustrations quite acceptable for my publications. I use InDesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator. Results also depend upon the printing house that produces your book. Self publishing is time consuming if you doo all work yourself while demanding a quality product.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My only experience is with a 750 scanner. Based upon my experience with this scanner I have produced book illustrations quite acceptable for my publications. I use InDesign, Photoshop, and Illustrator. Results also depend upon the printing house that produces your book. Self publishing is time consuming if you doo all work yourself while demanding a quality product.

How large were the photo prints in the book? Which paper is best? Color or BW?

 

[guangong]

How large were the photo prints in the book? Which paper is best? Color or BW?

Alan, mine were prints for a standard 6x9 book. Selected more as exhibits rather than photos per se. Most occupied less than a page. In early 1960s I was invited to a small party given by Knopf’s chief editor at his swanky Manhattan apt. After doing self editing I can appreciate the high level of his income.
My friend Lou Stettner self published several portfolios and books, but he used normal chemical prints and had a high quality printer use then for multiple printed copies.
All depends upon what quality satisfies the author. I’ve seen your stuff on another photo site...pretty good.

 

[Pieter12]

I scan negs to make contact sheets, nothing more, so I don't have experience or expertise on that side of the issue. However, I scan darkroom prints all the time. Glossy prints tend to get slight reflections at the edges, needing some clean-up in post. Also, you are going to be scanning a much larger image at whatever resolution you choose, so you might not have to interpolate in post either. Additional manipulation and clean-up can be done on the scanned image as well. I don't know if anyone has pointed this out yet, but your final file should be at least 300dpi at the actual size it will be reproduced. A 35mm image scanned at 1200dpi and will give you something like a 5-1/2x3-3/4" image when sized to 300dpi without resampling.

 

[Les Sarile]

Scanning prints crossed my mind as well. I have some prints of the work I intend to include in the book, but they're currently on glossy fiber paper. It's probably worth scanning a print (I'll try one on RC too) then scanning the negative from which the print was made and comparing the results.

These prints you have on glossy fiber paper, must have been from scans already right? Are these scans from your Epson? How large are these prints and are you happy with the prints? Scans from the film are always going to be much better then the scans from the print that came from scans from the film.

I would suggest making prints the same size of the proposed book and see if it meets your expectations. Otherwise, adjust in post.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

As important as the scanner, if not more, is the scanning software.
Among many others, SilverFast is a good one.

 

[logan2z]

These prints you have on glossy fiber paper, must have been from scans already right?

These prints are not from scans, they were made optically from 35mm negatives.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have made six handmade books (printing, binding and cover) from instructions observed on UTube over the past several years. All images were from scanned negatives 2 1/4 and 4x5. Printed on two different Epson printers a 2200 and currently a 3880 with double sided paper from Hahnemuhle and also Moab 13x19 folded in half. Papers were matte finish and sprayed with Moab Desert Varnish. I can't compare to what Blurb would produce from the same scans but some of those type services offer a variety of material choices. I would guess that if you are satisfied with prints you have made from scans of those negatives the results from Blurb etc should be equal. Try a minimum book and see. If you want only a couple of copies try a do it yourself as I did although it is quite labor intensive but rewarding.

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY