Epson V600 - Epson Scan good enough?

[PerTulip]

Hi!

I ordered an Epson V600 to scan 120 and 135 film. Since most of my photography is digital and I don't want to commit a huge amount of money to a hybrid workflow, this scanner fits my budget/needs. The scans of my 120/135 will mostly be viewed only on the computer and if I want to print an especially good photo, I can have it scanned through a professional service (Imacon, etc.). But with the V600 I will already have a good idea how the postprocessed photo will loke like and have my better images archived. And I am also considering a darkroom (B&W) at some point.... So no need for a premium scanner right now. Of course I'd love a Nikon 9000 but that's just out of the question moneywise.

Perharps you can save some trial and error. I want to make linear scans and do all the postprocessing in Photoshop (with the ColorPerfect/ColorNeg) plugin. That's why the scanning software doesn't need to deal with conversions/profiles. What I need is an as sharp as possible (for a flatbed) image from the scanner.
1. Can I achieve that with Epson Scan or is there a significant increase in image quality with VueScan/SilverFast that justifies spending money on them?
2. The Digitaliza film holders seem to be an improvement. Is that so? Any experiences out there?

Of course I am thankful for any further hints to pint me in the right direction.

 

[Frank53]

If you use your scans only to view your photo’s on a computerscreen, the V600 will be good enough. Just don’t go pixelpeeping.
The Epson software works fine. Imho you do not anything else.
For postprocessing in Photoshop, try the free NIK software. It’s a plug-in that you can download from Google.
Regards,
Frank

 

[PerTulip]

I have been using the NIK plugins for ages. But for negative conversions, I wil use ColorPerfect.

 

[dabsond]

In the scanning world you generally get what you pay for. I use the Epson 600 for my scanning and I am happy with the results. I have tried the Vuescan and Silverfast software and in my opinion the EpsonScan software gives me the results I am looking for. I scan my 35mm transparencies and negatives at 4800 dpi and my 120 negatives at 3200 dpi. I turn all the enhancements off, sharpening etc. I scan as a tiff and import to lightroom. I find I have much more ability to adjust in post using lightroom than I could with any scanning software. That's my opinion anyway.

Some samples of my scanning:

Dead Link Removed

 

[PerTulip]

So, while VueScan/Silverfast may have a lot of additional features (film profiles,..), "sharpness-wise" or "quality-wise" Epson Scan is giving you a good enough file to post-process in LR/PS and VueScan/Silverfast don't give you any improvement in the "raw" (for lack of a better term) scan?

 

[dabsond]

So, while VueScan/Silverfast may have a lot of additional features (film profiles,..), "sharpness-wise" or "quality-wise" Epson Scan is giving you a good enough file to post-process in LR/PS and VueScan/Silverfast don't give you any improvement in the "raw" (for lack of a better term) scan?

I just select either negative/positive film type and let epsonscan do the rest. Normally all that is needed in lightroom is a quick white balance adjustment along with some color noise adjustment.

As for the film holders, I find them quite useable. I have not seen the need to use third party film holders. I shoot mostly Kentmere400, Ektar, and Kodak Maximum for 35mm negative film. I have found these to dry extremely flat and easy to scan. FujiColor has a lot of curl and is harder to get a quality scan. In the past I have had to leave it in sleeves for a while for it to flatten our. As for 120 I shoot HP5 and Ektar, both lie flat in the film holder.

Hope this helps.

 

[blockend]

I agree, go for a film with a thick base, it'll make your scanning life easier. Thinner films can warp sufficiently that they touch the glass, making Newton rings, and sharpness is all over the place.

 

[PerTulip]

I agree, go for a film with a thick base, it'll make your scanning life easier. Thinner films can warp sufficiently that they touch the glass, making Newton rings, and sharpness is all over the place.

Which ones would that (think base) be?

 

[blockend]

Which ones would that (think base) be?

I avoid Tri-X and some Fuji. Older films like Foma and not-so-old ones like Ilford tend to have a more substantial base. Most can be made to work after being pressed, but humidity and other factors can make film curl. Other posters may be able to advise on their own favourites.

 

[Down Under]

I bought a new V600 in 201? (about six years ago) for what I intended to be "temporary" use for 35mm and 6x6 (120) negatives and slides, to be used for a year or so, while I saved up enough to invest bigger buck$ in what I thought would be a better (= more expensive) scanner.

As I am somewhat of a luddite (Nikkormats and Rolleiflex TLRs, need I say more) my learning curve with the V600 was initially quite steep, but I persevered. At that time I shot mostly architecture for book publication and internet use by my clients, not the classic perfect-verticals images but more natural, aesthetically pleasing images to appeal more to general readers than to architects.

From the very first my V600 did all I expected of it and more. It served my purposes so well that I stayed with it, and eventually decided to not invest my hard earned money in more expensive scanner gear.

For my purposes the Epson software has worked well. Like dabscond (see #4 and #6), I scan using only the basic - ,no sharpening or any other 'tricks', only to capture the images with reasonable contrast. I do the rest in post processing, often as not with little manipulation beyond some sharpening and color/white balance adjustments. For (probably technical) reasons I've yet to figure out, my scans come out a little blue, and I find pulling' the blue by a few points in PP brings back the crisp neutral grey tones I (and my few remaining clients) prefer in my finished images.

80% of my scans are for OL viewing or sending as free images to family and friends, and the remaining 20% sent as better quality sample photos to clients. Sold images are sent as high resolution TIFFs or for my r(very few) sales to collectors or libraries, as B&W prints finished in my home darkroom.

Again, like dabscond, I turn off everything in the scanner and I scan 35mm at 4800 dpi and 120 at either 2400 dpi or 3200 dpi, depending on how much resolution I want in the mid tones. I realise this latter point is probably wasted time, but it's how I do it and I go on doing it. I also have a Plustek 7600i for 35mm scans, which produces better quality results but is a bit slower to work with. It produces excellent scans from B&W and color negatives, better than the Epson I believe, but basic scans from color slides need more work inPP. The only downside with the Plustek is I have to manually push the six negatives in the holder through the scanner while the Epson scans a dozen at a time.

I would recommend to anyone with an Epson V? scanner to remove the scanner platen (glass) at least once a year and clean it. I also vacuum (carefully) the scanner innards with a small hand vacuum cleaner as is used by jewellers and computer repair wizards. Amazing how much grit and dust I get out of a supposedly well sealed scanner...

Over the past 18 months I have, for reasons mostly to do with my age, laziness, interest in other pursuits and declining markets largely due to the proliferation of digicrap imagery posted everywhere at giveaway prices or free, geared down my business shooting and photo library work, to the extent that I now do one or two book projects a year, and sell occasional images mostly to small publishers and publications. My V600 still serves me well. I am now slowly and steadily working thru my archive of MF negatives dating back to 1962. For me, the final results are more important than scanning speed and I find I tend to proof five or six negatives, make detailed notes on my laptop and allocate a code and number and keywords to the individual image, before doing a basic scan, more to record the image for posterity than for final quality prints. This also allows me to decide on one or two of the half dozen to be set aside for final larger scans in the future. This is a pleasant way to work and doesn't tie me up for endless hours of scanner drudgery or otherwise negatively impact on what little time I have left to do all this and the more enjoyable things in my life.

My workflow is more about my personal choices than any high levels of quality. Initially I set to working through my archives with the goal of cutting up most negatives I couldn't be bothered to scan or otherwise even keep, but as I went along the memories came flooding back and I found I was typing up recollections rather than wielding the scissors.

I am aware of the V600's limitations but it does what I want it to and with a little study/research and careful work, seems to produce as good results as I will ever need. Horses for courses, as the saying goes.

Many interesting points in this thread and I have learned a few good things. Thank you all!

 

[rrusso]

I have the V600 and just use Epson's scanning software and the provided holders. All of the scanner's special features are turned off - I just want a good scan that I can work with in post.

I know there are better options for 35mm, but I think if you're not wanting to print really big, you likely won't see an appreciable difference.

My printer will go up to 13" wide, but I've yet to go that big...8x10 is the biggest I've done, and I haven't yet regretted not buying a higher-end scanner.

Of course, your standards/tastes may differ.

 

[RattyMouse]

Hi!

I ordered an Epson V600 to scan 120 and 135 film.

Well since you already ordered the scanner, asking all these questions seems out of place. Research first, then buy.

For 35mm film, I have never been satisfied with what a flat bed scanner could deliver. The sharpness simply is not there, except with ultra fine films like Neopan Acros. Before I bought my dedicated film scanner (Plustek 120), I was virtually always unhappy my 35mm film and so hardly shot much. Now with the Plustek, 35mm scans from any film are very very sharp. I enjoy getting the most quality out of any film that I shoot so had no problem spending the large amount of money it took to buy the Plustek 120 scanner. It's been in my hands for almost 3 years and has performed flawlessly. One big payment and then that's forgotten about with nothing but high quality scans to enjoy.

Since it looks like I will never be able to have a dark room in my house, I enjoy printing my film on an inkjet printer.

 

[blockend]

For my money a print from a scanned negative is no substitute for an optical print. However scans, even domestic flatbed scanned images, are plenty good enough for internet sharing or printing in books up to around 12 x 8", perhaps a little larger on screen. Bigger than that I find digital artefacts intrusive, which may be a shortcoming in my V500, or a perfectionist streak, or my scanning technique. Don't expect to pixel peep as you would a digital image. The biggest drag is time taken to scan at higher resolutions, especially medium format negatives. The upside is it allows images to be seen beyond friends and family, and if printed books are your thing scans are unavoidable.

 

[Ted Baker]

Hi!
1. Can I achieve that with Epson Scan or is there a significant increase in image quality with VueScan/SilverFast that justifies spending money on them?
2. The Digitaliza film holders seem to be an improvement. Is that so? Any experiences out there?

1. AFAIK the only feature that VueScan/SilverFast has as far working directly with the epson scanner hardware is the ability to manually adjust the exposure gain, everything else is just software.

2. I have the betterscanning holder for my 4990 and yes it offers an improvement.

 

[faberryman]

I wasn't happy with 6x9 prints from 35mm scans from a V700, and bought a dedicated film scanner. According to filmscanner.info, the V700 has an actual resolution of 2300 and my film scanner has an actual resolution of 4300. The V700 can't resolve film grain; the film scanner can. Different people will have different opinions of what is "good enough".

 

[jim10219]

1. AFAIK the only feature that VueScan/SilverFast has as far working directly with the epson scanner hardware is the ability to manually adjust the exposure gain, everything else is just software.

2. I have the betterscanning holder for my 4990 and yes it offers an improvement.

That was not my experience in either case.

I bought Vuescan a while back because Epson's software wouldn't allow me to scan files above a certain file size. This was for an all-in-one scanner/printer/fax, but the fact that it allowed for higher quality scans of small items, or low quality scans of big items, but not both due to file size limits was quite annoying. The Vuescan program fixed that. Since it works with just about every scanner and has a ton of useful, manual-type controls, I don't even attempt to use any other programs. Epson's native software may work better with their higher end scanners and such, but I have no incentive to try it since I already own and am used to Vuescan.

The betterscanning holders work well for other scanners, like the V750, but for my Epson 4990, the lens is focused directly on the plate glass and is non-adjustable. So any film holder that sits above the glass decreases sharpness significantly. In my experience, wet scanning directly on the plate glass produces the best results with that scanner.

 

[Ted Baker]

I bought Vuescan a while back because Epson's software wouldn't allow me to scan files above a certain file size.

Just like I said, everything else is just software...

On the focus, everything has a manufacturing tolerance, I found the best result from memory was 1.8mm for my scanner, maybe the main advantage was it kept the film flat. Perhaps I should have said it offered an improvement with my own 4990. I will at some point give the Digitaliza a whirl.

 

[Frank53]

I wasn't happy with 6x9 prints from 35mm scans from a V700, and bought a dedicated film scanner. According to filmscanner.info, the V700 has an actual resolution of 2300 and my film scanner has an actual resolution of 4300. The V700 can't resolve film grain; the film scanner can. Different people will have different opinions of what is "good enough".

True!
That’s why I have an old Imacon Precision II standing next to it. The difference is huge.
The way the OP wants to use it, makes the V600 good enough and in my case, the V700 good enough to make scans fot my archive or the internet.
Kind regards,
Frank

 

[Wallendo]

I have used a V600 for 5 years ago, and it often is "good enough", although I now scan 35mm with a dedicated film scanner.

I haven't used the EpsonScan software in a long time as I felt that it tended to clip shadows and highlights and pushed the contrast too much. This works well at times for snapshots. My personal preference is to use VueScan where I can control the black and white points to capture as much of the film information as possible, and then make adjustments later.

 

[tedr1]

I also own the V600, and have been happy with the results for moderate enlargements using the Epson supplied software and the Epson supplied filmholders.

Please, I have a question, what is "linear scanning" and what are the advantages compared to the other method (log scan?)?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I have a V600 and use Epsonscan. I scan with out any adjustments "flat" and do all adjustments in my post processing programs. I tried other film holders and did not see any difference. But the key is to have flat negatives.

Regarding Vuescan and other programs, they cannot change the exposure in a V600 as far as I know. Maybe in the 750, 800, or 850.

If you go to my link, you can see V600 scans of various 120 and 35mm chrome and negative color and negative BW. Good luck with the unit.

 

[Ted Baker]

Vuescan

It can adjust the gain for the 4990, I am reasonably sure it's a hardware control, but for scanning negatives I don't use it, so I don't use it period . But it is the only hardware control AFAIK that is available in vuescan that is not available directly in epson scan.

what is "linear scanning" and what are the advantages compared to the other method (log scan?)?

The simple answer is the intensity "values" stored in your file are the "same" as the values captured by the scanner. (by intensity I mean how bright) a value of 100 will be 10 times brighter than 10. That is an overs simplification so not technically correct but close enough. A linear scan is not what you want to look at, but it is a desirable point for some post processing methods. A finished "print" will always be non-linear relative to the values scanned.

Hopefully that helps.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It can adjust the gain for the 4990, I am reasonably sure it's a hardware control, but for scanning negatives I don't use it, so I don't use it period . But it is the only hardware control AFAIK that is available in vuescan that is not available directly in epson scan.



The simple answer is the intensity "values" stored in your file are the "same" as the values captured by the scanner. (by intensity I mean how bright) a value of 100 will be 10 times brighter than 10. That is an overs simplification so not technically correct but close enough. A linear scan is not what you want to look at, but it is a desirable point for some post processing methods. A finished "print" will always be non-linear relative to the values scanned.

Hopefully that helps.

I find that using Levels (as in Elements) or adjusting white and black point as in LR to spread the "linear scan" restores about 95% of the correct exposure and colors. Then tweak from there.

 

[Ted Baker]

I find that using Levels (as in Elements) or adjusting white and black point as in LR to spread the "linear scan" restores about 95% of the correct exposure and colors. Then tweak from there.

Or you can apply a simple mathematical function to a "non-linear" scan and get back to exactly the same "linear" scan you would have gotten in the first place... The only exception is when clipping has occurred.

 

[tedr1]

Thank you. If I understand correctly one of the issues is linearity of conversion between linear (sensor output) and "non-linear" (display), perhaps because such conversions always include errors?