Epson V600 or a new camera for scanning 120 film

[flavio81]

For scanning MF film, the V600 is definitely your baby.

Yes, the bigger surface area of MF compensates for the lower optical performance of the scanner and, for some applications, give perfectly fine results.

However, in some sense you're wasting the extra expense and effort spared in using medium format, because you're discarding fine detail. I wouldn't be surprised if a good DSLR scan of a -say- Acros 100 35mm frame gives same detail (or even more!) than a V600 scan a 6x4.5 frame.

I vividly recall when I had an optical enlargement of a 6x6 negative compared with the exactly same frame enlarged using a V700 flatbed printed through the Frontier system. It was a no contest, the optical enlargement was far, far better. The two enlargements were done by the same lab! I don't even want to think how a 11x14" enlargement of a 35mm frame would look using a V700 or V600. Ugh!

For me it's simple -- if it doesn't get to resolve the grain (at least using some ISO 400 film like Kodak Ultra), then it's no good. The Fuji Frontier system was very good but even that one suffered horrible grain aliasing problems when using Superia 1600 (again, comparison to optical enlargement of the same frame was shocking, i did the tests because I was printing shots for a gallery), DSLR scanning can do a much better job than Frontier.

You mention having a Plustek, that's a completely different animal -- and better of course.

 

[roli]

Plustek as a scanner is good in my opinion. The film strip holder is a bit annoying to work with and I do wish it had the IR channel but otherwise the hardware is ok.
But since you were just discussing Silverfast - I completely and absolutely hate that piece of software. In most software I usually press the Auto button to get me suitable settings to start with. Here it usually ends up ruining everything and you have to spend next 5 minutes undoing what it did . I ordered the V600 yesterday at a local shop (they had it fairly cheaply - 290€) so I will try some comparison scans of 35mm between it and Plustek. Just to see if there is any noticeable difference to me.

 

[drmoss_ca]

For scanning MF film, the V600 is definitely your baby.

No baby of mine. There is a lot of detail to extract from medium format film that is not going to be found with a low end flatbed scanner. I have made all sorts of compromises over the years, but medium format on a Nikon 9000, or better still, a Flextight, will destroy anything from a flatbed. For goodness' sake, do not listen to anyone who hasn't tried all the options.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's a comparison I made with a V850 and Howtek drum scanner on 4x5 BW film that compares favorably. I realize it's not a V600 or medium format. But you might find the results interesting.
https://www.largeformatphotography....-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

 

[roli]

No baby of mine. There is a lot of detail to extract from medium format film that is not going to be found with a low end flatbed scanner. I have made all sorts of compromises over the years, but medium format on a Nikon 9000, or better still, a Flextight, will destroy anything from a flatbed. For goodness' sake, do not listen to anyone who hasn't tried all the options.

I would gladly buy a Nikon 9000... if it was the price of the Epson. Sadly it’s not. There is something called price performance. And the results I’ve seen were good enough for my use. I am just a hobbyist who likes to play around with film and shoot some pictures just for me - more because I like the process rather than actually doing anything with them.

 

[Dismayed]

I have a Nikon CS9000 ED that I bought new. I do like D-ICE, so i've never seen a reason to cut over to using a camera.

 

[roli]

Ok, I see why people are saying that Epson isn't the best scanner for 35mm...

Epson:

Plustek:


Epson:

Plustek:


All were scanned using Silverfast 8. And while they are relatively comparable in the first one, the second looks like crap on Epson. Yeah, the frame was definitely underexposed, but Plustek was able to extract a lot more details. Generally it looks like Epson struggles with dark areas. Also the colors on Epson look a bit washed out when compared to Plustek. All images got some minor edits and I tried getting them as close as possible. Although I didn't crop them equally.

 

[flavio81]

No baby of mine. There is a lot of detail to extract from medium format film that is not going to be found with a low end flatbed scanner. I have made all sorts of compromises over the years, but medium format on a Nikon 9000, or better still, a Flextight, will destroy anything from a flatbed. For goodness' sake, do not listen to anyone who hasn't tried all the options.

This.

 

[Auer]

This.

Which one of you is gonna buy the guy a Flextight?

 

[Auer]

Ok, I see why people are saying that Epson isn't the best scanner for 35mm...

Epson:
View attachment 285886
Plustek:
View attachment 285889

Epson:
View attachment 285887
Plustek:
View attachment 285888

All were scanned using Silverfast 8. And while they are relatively comparable in the first one, the second looks like crap on Epson. Yeah, the frame was definitely underexposed, but Plustek was able to extract a lot more details. Generally it looks like Epson struggles with dark areas. Also the colors on Epson look a bit washed out when compared to Plustek. All images got some minor edits and I tried getting them as close as possible. Although I didn't crop them equally.

What software did you use with the Epson? And what settings?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have the Epson V850 Pro and I think that the V600 is more than up to the job. Change the adjustments to lighten the shadow areas.

 

[Auer]

I have the Epson V850 Pro and I think that the V600 is more than up to the job. Change the adjustments to lighten the shadow areas.

I dont find it terrible at all for 35mm, even with cheaper films like Kodak 400.



City Frame-59 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ok, I see why people are saying that Epson isn't the best scanner for 35mm...

Epson:
View attachment 285886
Plustek:
View attachment 285889

Epson:
View attachment 285887
Plustek:
View attachment 285888

All were scanned using Silverfast 8. And while they are relatively comparable in the first one, the second looks like crap on Epson. Yeah, the frame was definitely underexposed, but Plustek was able to extract a lot more details. Generally it looks like Epson struggles with dark areas. Also the colors on Epson look a bit washed out when compared to Plustek. All images got some minor edits and I tried getting them as close as possible. Although I didn't crop them equally.

The pictures are blurry. You shouldn't have all that color noise. Did you hand-hold the camera? What shutter speed? You're doing something wrong with your scanning process or something. The results should be much better.
35mm Ektachrome scanned with V600

Scuba_01 by Alan Klein, on Flickr

 

[flavio81]

The pictures are blurry. You shouldn't have all that color noise. Did you hand-hold the camera? What shutter speed? You're doing something wrong with your scanning process or something. The results should be much better.
35mm Ektachrome scanned with V600
Scuba_01 by Alan Klein, on Flickr

You example is typical of epson flatbed scans -- i can see the loss of quality there. Again, to each its own -- if this is good enough for your application then all is fine.

 

[flavio81]

Just to illustrate my point --

Image sourced from the internet, but there are quite a few articles out there that do similar tests and reach similar conclusions.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You example is typical of epson flatbed scans -- i can see the loss of quality there. Again, to each its own -- if this is good enough for your application then all is fine.

I don;t know what you mean by loss of quality? Of course, it's not the same as the original chrome. No scanner or camera will improve the chrome.

I showed it, in any case, to compare to the poster's shots which are much inferior. He's doing something wrong with his camera, film development, his scan, and/or his editing, etc. That was my point.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Just to illustrate my point --
View attachment 285913

Image sourced from the internet, but there are quite a few articles out there that do similar tests and reach similar conclusions.

You can't compare two images without knowing how they were scanned, how they were edited, etc. Especially two photos were taken from the web that you didn't do. It's a meaningless exercise that proves nothing..

 

[brbo]

You can't compare two images without knowing how they were scanned, how they were edited, etc. Especially two photos were taken from the web that you didn't do. It's a meaningless exercise that proves nothing..

It clearly says one was scanned with a Canon 5D mkII (with a decent lens) and the other with Epson V700. Why is that comparison meaningless? And why is your postal-stamp-sized scan more meaningful / representative of what you can expect from flatbed?

Ok, here is my comparison (some were already posted in other threads, sorry for duplication). All are scanned at max resolution available and then resized to the lowest nominal resolution across all devices (4000dpi). Click to get to the full 200% crop:

Epson 4990 flatbed (I'd guess Epson V600 is in the same class):

(full frame)

Olympus E-M5 mkII (with pixel shift):

(full frame)

Noritsu LS-600:

(full frame)

I think that flatbed is OK(ish) for web display even for 135 format. Digital camera scanning can of course give much higher resolution, but the workflow demands more involvement and is more expensive if you don't already own a digital camera.

 

[Auer]

It clearly says one was scanned with a Canon 5D mkII (with a decent lens) and the other with Epson V700. Why is that comparison meaningless? And why is your postal-stamp-sized scan more meaningful / representative of what you can expect from flatbed?

Ok, here is my comparison (some were already posted in other threads, sorry for duplication). All are scanned at max resolution available and then resized to the lowest nominal resolution across all devices (4000dpi). Click to get to the full 200% crop:

Epson 4990 flatbed (I'd guess Epson V600 is in the same class):

(full frame)

Olympus E-M5 mkII (with pixel shift):

(full frame)

Noritsu LS-600:

(full frame)

I think that flatbed is OK(ish) for web display even for 135 format. Digital camera scanning can of course give much higher resolution, but the workflow demands more involvement and is more expensive if you don't already own a digital camera.

All look fine to me. The Epson is softer. And most likely most people would not see a difference due to their monitors.
I could easily start talking about software and user error but see little point in that at this stage of this conversation.

I use a 4K LG monitor for reference.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It clearly says one was scanned with a Canon 5D mkII (with a decent lens) and the other with Epson V700. Why is that comparison meaningless? And why is your postal-stamp-sized scan more meaningful / representative of what you can expect from flatbed?

Ok, here is my comparison (some were already posted in other threads, sorry for duplication). All are scanned at max resolution available and then resized to the lowest nominal resolution across all devices (4000dpi). Click to get to the full 200% crop:

Epson 4990 flatbed (I'd guess Epson V600 is in the same class):
(full frame)

Olympus E-M5 mkII (with pixel shf
(full frame)
Noritsu LS-600:
(full frame)

I think that flatbed is OK(ish) for web display even for 135 format. Digital camera scanning can of course give much higher resolution, but the workflow demands more involvement and is more expensive if you don't already own a digital camera.

There are hundreds of different settings when you scan a photo. Without knowing which they are for each scanner, comparing two scans from two scanners can only let you know which final image looks better of the two you;re looking at. But that does not mean that one scanner is better than the other because the operator of the poorer scan may have done a poorer job in selecting his settings. This is especially true when you pull off two scans from the web that you didn;t scan persoanlly.

My scan possibly could have been done better. But it was better than what the other scans showed by comparison. That was what I was trying to explain. Again that might only mean operator error on the others part. It doesn't necessarily mean my scanner is better, just the two operators got results based on their own experience and not the qualitative differences between the two scanners.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Scanners are like cameras. Just because you're shooting with a better camera, the photographer shooting with the worse camera may get better shots because he's a better photographer.

 

[albireo]

Ok, I see why people are saying that Epson isn't the best scanner for 35mm...

Epson:
View attachment 285886
Plustek:
View attachment 285889

Epson:
View attachment 285887
Plustek:
View attachment 285888

All were scanned using Silverfast 8. And while they are relatively comparable in the first one, the second looks like crap on Epson. Yeah, the frame was definitely underexposed, but Plustek was able to extract a lot more details. Generally it looks like Epson struggles with dark areas. Also the colors on Epson look a bit washed out when compared to Plustek. All images got some minor edits and I tried getting them as close as possible. Although I didn't crop them equally.

You can do much better with that Plustek. Try some better source material. Properly exposed negatives. You can't really rescue a poorly exposed/poorly developed negative with scanning and photoshopping, regardless of the scanner you use. However, with a well exposed and developed negative, that Plustek will give you wonderful results.

Keep going - you're only starting to scratch the surface.

 

[Auer]

For anyone with a decent monitor:

 

[brbo]

There are hundreds of different settings when you scan a photo.

I feel sorry for you. My drum scanner has 3 settings. Resolution, aperture size and focus position. Countless other scanners I have (or had) have maybe one or two more.

Sure, you could ruin the scan with insensible software settings. But why would you do that?

 

[roli]

You can do much better with that Plustek. Try some better source material. Properly exposed negatives. You can't really rescue a poorly exposed/poorly developed negative with scanning and photoshopping, regardless of the scanner you use. However, with a well exposed and developed negative, that Plustek will give you wonderful results.

Keep going - you're only starting to scratch the surface.

I mean I am perfectly happy with the scans that I got from the Plustek. The second image was definitely underexposed... but I was running out of daylight so there is little that I could do regarding that. The main point was that with the Plustek I was able to get the image to look nice while I was not able to do that with Epson.

What software did you use with the Epson? And what settings?

I used Silverfast 8 with both of them. I scanned both with around 3000DPI, the rest... nobody knows . I may have enabled multiple exposures on the plustek when scanning those pictures - sadly the Silverfast license for Epson doesn't include ME feature.

The pictures are blurry. You shouldn't have all that color noise. Did you hand-hold the camera? What shutter speed? You're doing something wrong with your scanning process or something. The results should be much better.

Yes I did hand hold the camera. Shutter speeds were fairly slow (I think around 1/30 - so not something that should really be done hand held) since it was almost night time. They were both taken on Kodak Ultramax 400 so not exactly the most high end of films either.