Epson V600 or a new camera for scanning 120 film

[grat]

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?

Because whoever got results that bad from the Epson didn't know what they were doing.

I've done comparisons between the Epson V800 and a Canon 90D + 100mm f/2.8 macro. And I can't get that bad a scan out of the Epson without deliberately sabotaging the process. Your example is clearly (ha!) out of focus.

 

[Les Sarile]

Because whoever got results that bad from the Epson didn't know what they were doing.

I've done comparisons between the Epson V800 and a Canon 90D + 100mm f/2.8 macro. And I can't get that bad a scan out of the Epson without deliberately sabotaging the process. Your example is clearly (ha!) out of focus.

That's why it is important to have community participation because we can all bring something to the table. When I first started scanning back in early 2000, I was involved with a group of participants with different skills and equipment and were able to pass around a common set of films that we each scanned and presented our results for comparison. Definitely more productive then attributing bad motives or poor skills on others.

 

[grat]

I'm not saying the person who provided that comparison was malicious, or incompetent-- Simply that they did not know how to get the best out of the scanner. A very reputable scanner website reviewed the Epson flatbeds, and concluded that they were, at best, capable of 2200 to 2600 DPI (depending on model and software). The problem is, all of their 1951 USAF Target scans were out of focus. You can't make a reasonable determination of scanner quality if you start with bad data-- garbage in, garbage out, as the saying goes.

The V7xx/V8xx scanners are kind of odd-- they have two imaging elements, one of which is focused at the top of the scanner bed glass. That's a "low" resolution element, and I believe it's 4800 DPI. It covers the majority of the scanner bed.

The second element is adjusted by the factory to be +3mm from the glass bed, is 6400 DPI, and only covers the middle 3/5ths of the scanner bed (roughly). There is no way to adjust that focus height without dismantling the scanner. Instead, the V700 trays have multiple two-position "feet" for each tray, and you take the foot off, turn it around, and replace it to change the scan height. The V800 holders have multiple 5 position sliders, and you need to determine the actual focus height your scanner is working at, and adjust the trays accordingly. But you have to make sure they're in the right position every time, because they're easily dislodged.

My scanner, having never been moved more than 1/2 an inch in any direction without the transport locks engaged, appears to be correctly calibrated for +3mm. So in that position (default) on my trays, with the film down, emulsion side towards the scanner, I get the best possible result.

In addition, I use Silverfast-- but I disable nearly all of it's tools except for Negafix, histogram, and sometimes, iSRD (infrared scratch + dust removal) or multi-exposure if I think the range of the negative is a bit much for the scanner. All other editing is done afterwards, and usually includes a small amount of sharpening, because there is some softness added during the scan-- but nowhere near the level most people claim.

 

[grat]

I try not to equate ignorance and incompetence. Not understanding the quirks of the Epsons makes it more difficult to get good results, but that doesn't mean the user is incompetent-- just ignorant. The first time I developed film, I had very little idea of what I was doing-- but I'd done my research, I took my time, and it came out well anyway.

I'm also one of those people (sort of) who started with digital-- when I was younger, I did a bit of film photography, and had my film developed at the grocery store(!) while my parents were shopping. By the time I was old enough to start taking photography seriously, it made more sense to go digital. Now I've circled back to film. But I've been using scanners and digital imaging software since about 1992.

 

[albireo]

Huge number of photographers, especially older photographers (I'll accept some flack for ageism here) never really bothered to really understand the digital side of a hybrid process. I hang out on several online communities, and the younger crowd that started on DSLRs, got tired of HDR sunsets, and then discovered film photography, tend to be far better at scanning than the old guard.

I'm with you on almost everything. Completely agree on the ignorance shown by many older film users wrt digitalisation - this sadly many times turns to a weird, oft misplaced type of 'elitism/gatekeeping' e.g.:

"we are the real film users, because we print in a darkroom. Only a wet print is the real object of film photography - we know how to run a darkroom - we know densitometry, we are the keepers of the real arcane knowledge - unlike you inexperienced scanning-loving lot"

and so on and so forth. This happens not so much on this forum I have to say, but some non-English speaking communities are completely infested with the above.

Now - on one thing though I disagree - as usual - with you. Those younger folks. How young do you mean? Because the really young ones, the 17-20 somethings, don't own, and will perhaps never own, a DSLR. They have done so far all of their photography on smartphones. When they discover film photography, beautiful mechanical cameras, film developing and the whole shebang, they are often also buying scanners. Many of them do fantastic work with Epsons, or with dedicated film scanners they buy used for $200. Remember they don't have a lot of money, room, or time to tinker with pixel-shift: many are students, or employees on minimum wage, many live in flatshares so no room for too much equipment, many move every year from city to city with only a suitcase worth of belongings.

These people do not need to purchase 4000$ worth of DSLR, macro lenses and all the other associated paraphernalia to obtain fantastic film scans.

Sorry to say (and I say this in a friendly manner because I mostly agree with you) - in your fixation with recommending DSLRs exclusively for film scanning you sound like a boomer

 

[brbo]

Because whoever got results that bad from the Epson didn't know what they were doing.

I've done comparisons between the Epson V800 and a Canon 90D + 100mm f/2.8 macro. And I can't get that bad a scan out of the Epson without deliberately sabotaging the process. Your example is clearly (ha!) out of focus.

Actually, you can get out of focus scan on Epson. You just need to be a bit unlucky with your particular scanner and/or unaware that you definitely need to establish the proper height of best focus for your scanner.

As for my example (V700 example, if you are talking about that, is not mine), it was scanned at the ideal height above the glass bed in custom holder (with glass), so it was definitely not sabotaged. Epson supplied plastic holders for 4990 do not have height adjustment (V600 don't have it either) and you are left with whatever focus position it came with. Some will be worse than others. My 4990 is not that bad, I get about 1500dpi on glass bed and about 1800dpi at optimal height. Some scanners come worse from the factory.

I'm with you on almost everything. Completely agree on the ignorance shown by many older film users wrt digitalisation - this sadly many times turns to a weird, oft misplaced type of 'elitism/gatekeeping' e.g.:

"we are the real film users, because we print in a darkroom. Only a wet print is the real object of film photography - we know how to run one - we know densitometry, we are the keepers of the real arcane knowledge - unlike you inexperienced scanning-loving lot"

I've done a fair bit of scanning. Flatbeds, digital cameras, minilab scanners, drum scanners... you name it. Knowing how your negatives print in darkroom is a great help at scanning. It's not a disadvantage.

 

[albireo]

Knowing how your negatives print in darkroom is a great help at scanning. It's not a disadvantage.

Oh, I agree with you. I wasn't commenting on the contents, rather on the form.

 

[brbo]

Oh, I agree with you. I wasn't commenting on the contents, rather on the form.

And the darkroom diehards are probably commenting on the contents in a form that easily triggers the know-it-all-bunch that's never seen a print from the negative.

It's beautiful to watch both of them

 

[albireo]

And the darkroom diehards are probably commenting on the contents in a form that easily triggers the know-it-all-bunch that's never seen a print from the negative.

Yeah .. "Darkroom diehards" and "know-it-all bunch who have never seen a print". Better ignore both types, as I personally have nothing to learn from either. How about you?

But somehow I find it more difficult to ignore the darkroom Talibans. There's just so many of them on film photography forums. How do you spot the die-hard darkroom printers in the crowd? Oh, they'll tell you.

 

[radiant]

If you intend on printing and enlarging (digital enlarging), it is not a good choice since they discard a lot, a LOT of resolution and -even worse- add aberrations to the image (chromatic aberration, halos, plus sometimes grain aliasing) that diminsh image clarity. Then some people will use digital sharpening to "restore" crispness but it will exaggerate grain or other defects.

I would have argued against this if I would have not printed some negatives that I had scanned and compared. The grain just goes really smushy on scanners like V600. There is now way you can really see the real grain with V600. It looks OK if you don't know better but printing in darkroom makes it easy to see the difference. Also scanners somehow make some kind of own grain which is typically not that good looking.

I have V600 and it is fine for making "contact" scans to help plan how I would print the photo. There is just something that I don't like in scanned output because of how V600 adds its own things to the details. But that is not a problem because I shoot negatives for darkroom printing purposes only. Decent tool for previewing, but a bit slow in process. V700 would be my choice because of the four slots for 35mm.

 

[Auer]

Without going in to more elaboration as this is getting tedious, I get grain and its not digital noise. With a V600.

It's allright.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Epson doesn't make the V700, V750 or V800 any longer. You have to buy the V600 or V850 or some other model.
https://epson.com/For-Home/Scanners/Photo-Scanners/c/h220

 

[radiant]

Here is 1200dpi scan at V600 vs darkroom print. The scan is 100% raw, no changes have made to it (expect the upscaling). It looks blurry because the low resolution. A 1200dpi scan doesn't have any chance to show the real grain that is visible in the print. There isn't just enough resolution for it. Even if I would double the real optical resolution to 2400dpi it wouldn't really help.

 

[warden]

Here is 1200dpi scan at V600 vs darkroom print. The scan is 100% raw, no changes have made to it (expect the upscaling). It looks blurry because the low resolution. A 1200dpi scan doesn't have any chance to show the real grain that is visible in the print. There isn't just enough resolution for it. Even if I would double the real optical resolution to 2400dpi it wouldn't really help.

View attachment 286038

I agree that the darkroom is the best place to get detail from a negative. Is that darkroom print made with one of the 5mm enlarger lenses we were talking about recently? If so that might not be a fair comparison; in my experiments so far the specialty lenses adapted to an enlarger can show amazing detail of a small fraction of a negative, but can't capture an entire MF negative like the V600 can.

 

[flavio81]

I would have argued against this if I would have not printed some negatives that I had scanned and compared. The grain just goes really smushy on scanners like V600. There is now way you can really see the real grain with V600. It looks OK if you don't know better but printing in darkroom makes it easy to see the difference. Also scanners somehow make some kind of own grain which is typically not that good looking..

Yes, this is my main point, and i previously spoke of doing exactly that test; the optical enlargement was so much better it really seemed like coming from a different camera and lens.

Again, it might be OK for many applications (i.e. internet posts). But for me it defeats one of the purposes of using film -- that crisp 3D detail that jumps at you on a print. And one of the purposes of digitalizing film: archiving.

 

[flavio81]

Here is 1200dpi scan at V600 vs darkroom print. The scan is 100% raw, no changes have made to it (expect the upscaling). It looks blurry because the low resolution. A 1200dpi scan doesn't have any chance to show the real grain that is visible in the print. There isn't just enough resolution for it. Even if I would double the real optical resolution to 2400dpi it wouldn't really help.

View attachment 286038

Yep, night and day.

 

[flavio81]

; in my experiments so far the specialty lenses adapted to an enlarger can show amazing detail of a small fraction of a negative, but can't capture an entire MF negative like the V600 can.

I already did the experiment, as described, by comparing a V700 scan vs a enlarged MF negative, both scan and enlargements done by the same professional lab. A very professional lab that has been around here since 1982. Basically the top professional lab here.

No contest, the "normal" enlarger lens like a Rodagon or Componon simply obliterate the Epson. In 35mm the comparison is even worse.

 

[warden]

I already did the experiment, as described, by comparing a V700 scan vs a enlarged MF negative, both scan and enlargements done by the same professional lab. A very professional lab that has been around here since 1982. Basically the top professional lab here.

No contest, the "normal" enlarger lens like a Rodagon or Componon simply obliterate the Epson. In 35mm the comparison is even worse.

I'm not doubting the result of a test like that. I use a V700 and a darkroom, and the darkroom is the best choice unless I want to print large, or need to do a lot of editing to an image.

My point is that if we're trying to compare apples to apples, we wouldn't use a microscope lens on an enlarger for instance, one that can only show a few millimeters of the medium format negative, albeit at a fantastic level of detail. To be fair you'd need to pull that microscope lens out to cover the entire negative like the V600 does, and then crop/compare.

I don't know the lens Vedostuu used, maybe it's a normal lens, but my normal lenses don't resolve like that.

 

[radiant]

My point is that if we're trying to compare apples to apples, we wouldn't use a microscope lens on an enlarger for instance, one that can only show a few millimeters of the medium format negative, albeit at a fantastic level of detail. To be fair you'd need to pull that microscope lens out to cover the entire negative like the V600 does, and then crop/compare.

I wanted to share you the finding that I have personally found; grain is actually so small that scanners cannot resolve it like it is. Nothing else. I really don't know what scanner grain is; maybe it is some kind of more clumped grain, please enlighten if you know. I was personally blown away how I've always thought that the scanner grain is the actual representation of film grain and found out with my own hands that it isn't.

Please do not draw any conclusions longer than that of my postings here. I also have right to tell my experiences about V600 here without anybody needing to get butthurt about it.

 

[flavio81]

y point is that if we're trying to compare apples to apples, we wouldn't use a microscope lens on an enlarger for instance, one that can only show a few millimeters of the medium format negative, albeit at a fantastic level of detail..

Ok, i understand and agree on being an unfair comparison.

But a regular macro lens taking a picture of the full medium format frame of a MF negative still gives better results than an epson flatbeds, as the tests show. Much better results.

 

[flavio81]

I wanted to share you the finding that I have personally found; grain is actually so small that scanners cannot resolve it like it is. Nothing else. I really don't know what scanner grain is; maybe it is some kind of more clumped grain, please enlighten if you know. I was personally blown away how I've always thought that the scanner grain is the actual representation of film grain and found out with my own hands that it isn't..

If grain is way smaller than what your scanner can resolve, then you don't see it. If the grain is bigger, at a certain point, the size of the grain gives away to the problem of "grain aliasing" which will give an artificial, exaggerated representation of the grain. Throw in the big levels of sharpening (as every epson flatbed user seems to do), and it gets worse. That artificial thing is what some newcomers to analog photography think is the real "grain".

DSLR scanning, with higher optical resolving power, is less prone to such problems.

Kodak Ultra 400 grain as seen by a macro lens on a 24MP camera on a 35mm negative. No additional sharpening whatsoever applied.

 

[flavio81]

Here's a scaled down image of the full 35mm frame, for reference. Again, no additional sharpenning aplied. Cubic algorithm for resizing.

 

[grat]

Actually, you can get out of focus scan on Epson. You just need to be a bit unlucky with your particular scanner and/or unaware that you definitely need to establish the proper height of best focus for your scanner.

As for my example (V700 example, if you are talking about that, is not mine), it was scanned at the ideal height above the glass bed in custom holder (with glass), so it was definitely not sabotaged.

Then it really shouldn't be that blurry.

 

[radiant]

Kodak Ultra 400 grain as seen by a macro lens on a 24MP camera on a 35mm negative. No additional sharpening whatsoever applied.

BTW: I've understood that color negative films have silver halides before developing but when developing, those are washed away, leaving only the dyes? Probably grain leaves pattern to the dyes itself but developed color negatives isn't usually "grainy" at all because .. well, it doesn't actually have grains. This is what I have read some time somewhere. Please correct if I'm wrong.

 

[Auer]

Cant wait to find out what grain is the right grain.