On the plus side, wet mounting will probably not make that much of a difference for you, as your scanner does indeed focus on/around the film holder's height! (Some folks still take the time to test the film holder's various height settings, or even shimming it higher, to see if focus improves).I was forced to upgrade from a V600 to a V850 when I started shooting 4x5s.
I think the holders are fine really, unless of course the film is severly cupped. Most films I use dry pretty flat tho.I have to wonder how much of the limitations of Epson flatbed scanners are due to the plastic Epson film holders. I often struggle to keep the film flat.
I have to wonder how much of the limitations of Epson flatbed scanners are due to the plastic Epson film holders. I often struggle to keep the film flat.
On the plus side, wet mounting will probably not make that much of a difference for you, as your scanner does indeed focus on/around the film holder's height! (Some folks still take the time to test the film holder's various height settings, or even shimming it higher, to see if focus improves).
The V850 holders are all height adjustable. When I bought the scanner, I checked each holder scanning at the different heights. I was surprised that there actually was a considerable difference in focus between the settings. After finding the best for each holder, I marked them all with a white magic marker for future use.I have to wonder how much of the limitations of Epson flatbed scanners are due to the plastic Epson film holders. I often struggle to keep the film flat.
A few brief (unusual for me, yes) thoughts about all this.
Everyone (me included) who has tried camera scanning eventually gave it up. A little-discussed aspect of this is your image contrast can shoot up into the stratosphere unless you do a LOT of careful fiddling before or after the copying session. The time I had to devote to this latter task was just not worth it to me.
.
A few recent samples:
- Kodak ColorPlus 200 downsampled to 5,600x3,700 pixels. This is clearly an overkill, the film simply doesn't hold as much detail as the scanning camera could capture.
- Ilford HP5+ at 6,000x6,000 pixels. In this case a higher-resolution sensor and a slower film could have provided more detail, but I am fine with 36MP images for 6x6.
- Portra 400 at 5,600x4,100 pixels. This is my quick no-stitching scanning method for 645 snapshots. And here's Ektar 100 at the same resolution. This is perfection.
Alan's post on the V850 (#34) got my attention. This model may be worth considering as it appears to offer a few considerable improvements. Is the glass for the holders a standard feature or an optional purchase??
.... I have a V600 and was looking at upgrades for a while. And I was considering a V850. But I got a macro lens for a very cheap price and tried DSLR scanning.
I used my D850 with AF-S 105/2.8 Micro (mounted on tripod, lighting table below negatives). I just got into it, but after "scanning" a dozen 135 negatives: anything I did with the V600 (EpsonScan, VueScan) was completely blown away. I did not try 6x6 or 4x5 yet (I want to stitch multiple DSLR "scans"), but a scanner upgrade has been postponed....
The V850 comes with two holders for each format - 35mm strips, medium format 120 and 4x5. All have glass in them as standard. The film holders have adjustments tabs to set best focus height which you only have to check once when you get the machine. Having two film holders for each format is handy. It allows you to be setting up for the next scan while the first scan is underway. There's also 35mm slide holders (12 slides) to scan your old slides. These are height adjustable but there's no glass to flatten the film. There is be no point with film being held in carboard slide holders.Yes, I did mean Old Gregg and not Matt. My apology to the latter, and I've edited my original post accordingly. Now to spread a few olive branches around this thread - and try to take us back to Epson scanners.
A little sarcasm now and then can be forgiven - I can be as sarcastic as anybody when the post or the situation warrants it.
Playing keyboard warriors achieves little or nothing when it ends up hijacking a thread or taking it off topic. As we seem to have done with this one. Let's get it back on track.
I regularly go back to my own posts and re-edit them when I have cooled a bit and thought things over - now I still would like to know what it is I did wrong with camera scanning, if anyone wants to comment on this, without forgetting the OP's original purpose was to talk about the Epson V600.
Ahem... I have a V600 and for my purposes it does an okay job with 120. Not so much 35mm, tho with a little care and some post processing it gives me good enough 35 images for online posts. Big prints, not so. YMMD.
Alan's post on the V850 (#34) got my attention. This model may be worth considering as it appears to offer a few considerable improvements. Is the glass for the holders a standard feature or an optional purchase??
Thanks. I guess you mean Southwest album: 1" sensor - Digital. A pocketable Sony RX100iv. I shoot Sony digital on my vacations. Film is for home use. The Sony hides away in my pants pocket and it's just easier to schlep around a tiny camera at my age. Plus, my wife doesn't complain as much about all the pictures I take.@Alan Edward Klein the Southest album on your flickr is excellent. Which medium did you shoot it on?
Why are you worried? Who's going to look at them after you're dead? Your kids won;t care. And your wife's next husband will throw them out.You are right, web/monitors is easy. But isn't digital archiving the hardest benchmark to hit? As I am accumulating more and more negatives I am getting more and more paranoid. I feel OK about the 35mm negatives, as far as I am concerned every bit of information has been sucked out of them with my current scanning tech, but as my stash of 6x6 negs grows I am getting more and more uncomfortable realizing that they need to be scanned using a better method for archival purposes, especially color (supposedly they fade over time).
Well, if you keep the film you can always scan it later. But let's face it. Unless it's a super shots, and even Ansel didn't have that many, most shots you never or rarely ever look at again. If you want immortality, you're better off scratching out a image of a bison on a cave wall.@Alan Edward KleinAccidents, mostly. Frankly, the storage part is by far the biggest downgrade/headache for me after switching 100% to film. I am much more comfortable managing digital assets (do this for a living). Binders, shelves, humidity, dust, temperature and plastic sleeves all terrify me. My dream setup is to develop a roll, digitize it on a molecular level and toss it to the trash right away.
Almost all 1975 - 1979 and all in great shape.@Alan Edward KleinAccidents, mostly. Frankly, the storage part is by far the biggest downgrade/headache for me after switching 100% to film. I am much more comfortable managing digital assets (do this for a living). Binders, shelves, humidity, dust, temperature and plastic sleeves all terrify me. My dream setup is to develop a roll, digitize it on a molecular level and toss it to the trash right away.
You are making a huge assumption about the forwards compatibility of your digital files. Ideally computers decades from now will be able to open them, but we cannot/do not know that they will.My dream setup is to develop a roll, digitize it on a molecular level and toss it to the trash right away.
I have issues related to that with an old PhotoCD. The problem there was that Kodak picked a variant disk format for their PhotoCD product which was infrequently supported.You are making a huge assumption about the forwards compatibility of your digital files. Ideally computers decades from now will be able to open them, but we cannot/do not know that they will.
I scan most of my personal files. What concerns me when I die if before my wife, is that she won't know how to retrieve them.@Foto Ludens You are right in that it is a popular sentiment. But as I said above, the computer domain is my domain, I know exactly what will happen to my files during my life time and there's zero need for assumptions [1]. All of my fear, uncertainty and doubt is sitting in front of me on a bookshelf in plastic film sleeves. Once it's in a computer, I have 100% certainty of its future.
[1] you will be able to read all of your image files 50 years from now.
Right before I die, I'd like to disassemble all my molecules and store them in the cloud for reassembly down the road.I have issues related to that with an old PhotoCD. The problem there was that Kodak picked a variant disk format for their PhotoCD product which was infrequently supported.
Images stored in the cloud or on hard disks or equivalent shouldn't be much of an issue as it would be easy to batch convert images stored in an older format to the latest and greatest if needed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?