Epson V600 - Ready for upgrade

[Milk]

I've been using the V600 for about a year now and have had a great time with it. But as I continue to shoot more and more film, I'm finding that my develop/scan process is greatly slowed by the limitations of the V600.

Additionally I've found that the V600 doesn't necessarily enjoy scanning 35mm film especially when exposures are off. 120mm scans perfectly regardless. Does anyone have suggestions to fix the 35mm problem? For example when scanning color film, the final image is incredibly grainy. Is that me being a doofus and not exposing properly, or is the scanner just having a difficult time with such a small image?

At some point I'd like to upgrade to a bigger scanner. Something that has industry quality but that isn't $10,000+ ya know. Any suggestions help!!

 

[Milk]

Dang, ok that's a bummer. I'll have to look into camera scanning then!

 

[grat]

Now that I have a working 3D printer, I can get back to working on my camera scanning project, but in the meantime, here are a couple Epson V800 scans of 35mm film:

3200 DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51236492602/in/album-72157719390119774/

6400(!) DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51237792918/in/album-72157719390119774/

Both are, for my purposes, "acceptable"-- although the need for the 6400 DPI scan is debatable. Both are Fuji Superia 400, scanned on a V800, with level adjustment and mild sharpening in post.

 

[Milk]

Now that I have a working 3D printer, I can get back to working on my camera scanning project, but in the meantime, here are a couple Epson V800 scans of 35mm film:

3200 DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51236492602/in/album-72157719390119774/

6400(!) DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51237792918/in/album-72157719390119774/

Both are, for my purposes, "acceptable"-- although the need for the 6400 DPI scan is debatable. Both are Fuji Superia 400, scanned on a V800, with level adjustment and mild sharpening in post.

I've noticed that the higher DPIs don't necessarily provide better images, it loses sharpness. I usually scan at around 3600

 

[Auer]

I use a V600 at 2400DPI, works for its intended purpose which is web sharing.



City Frame-1 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Milk]

I use a V600 at 2400DPI, works for its intended purpose which is web sharing.



City Frame-1 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

That’s a pretty clean image for 2400 DPI, maybe it’s user error then

Edit** I just saw that this is medium format, no wonder it’s so clean lol

 

[Auer]

That’s a pretty clean image for 2400 DPI, maybe it’s user error then

Edit** I just saw that this is medium format, no wonder it’s so clean lol

These are 35mm, and I think just fine for web galleries etc:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/users/auer.92346/

 

[Auer]

Now that I have a working 3D printer, I can get back to working on my camera scanning project, but in the meantime, here are a couple Epson V800 scans of 35mm film:

3200 DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51236492602/in/album-72157719390119774/

6400(!) DPI:

https://flickr.com/photos/ufgrat/51237792918/in/album-72157719390119774/

Both are, for my purposes, "acceptable"-- although the need for the 6400 DPI scan is debatable. Both are Fuji Superia 400, scanned on a V800, with level adjustment and mild sharpening in post.

Good looking scans.
And most peoples monitors wont do them justice.
So more than "Acceptable" imo.

 

[grat]

I've noticed that the higher DPIs don't necessarily provide better images, it loses sharpness. I usually scan at around 3600

I don't disagree. Honestly, I think 135 runs out of detail long before 6400 DPI, but I thought I'd show an example. I usually target anywhere from 2400 to 3200 depending on what I intend to do with the scan.

 

[shutterfinger]

I scan at the scanners max optical resolution then downsize if desired. Grain appearance can be caused by a lot of things especially in B&W.
What film/developer combination are you using?

 

[Wallendo]

I found the Plustek 8200i to be a good upgrade from the V600 for 35mm.

My experience is that Epson images look good on a standard computer monitor, but look extremely soft on a 5K monitor.

With a little post-processing, however, Epson scans can be made presentable. The quality of the scans depends not only on the scanning software used, but more importantly on the user settings made in the software. Scans from the V600 require some digital sharpening - I usually use the "texture" and "clarity" sliders in Lightroom. Care needs to be taken to shape the images without enhancing the grain. If you are seeing major grain on color 35mm scans, I suspect your software is over sharpening the images and creating digital artifacts.

 

[tehabe]

I also switched to an Plustek 8200i, I think it produces sharper scans, and also I have less issues with dust than with the Epson V600. Also I think we should collectively ignore Filmscanner.info, the tests from that site seems off to me. I don't use Silverfast but VueScan, I find the UI of Silverfast very confusing. Honestly even though I'm very happy with my 8200i and I love how quickly I can scan slides and films, I think I wouldn't have switched if I had a better understanding how to improve my scans.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

My V600 served me well for ten years although I basically shot medium format. I only upgraded to a V850 when I started shooting 4x5 and the V600 can't scan that size. I don't think 35mm is much different with a V850 though over the V600. Here are samples of both of my scans.

35mm with a V600 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157627032961729
35mm with a V850 https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157716777378896

 

[tehabe]

There was a comparison between the V600 and V850 for 35mm film and you could see a little more detail on the V850. And in this test the standard Epson Scan application was used

 

[Foto Ludens]

Quick question: have your tried fluid mounting on the V600? I tested the focus on mine (scanning a stack of coins, then a stack of playing cards), and the image was a lot sharper on objects directly on the glass than on objects at or above the film holder distance.

I have my budget wet mounting supplies (Dura-lar sheets, Gamsol odorless mineral spirits, and rubber rollers) coming in next week, and will try to post some test results as soon as possible (though it'll be a busy few weeks, so no promises).

 

[PhilBurton]

Quick question: have your tried fluid mounting on the V600? I tested the focus on mine (scanning a stack of coins, then a stack of playing cards), and the image was a lot sharper on objects directly on the glass than on objects at or above the film holder distance.

I have my budget wet mounting supplies (Dura-lar sheets, Gamsol odorless mineral spirits, and rubber rollers) coming in next week, and will try to post some rest results as soon as possible (though it'll be a busy few weeks, so no promises).

If you wet scan, what do you do after the scan so you can store the negative in some sort of Printfile page?

 

[Foto Ludens]

If you wet scan, what do you do after the scan so you can store the negative in some sort of Printfile page?

Just wait a few seconds for the negative strip to dry, from what I gather. Mineral spirits evaporate pretty quickly.

 

[albireo]

I've been using the V600 for about a year now and have had a great time with it. But as I continue to shoot more and more film, I'm finding that my develop/scan process is greatly slowed by the limitations of the V600.

Additionally I've found that the V600 doesn't necessarily enjoy scanning 35mm film especially when exposures are off. 120mm scans perfectly regardless. Does anyone have suggestions to fix the 35mm problem? For example when scanning color film, the final image is incredibly grainy. Is that me being a doofus and not exposing properly, or is the scanner just having a difficult time with such a small image?

Hi - I would not recommend the DSLR scanning route unless you have a DSLR already kicking around and don't mind spending time tinkering with extremely expensive and fiddly gadgets. Also the results are mostly mediocre based on what people post on here and on flickr/instagram (even when the full chain is fully and constantly calibrated). If you don't own a DSLR and the associated paraphernalia already, you don't need a DSLR for fantastic 35mm scans.

Medium format - I agree with you that for 120 even a humble flatbed scanner can give great results when the operator knows what they're doing and when the machine is perfectly functional. My V550 gave me incredible scans, though I've now replaced it with a refurbished Nikon Coolscan 8000. This is a fantastic upgrade to my v550 - in hindsight though, I've now realised the V550 was simply great for 120 for the price.

35mm - I again have to agree with you: a flatbed is not entirely satisfactory. You might check out the dedicated film scanner route. Real film scanners are alive and well and used and enjoyed by many. You have both used and new options.

If you want to go the `new` route, you have mostly the Plustek and the Reflecta range. I don't know much about the Reflecta so I'll not comment on those. The Plustek range (the old one, 7400i-7600i, as well as the current one, 8100-8200i) is great if you don't mind a learning curve. Once you get past the learning curve, the results can be astounding. Check out this review which suggests a 250$ Plustek 8100 compares favourably with a Coolscan 9000



I have, and used to use, a 7500i, and my findings agree with the above. The only issue with this line of scanners is that they're not motorized. You have to manually advance frames to scan. This is no huge problem if your workflow includes a quick preview, a selection of the 'keepers' to scan, followed by a full-res scan of only those keepers. However, if you need something faster, you'll need to look elsewhere. Plustek have a newly released motorized version of their 8100, this one

https://plustek.com/us/products/film-photo-scanners/opticfilm-135i/

I haven't used it so I can't comment on the quality.

Now for the used route. If you're happy buying used, and are happy contemplating a potential service/CLA for the unit you purchase, you have many options. In the 200$ range you can find the Minolta Scan Dual III/IV units. They're motorized, and the lens autofocuses on the film plane. Provided you find a unit with a clean mirror (it's pretty easy to clean by yourself btw) they are able to output absolutely phenomenal 35mm scans. I have a Scan Dual IV. Its 35mm scans are as good as those I get from my Coolscan 8000, however the Minolta is faster at scanning. Then there is the Pakon, there are the Nikon Coolscans...But there's plenty of info on those on the web. Good luck!

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I sharpen in Lightroom, there's another slider in that section called Masking. It allows where the sharpening is applied. As you increase the Masking slider, it only allows the sharpening on the strong edges leaving the flatter areas like the sky alone. That way it won't sharpen the grain in the sky as much as the rest of the image.

 

[wiltw]

I don't disagree. Honestly, I think 135 runs out of detail long before 6400 DPI, but I thought I'd show an example. I usually target anywhere from 2400 to 3200 depending on what I intend to do with the scan.

At really exceptionsl lens might be able to get 120 line-pairs per millimeter at the height of the film SLR, and that means total detail was achieveable with 5761 pixels across 24mm film
But most 135 lenses of the period were under 80 lp/mm, or satisfied with 3841 pxiels across 24mm film. or 4064 dpi.

 

[Foto Ludens]

For what it's worth, here's a quick comparison between a wet mounted 35mm scan and a dry-mounted (film holder) scan on a V600 at 6400 dpi. To my eyes, there's a noticeable increase in sharpness in the wet mounted scan, which makes sense given that my scanner focuses on the glass plate surface rather than at the film holder's height.

Both are 100% crops from straight scans (no exposure or color correction, no inversion). This is from a photo taken with a Lomography LC-Wide camera, lens wide open (long-ish exposure with the camera sitting on a table for stability). This is far from ideal conditions, but it's enough to show a difference in sharpness. I can see the that the film grain is much sharper and cleaner (less mushy) in the wet-mounted scan. FWIW, this was shot on Kentmere 100, developed in PMK 1:2:100.

Film holder:

Wet mounted:

For reference, here's the full image (inverted in Color Perfect, some high pass sharpening and additional contrast work in Photoshop Elements):

This is literally the 1st wet-mounted scan I've done on my V600, and I'm sold.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

For what it's worth, here's a quick comparison between a wet mounted 35mm scan and a dry-mounted (film holder) scan on a V600 at 6400 dpi. To my eyes, there's a noticeable increase in sharpness in the wet mounted scan, which makes sense given that my scanner focuses on the glass plate surface rather than at the film holder's height.

Both are 100% crops from straight scans (no exposure or color correction, no inversion). This is from a photo taken with a Lomography LC-Wide camera, lens wide open (long-ish exposure with the camera sitting on a table for stability). This is far from ideal conditions, but it's enough to show a difference in sharpness. I can see the that the film grain is much sharper and cleaner (less mushy) in the wet-mounted scan. FWIW, this was shot on Kentmere 100, developed in PMK 1:2:100.

Film holder:

Wet mounted:

For reference, here's the full image (inverted in Color Perfect, some high pass sharpening and additional contrast work in Photoshop Elements):

This is literally the 1st wet-mounted scan I've done on my V600, and I'm sold.

I'm confused. what do you mean it's focused on the glass? The V600 is designed and adjusted to focus on the height of the film in the Epsonscan film holder.

 

[Foto Ludens]

The V600 is designed and adjusted to focus on the height of the film in the Epsonscan film holder.

That is incorrect, if I recall correctly.. The V800 has two lenses, one of which focuses on the glass (for reflective scans), and the other focuses on the film holder's height. The V600, however, only has one lens, focused on the glass. Film scanning on the V600 is a compromise. Testing the focus is easy: just stack a few thin coins on top of one another on the scanner's glass, slightly offset so that a bit of each coin is visible in the scan, and scan at full resolution. On my scanner, there was no question: the bottom surface of the bottom coin was in focus, and focus got worse the further from the glass each coin was.

 

[Auer]

For what it's worth, here's a quick comparison between a wet mounted 35mm scan and a dry-mounted (film holder) scan on a V600 at 6400 dpi. To my eyes, there's a noticeable increase in sharpness in the wet mounted scan, which makes sense given that my scanner focuses on the glass plate surface rather than at the film holder's height.

Both are 100% crops from straight scans (no exposure or color correction, no inversion). This is from a photo taken with a Lomography LC-Wide camera, lens wide open (long-ish exposure with the camera sitting on a table for stability). This is far from ideal conditions, but it's enough to show a difference in sharpness. I can see the that the film grain is much sharper and cleaner (less mushy) in the wet-mounted scan. FWIW, this was shot on Kentmere 100, developed in PMK 1:2:100.

Film holder:

Wet mounted:

For reference, here's the full image (inverted in Color Perfect, some high pass sharpening and additional contrast work in Photoshop Elements):

This is literally the 1st wet-mounted scan I've done on my V600, and I'm sold.

I'm looking at this on a 4K monitor and honestly don't see enough here to be worth the effort.
I own a V600 too. And find it ok for sharing images online.
Don't see any other purpose for a film scanner anyhow, besides just making a digital archive for browsing purposes.
But that's me. If I want a nice print I send my negatives out.

 

[Foto Ludens]

I'm looking at this on a 4K monitor and honestly don't see enough here to be worth the effort.
I own a V600 too. And find it ok for sharing images online.
Don't see any other purpose for a film scanner anyhow, besides just making a digital archive for browsing purposes.
But that's me. If I want a nice print I send my negatives out.

That's fair enough. The difference is small, but it is there. But you are right, It's not worth the trouble for online sharing. But if I'm going to make a print from the scanned negative (I do not have the means/space/etc for a darkroom), or otherwise need a larger image, I'll wet-mount in the future.