The Epson V850 comes with two film holders in each format. That allows you to load the next round while the current round is being scanned.
I would like to point out that scanner is not necessarily "slower" compared to dSLR scans. I'm talking about the active time you need to be fully engaged to get the scans done. An example of 135 color negative roll of 36 frames.
- Epson V700: If I load up the film holder, 4 strips of 6 frames each. I only need time to load and unload twice for the entire roll, which amounts to about 2-3 minutes. Then I let the scanner do its work, without supervision. I can go about doing my other business. So whether the scan actually takes 30 minutes or 2 hours, does not really matter to me.
- dSLR scans: how much time do you typically need for each frame? And then the reversal in software. I haven't done it myself, so I would like to get your stats. The main difference is that you have to be there the entire time to get all the scans done, whether on dSLR or on the computer.
So in the end, you might not need to spend as much "active time" on scanner.
Scanning colour negatives and 'reversing' them into a positive image is perfectly doable:
View attachment 341036
View attachment 341037
View attachment 341039
Follow the instructions for how to mount the film onto the V850 holders. It's a little different than it seems.
I would like to point out that scanner is not necessarily "slower" compared to dSLR scans. I'm talking about the active time you need to be fully engaged to get the scans done. An example of 135 color negative roll of 36 frames.
- Epson V700: If I load up the film holder, 4 strips of 6 frames each. I only need time to load and unload twice for the entire roll, which amounts to about 2-3 minutes. Then I let the scanner do its work, without supervision. I can go about doing my other business. So whether the scan actually takes 30 minutes or 2 hours, does not really matter to me.
- dSLR scans: how much time do you typically need for each frame? And then the reversal in software. I haven't done it myself, so I would like to get your stats. The main difference is that you have to be there the entire time to get all the scans done, whether on dSLR or on the computer.
So in the end, you might not need to spend as much "active time" on scanner.
Scanning colour negatives and 'reversing' them into a positive image is perfectly doable:
I agree that your scans are perfectly fine.
On the second shot named "DE SINGEL 04-2", the blownout highlights outside looks a bit much for my taste. Since you said this is from a color negative I would suggest there is much there that can be recovered or at least greatly minimize the blown highlights. To do this you will have to set the scan darker and brighten everything else in post - balancing using shadows and highlights tools accordingly.
There is indeed more to 'find' in the blown out areas, but (yes 'but'), the difference between the light conditions inside and out, where so wide that nothing could be done in tet timespan I was granded to work.
Normally I would have taken three exposures (-2, 0, +2) and scanned the three negatives each in multiple pass mode and blended and fine tuned them in Photomatix.
Any way this sole negative was scanned in multiple pass, which didn't help, that much, and I preferred clear shadows...
DSLR has a Bayer sensor, Scanners scan each RGB color exactly.^^
You haven't said what film this is but most all color negatives have far more latitude - specially when it comes to highlights, that the scanner itself cannot accommodate in one pass or without post work.
In this example of a single frame of Kodak Portra 400 - not as aesthetically pleasing as yours, I show how the film captured everything and how you can clearly recover dark shadows and blownout highlights.
Kodak Portra 400-04-24A by Les DMess, on Flickr
As I suggesred in your example, I could have scanned darker and recover even more highlights while loosing shadows. Or, i could have scanned over and under and combining ala HDR, and get both.
Thanks for sending this over. I do tend to shoot a lot fo Porta 400. so I appreciate the picture example
Kodak Portra has exceedingly high overexposure latitude. Even +10 can be useful.
That's why one scan cannot possibly take it all in.
Isn't that according to the dMax rating such as the 4.0 in a V850?Those "extra stops" are heavily compressed and are not on a straight line. I think you're confusing the scene dynamic range with the range of a medium. Color negative film can capture enormous range of light values, but outside of the published characteristic curve it "stores" them within a fairly narrow range of densities. That is why modern digital sensors have no problem what-so-ever capturing the entire range of film densities without multiple exposures.
IME, there's more value to the glass carrier with larger film formats, as bigger expanses of unsupported film will sag more under their own weight. But even so, the majority of my medium format scans are also done with the stock carriers.
Here's a recent 35 mm scan. Not the highest-resolving combo of film and camera (Minolta Hi Matic F, Lomo 100 color negative - Kodak Gold 100?). With V700 scanning at 3200 DPI, it yielded me a 4650 x 3134 TIFF file.
View attachment 340931
And here's a 100% crop with shadows boosted:
View attachment 340933
No doubt I could have given the scanner more of a challenge had I shot with Fujifilm Velvia slide film + one of my Canon or Nikon macro lenses. But shooting slide film under that contrasty light would have been no joy, as the shadows would have been rendered as featureless patches of pure black, whereas the negative film yields at least a little bit of shadow tonality.
Speed = DSLR, quality = Scanner (with the wet scan accessory)
Good software is as important as the scan hardware!
The advantage of a DSLR is that when you'r not scanning, you can take photographs with it (which you might not do...).
My setup is Epson 750 + wet scan accessory and SilverFast software (and some LRC at the end)..
Yep. 4.0 is actually excessive for all CN film.
Scanning colour negatives and 'reversing' them into a positive image is perfectly doable:
View attachment 341036
View attachment 341037
View attachment 341039
I set up a thing with an opal light shade on a 40 watt (or 60) bulb, behind a groove to hold my Omega 35mm negative carrier. It had a screw to mount a Canon T3i with a macro lens at the correct distance to get just the frame in the negative carrier. It definitely rivalled the Epson scanner I bought some time after - may have been better (I never checked). I just hated spending time adjusting the images. It took less time to use the dslr, but the majority of the time using the Epson is just waiting for it to finish with the two strips it's scanning. You can do other things while that happens.
What kinds of film do you shoot?
With a proper DSLR scanning setup, one can take advantage of the capture speed over any traditional scanner - few seconds per frame instead of many minutes.
DSLR scanning is quickest and easiest for b&w as the inversion process in post is relatively simple. There is no dust and scratch removal for b&w film in any scanner so you'll have to remove those in post in either case.
If you shoot slides the post work is still relatively easy. DSLR capture is still much faster unless you need dust and scratch removal in which case scanners can save time with this.
If you're going to DSLR scan color negatives, the capture part is still quick but the post work to invert the color can easily negate this speed. Again, if you need dust and scratch removal a scanner can save some more time.
Now post work on DSLR scanned color negatives can be very challenging but there are many here who have successfully done this. One even does it commercially in very high volumes so it is definitely doable.
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?