Need help with Epson v600 flatbed scanner pls.. (silverfast blurry scans and bad colors, flimsy part)

[Qiuhong]

Hey guys, Scanning with v600 today almost took a year out of my life.

I have some questions hoping someone would know the answer

1. silverfast sometimes produce blurry scans and high % of bad colors comparing to epson scan 2
I was under the impression that silverscan would make sharper image, but in some cases it seems a tad sharper, in this case of the first image below, it looks unfocused even sharpened to 300, comparing to epson medium unsharp mask which I'm okay with. 2nd image it's similar but silverfast has gross colors right off the bat. All other settings are the same.
I've tried many methods to improve 35mm scanning on this d*** thing, in the holder, on the bed, sharpening turned off, just couldn't get a nice 35mm scan out of this, on the bed with epson is by far the best but introduces newton rings which I'll try with a glass later... holy moly why is scanning so complicated.

2. flimsy part: the white part behind the mirror on the top panel of the scanner is flimsy and when I open the scanner to 90 degree, wiggle the top panel, the white part moves and detach a little bit, and bounces on the inside, anyone else's scanner does this?

Is it worth to trouble to make v600 work for 35mm? or should I get a plustek or scan with camera?
I just need the easiest, least fuss scanning method with decent result so I can sit by my laptop look at my photos and convince myself I'm not a s*** photographer.

 

[koraks]

it looks unfocused even sharpened to 300, comparing to epson medium unsharp mask which I'm okay with.

1: Flatbed scans will never look as tack sharp as, say, a digital camera image or even a dedicated film scanner output. There's always going to be some blurriness.
2: The sharpening of the Epson scan on the right looks a bit on the high side. Can't argue about taste, of course, but I'd dial it way back - preferably even disable the option.
3: The Silverfast scan looks like it has some major noise/grain suppression turned on. If you turn it off, you'll get your scans to look close to what you get with Epson scan.

2nd image it's similar but silverfast has gross colors right off the bat.

4: When scanning, you'll virtually always have to do some manual color adjustments on the output. The scanner cannot possibly know what colors are 'real', especially in a color negative film. The only bit of automation you could do, is make your own target (shoot a good color chart under controlled lighting conditions) on the film of your choice, and create a color correction curve based on that target. Then apply that curve by default to all scans you make of the same film. Keep in mind you'll need a target for each brand + type of color negative film you use. Another caveat is that a host of factors can still skew the result; notably lighting conditions during exposure (shade, sunlight, time of day, reflection of nearby colored surfaces, etc.), processing and even aging of poorly processed negatives (fading dyes). Basically, if you expect you're going to get properly balanced color negative scans straight out of the box, exactly to your taste, without any further processing, you're S.O.L.! There's no way about this.

Apart from the grain/noise suppression (SilverFast) and sharpening (Epson scan), your scans look fine to me. This is about what you can expect from a flatbed scanner; you're doing good. Colors also look pretty close to me and require only minor adjustments. Well done overall.

 

[Qiuhong]

1: Flatbed scans will never look as tack sharp as, say, a digital camera image or even a dedicated film scanner output. There's always going to be some blurriness.
2: The sharpening of the Epson scan on the right looks a bit on the high side. Can't argue about taste, of course, but I'd dial it way back - preferably even disable the option.
3: The Silverfast scan looks like it has some major noise/grain suppression turned on. If you turn it off, you'll get your scans to look close to what you get with Epson scan.



4: When scanning, you'll virtually always have to do some manual color adjustments on the output. The scanner cannot possibly know what colors are 'real', especially in a color negative film. The only bit of automation you could do, is make your own target (shoot a good color chart under controlled lighting conditions) on the film of your choice, and create a color correction curve based on that target. Then apply that curve by default to all scans you make of the same film. Keep in mind you'll need a target for each brand + type of color negative film you use. Another caveat is that a host of factors can still skew the result; notably lighting conditions during exposure (shade, sunlight, time of day, reflection of nearby colored surfaces, etc.), processing and even aging of poorly processed negatives (fading dyes). Basically, if you expect you're going to get properly balanced color negative scans straight out of the box, exactly to your taste, without any further processing, you're S.O.L.! There's no way about this.

Apart from the grain/noise suppression (SilverFast) and sharpening (Epson scan), your scans look fine to me. This is about what you can expect from a flatbed scanner; you're doing good. Colors also look pretty close to me and require only minor adjustments. Well done overall.

I'm accepting that flatbeds are kinda trash for 35mm but I still feel like I'm not getting 100% out of it, I've seen decent 35mm scans with v600 around, Also the silverfast doesn't have any grain reduction turned on I don't even think my free version has that feature, I made sure all the unneccesary settings are off and silverfast is still acting weird and not giving me a sharp image.

Thanks for the info on the color, I actually quite like the built in color from epson scan, it gets it right most of the time, tho they got rid of ICE in epson scan 2..

And i don't know the hype about silverfast when the colors turn out unusable sometimes and the negafix (bad name choice imo) is basically useless. I also realize epson scan and silverfast both have a cooler and bluish tone when first converted. After spending time in lightroom I'm able to get them to where I want tho it takes a long time.

Sometimes the standard lab scans I get are supre detailed and colors are so spot on and has a golden glow and I can't replicate in both softwares or lightroom which is sad.

 

[koraks]

I've seen decent 35mm scans with v600 around

Can you link to some scans that are significantly better than yours? Perhaps the images contain some clues.

I'd caution about being star struck by what you see online. It's deceptive much of the time.

Here's an example - from an old Epson 4990. I don't think it should do any better than your v600 AFAIK:

Looks plenty sharp and whatnot. Colors a bit wonky, alright, but I didn't spend much time fixing those.

Here's the actual 'detail' of the 4800 dpi scan I took the above image from:

As you can see, it's barely recognizable mush. Which is sensible, since this scanner doesn't resolve anywhere near 4800dpi. Its real-world resolution limit is probably around 2000dpi. So let's punch it down a little bit to that level or thereabouts:

Oh, that's tidying up quite nicely already. How about some sharpening:

Well, look at that - quite reasonable.

See how we went from pure mush to something that looks like a decently sharp (dust included) "100%" (but not really) crop? Mind you - I scanned that frame only once. I could present it in any number of ways depending on what I'd want to prove. That's how it is with what you see online, as well. Not saying that examples you see are all intended to somehow trick you into believing things that aren't there. But they're all doctored in some way, according to someone's settings, preferences and biases.

What resolution did you scan your examples at? The first one looks like you scanned beyond the actual resolving power of the scanner, resulting in soft mush and essentially a lot of redundant pixels. The second one looks like you scanned it at maybe half that resolution (or downsized a larger image), perhaps a smidgeon less, and that looks like a very decent crop indeed. I'd be pretty happy with that result from a flatbed if we're looking at a 100% crop at anywhere between 1800dpi and 2400dpi.

the silverfast doesn't have any grain reduction turned on

Well, something funny is going on for sure. In your first example with the curly boys you've got lots of (grain-originated?) chroma noise in the Epson scan and the Silverfast scan is smooth but has some degraded detail. Lo and behold, it's the opposite with the scans of the young man with the moustache. So either you're getting some things mixed up, or there's some auto-magic going on in either Silverfast or Epson that you're not controlling yet - or both. The funny thing is also that the color balance is shifted to cyan on the right-side image in both cases, but in the first example this would be the Epson scan and in the second it would be Silverfast...? Maybe go back and check notes?

white part behind the mirror on the top panel of the scanner is flimsy

It's the backlight assembly. It has to be able to move along with the scanning head under the bottom platen. Hence, it likely won't be firmly attached. It's driven with a belt along a track and to keep friction down it's logical that it doesn't lodge itself firmly in place as it would necessitate a ridiculously heavy motor and drive belt, involve long-term wear & tear problems (increased need for lubrication) etc. So basically it seems (and is) flimsy to keep your scanner (a) affordable and (b) durable without requiring maintenance.

 

[jeffreyg]

I have been a SilverFast user for years with the upgraded version StudioAi with medium and large format black and white and occasionally 35mm color and have not had your problems. My suggestion is to reset to the default settings and select the film to be scanned and see if that helps. Do the corrections with your editing software. If the problem persists call their tech support. They might give you an upgrade I’m not using the same scanner as you. I’m currently using an Epson 850 but I still prefer to edit with Photoshop etc.

 

[Qiuhong]

I have been a SilverFast user for years with the upgraded version StudioAi with medium and large format black and white and occasionally 35mm color and have not had your problems. My suggestion is to reset to the default settings and select the film to be scanned and see if that helps. Do the corrections with your editing software. If the problem persists call their tech support. They might give you an upgrade I’m not using the same scanner as you. I’m currently using an Epson 850 but I still prefer to edit with Photoshop etc.

I found the negafix to be terrible so I kept it on auto or auto CCR, I might call them...

 

[Qiuhong]

In your first example with the curly boys you've got lots of (grain-originated?) chroma noise in the Epson scan and the Silverfast scan is smooth but has some degraded detail. Lo and behold, it's the opposite with the scans of the young man with the moustache.

Any idea how to reduce that noise in epson? I turned most of the settings off except for slight adjustment and a medium unsharp mask which IMO does a better job than silverfast and lightroom. Silverfast is just plain blurry, also the comparison is flipped on the second image, I wrote the names of the software on top right corner. I didn't pay attention to that my bad

 

[jeffreyg]

I don’t use negafix and have sharp scans for prints up to16x20 and have several prints up to 5ft and one to 6ft for a previous exhibition with one of the 5ft’rs from a 35mm negative. I set the res for the scan at 2400 although it is actually probably less in reality. Somewhere I had a test target to check actual res but at the moment I don’t recall where it is. I still think contacting SilverFast is worth a try

 

[_T_]

Hi, qiuhong. Looking carefully at your files I do not see an improvement in resolution in the epson scan files. I see that they are being sharpened by epson scan though.

If you want your silverfast files to look as sharp as your epson scan files you can do some sharpening in post.

Sharpening is a matter of taste but it shouldn’t be difficult to get your files looking the way you want.

Always do these steps on a copy of the layer or file so that you do not lose the original information contained in the scan:

Open the unsharp mask dialogue and set the sliders to 100% sharpening, radius 0, threshold 0. Slowly increase the radius until you see that the details that you want sharpened are being affected by the filter in a way you’re satisfied with (the radius determines the size of the details that the filter will sharpen and it needs to be set differently for each image depending on what you want to sharpen), then zoom in so that you can see the grain of the image and slowly increase the threshold to decrease the filter’s effect on the very small details of the grain. When you’re happy that the filter has not made your image too noisy for your taste but is still having the effect you want on the details you want sharpened, adjust the amount slider until you see the amount of sharpness that you desire.

I think you will find that once you get the hang of sharpening your own files manually and see how much control it gives you over the look of your images, you won’t be satisfied with allowing epson scan to sharpen them automatically.

As for the colors, it looks like you’ve done a wonderful job of scanning these frames in silverfast. Seems like you have the hang of it and will be able to continue to produce good scans this way if you choose to.

The epson scan files look a little off to me, but not so bad that I couldn’t adjust away the cast I’m seeing without needing any tedious masking.

I do see a slight increase in contrast in the epson scan file of the two young men. Not a problem if you prefer the baked in contrast, but I personally would prefer to nondestructively add contrast in post.

All in all it looks like you’ve got a pretty good handle on it now. It’s just a matter of deciding what you want to do with your scans. Would you rather sharpen your own files manually in post with silverfast, or is wanting the automatic sharpening of epson scan a deal breaker and you will instead have to adjust the colors in post?

A third option is to turn on the unsharp mask feature in silverfast (the USM button). I do not use this as it is destructive, but so is the sharpening in epson scan. I’ve seen a few people on this forum who swear by the silverfast unsharp mask. Maybe you will like it too.

I do not think that a different scanner would improve the sharpness or colors of the examples that you have posted today. I think it would be rather difficult to produce an image that would require any additional optical resolution from your scanner with the camera and lens combination(s) that you have made these images with under any kind of real world circumstances. Although it is possible to achieve a level of resolution with a 35mm camera that would far exceed what you can scan with your v600 with the right subject, support, equipment, film and processing, the vast majority of images produced with 35mm are just not that dense with information.

If you are still unsatisfied with your scans I would consider having a professional lab make a high resolution drum scan of one of your best and sharpest frames, just so that you can have something with which to compare the quality that you are getting out of your scanner. Sort of a sanity check to see if there really is any improvement to be had.

 

[koraks]

Any idea how to reduce that noise in epson?

Shoot digital - no more grain. The chroma noise will be much less.

Grain in color film is effectively chroma noise. What you see in a digital scan, is an interference pattern that's largely influenced by the grain of the film itself.
You might try the grain dissolver option in the Epson scan software, but that will degrade detail as in the other example.

I repeat what I said earlier, but will paraphrase for clarity: either adjust your expectations of what film photography and flatbed scanning can do, or be very unhappy.

 

[Les Sarile]

Hey guys, Scanning with v600 today almost took a year out of my life.

I have some questions hoping someone would know the answer

1. silverfast sometimes produce blurry scans and high % of bad colors comparing to epson scan 2
I was under the impression that silverscan would make sharper image, but in some cases it seems a tad sharper, in this case of the first image below, it looks unfocused even sharpened to 300, comparing to epson medium unsharp mask which I'm okay with. 2nd image it's similar but silverfast has gross colors right off the bat. All other settings are the same.
I've tried many methods to improve 35mm scanning on this d*** thing, in the holder, on the bed, sharpening turned off, just couldn't get a nice 35mm scan out of this, on the bed with epson is by far the best but introduces newton rings which I'll try with a glass later... holy moly why is scanning so complicated.



View attachment 342966

View attachment 342965

2. flimsy part: the white part behind the mirror on the top panel of the scanner is flimsy and when I open the scanner to 90 degree, wiggle the top panel, the white part moves and detach a little bit, and bounces on the inside, anyone else's scanner does this?
View attachment 342970


Is it worth to trouble to make v600 work for 35mm? or should I get a plustek or scan with camera?
I just need the easiest, least fuss scanning method with decent result so I can sit by my laptop look at my photos and convince myself I'm not a s*** photographer.

Just tp be sure the image on the film is tack sharp, have you verified with optical high magnification? Something better than a typical 8X loupe like this cheap 40X I bought many years ago.

Film scanning tool by Les DMess, on Flickr

Or, have the same frame scanned at high dpi from a minilab for comparison? They are capable but only if the operator knows how and they offer the service.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Comparing sharpness between different scanning programs is an exercise in futility. Scan flat without sharpening and then sharpen in post. Then you'll be able to compare scans effectively. Also, if you apply any edits for the scan, you're stuck with the results unless you rescan taking additional setup and time. Scan flat (in RAW) and once forever. Save as tiff. I shoot at 2400 48 bit for color. Edit afterwards and don't replace or delete the original scan file.

I also scan with my V600 using the film holder which is the proper way to do it. Make sure the film is flat and use that stencil piece that comes with the scanner to help out with that issue. I tend to clone out the dust spots in post and not use ICE. I also don't like negative color film because of the color inversion required. So I shoot mainly chromes, or BW negative film. You can see samples on my Flickr linked below. Good luck.

 

[George Collier]

What Alan said - the software doesn't control sharpness, but it does give you the choices regarding sharpening (known as unsharp masking - don't ask) and you need to know the difference. As he recommends, I do the sharpening in Photoshop. I actually scan to Tiff, which can be opened in Camera Raw, which has a very sophisticated sharpening tool. I did compare the sharpening done by my scanner (Epson V850) with Silverfast to my sharpening in Raw and prefer the control in Raw.