Scanning MF with Epson V600

First off, apologies if this is a redundant topic, I am having trouble finding 'clear' answers to my questions regarding this scanner.

I just purchased the v600 to scan my 120 film and I want to try to make sure it's going to meet my standards before the return policy period lapses.

I went with the v600 because it's cheaper than the 700s but I am having trouble getting sharp scans, and I'm not certain if it's my technique or if I'm just unimpressed with the v600's capabilities. I have been using the minolta dimage IV for my 35mm and I'm generally very happy with the results, but as it stands the IV is able to resolve more information from my 35mm negatives than the v600 can from 120. Having said that though, the IV is pretty cut and dry when it comes to scanning, and the v600 seems to require some trickery to get sharp scans.

At first I was putting the 120 in emulsion side up, which resulted in blurry scans (perhaps because the film won't stay flat), but then flipping the film over and scanning emulsion down, so that the film curled towards the glass, resulted in slightly sharper scans. So now I am wondering if I should invest in the betterscanning glass and mount (which I've read mixed reviews about) although I think these accessories may just be a pricey addition to a device unable to produce good results.

I am aware that there are very limited options when it comes to medium format scanning, but since my minolta seems to be doing a great job with 35, I'm thinking of just getting a dimage multi to scan my 120, regardless of the lack or support. I do want to like the Epson though, since drivers and software are available for it. So basically I'm wondering out of the people that use epsons on this board, what is the 'best' technique to render sharp results, and do the betterscanning accessories actually provide a significant improvement when scanning 120 or is it not worth it? $80 for the mount and $30 for the glass seems pricey to me, and I haven't found many example photos of 120 scans with and without, so that's why I'm posting here.

I am strictly concerned with the sharpness and resolution of the scans and not the color representation (a separate issue).

Any insight is appreciated.

Minolta IV w/ Ektar 35


Epson V600 w/ Ektar 120


ALSO, you may note the highlight clipping in the V600 photo. I don't know how to fix this.

do the betterscanning accessories actually provide a significant improvement when scanning 120 or is it not worth it?

In my experience, the Epson film holders severely handicap the scanner's performance. I have owned a 2450 and a V700 and in both cases using Better Scanning holders and glass significantly improved scan quality. I consider a glass holder mandatory -- even the Nikon 9000 holders can't provide edge-to-edge sharp scans without glass.

Here are some comparisons I did to the v700.

http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/comparison-some-flatbeds-holders-3525/

The clipping should go away if you set the white point for the scan manually, unless its really clipped in the negative. The auto setting in Epson Scan always seems to clip. I never use it.

I found the Betterscanning holder to be well worth it.

Hi, thanks, very helpful comparison.

I use vuescan and color correct in photoshop. I was not able to get sharp scans using epson scan, and it's also much slower.

I think I'll try wet scanning before I commit to the betterscanning accessories.

Epson scanners do not make sharp scans. They are generally blurry scans that are sharpened. There are techniques that will make it a little better such as what has been suggested.

To get sharper scans, you have to go a couple of steps up to a film scanner like the Nikon, an Imacon, or a drum scanner.

Lenny

Help and info here:

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1269720@N20/

Epson scanners do not make sharp scans


Please would someone notify Epson ASAP about this!

lenny said:

Epson scanners do not make sharp scans. They are generally blurry scans that are sharpened. There are techniques that will make it a little better such as what has been suggested.

To get sharper scans, you have to go a couple of steps up to a film scanner like the Nikon, an Imacon, or a drum scanner.

Lenny

Click to expand...

Jeez Lenny that's a sweeping statement and there are a lot of folk who can tell the difference between an image that has been sharpened by a scanner or a camera and one that is not. With all respect to your scanning experience, do you actually use Epsons or is your judgement based on looking at scans others have made or tried to make using them? Sure, they can be sensitive to film flatness as is being discussed in this thread but as a general purpose scanner for film and paper they are pretty hard to beat - and I've never seen any evidence that they automatically sharpen their output unless instructed to do so in software. OzJohn

OzJohn said:

Jeez Lenny that's a sweeping statement. With all respect to your scanning experience, do you actually use Epsons or is your judgement based on looking at scans others have made or tried to make using them? Sure, they can be sensitive to film flatness as is being discussed in this thread but as a general purpose scanner for film and paper they are pretty hard to beat - and I've never seen any evidence that they automatically sharpen their output unless instructed to do so in software. OzJohn

Click to expand...

Yes, its a sweeping statement, but it is one borne from experience. I did have an Epson 750 here for a while, it is not a small difference but a considerable one. i have also seen the numerous comparisons over the past few years. IU have also been active in the Scan Hi-End where all the pros are, and heard what they had to say.

It's really clear. This isn't a matter of opinion, but established fact. Especially when it comes to smaller film, such as medium format. I'm not breaking new ground here.

There is a difference between scanning and image-making. Scanning is just part of the capture step. Some folks do very well with the Epson's and a 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film. For some the Epson level of quality is all they need. However, when someone asks about whether an Epson is as sharp as any of the high end scanner choices, it is clearly not. I stand by my assertions.

Lenny

lenny said:

Yes, its a sweeping statement, but it is one borne from experience. I did have an Epson 750 here for a while, it is not a small difference but a considerable one. i have also seen the numerous comparisons over the past few years. IU have also been active in the Scan Hi-End where all the pros are, and heard what they had to say.

It's really clear. This isn't a matter of opinion, but established fact. Especially when it comes to smaller film, such as medium format. I'm not breaking new ground here.

There is a difference between scanning and image-making. Scanning is just part of the capture step. Some folks do very well with the Epson's and a 4x5 or 8x10 piece of film. For some the Epson level of quality is all they need. However, when someone asks about whether an Epson is as sharp as any of the high end scanner choices, it is clearly not. I stand by my assertions.

Lenny

Click to expand...

It's hard to disagree with much of what you say but with the proviso that yourself and the pros you mention are seeking the highest echelon of scanning perfection. Nothing wrong with that but most people are not similarly motivated and may not recognise such quality even when they see it. More importantly, most do not need that sort of quality for the end product they have in mind.

I think it does a disservice to the majority of photographers who choose or need to scan their own film to suggest that the most widely known line of flatbed photo scanners is, across the range, defective. Limited perhaps but eminently suited to the needs of most people as well as being orders of magnitude better than cheap document scanners and mutifunction office printers. OzJohn

OzJohn said:

It's hard to disagree with much of what you say but with the proviso that yourself and the pros you mention are seeking the highest echelon of scanning perfection. Nothing wrong with that but most people are not similarly motivated and may not recognise such quality even when they see it. More importantly, most do not need that sort of quality for the end product they have in mind.

I think it does a disservice to the majority of photographers who choose or need to scan their own film to suggest that the most widely known line of flatbed photo scanners is, across the range, defective. Limited perhaps but eminently suited to the needs of most people as well as being orders of magnitude better than cheap document scanners and mutifunction office printers. OzJohn

Click to expand...

This comes up every time someone posts about Epson scanners for film scans. Lenny is always right. The point is that you can't buy consumer electronics and expect to get exceptional results from them. I see people come to workshops all the time with photographs they are proud of because they were told "this is good enough" only to then learn how much better their photographs can be—they either leave deflated or motivated.

The point that is the real issue/problem is, as you said, most people can not recognize quality or be sufficiently motivated to seek it out. The scanner is not defective, but it is not suitable for making fine prints from 35mm or 120 films. But one person's fine print might be another's reject. Epson scans from a 4x5 or 8x10 can be ok with a lot of additional Photoshop work, with the 4x5 films being ok to make prints up to 8x10 to 11x14 and up to 16x20 for the 8x10 films. Take a look at the Dead Link Removed for a couple of comparisons between the Epson 750 and a Screen 1045 Drum scanner. I understand that the Howteks can control the aperature separately from the resolution and can resolve even finer detail. The point is that the tonal trasistions from the 3/4 tones to the deep shadows are smoother and retain more detail in a good scan, making it easier to control those transitions in the editing stage. Like sharpness, smooth tonal transitions are part of what separate good prints from bad ones.

Points made, points taken. Why insult/harangue people with the same tired argument("wouldn't know quality if it bit 'em")? Seems odd that the two posters with obvious commercial interests resort to this rather counter-productive approach. Successful labs offering various scanning options and price points detail the objective differences among them and strive to deliver results best suited to their clients' needs, budgets and goals. They deliver service, not attitude.

I try to:
Pick the right tool for the job at hand and learn to use it well.
Review my prints with a critical eye and revise my workflow if not satisfied.
Seek out and view quality work up close.

Richard Boutwell said:

Take a look at the Dead Link Removed for a couple of comparisons between the Epson 750 and a Screen 1045 Drum scanner.

Click to expand...

Again I don't disagree but I think this statement is similar to comparing a $100 point and shoot to a multi-thousand dollar pro DSLR. Of course one is better than the other but both these high-end products also require a high level of operator skill and experience to extract the best result and most people who want to scan film don't have either the skills or the motivation to buy the equipment and learn to use it or to pay someone to do it for them. Believe me I know what a high-end scan looks like and I happily pay someone to do them for me when necessary but I am not evangelical about every scan that I need being of that quality and for those I am happy to use either an Epson flatbed or a Nikon film scanner. OzJohn

CGW said:

Points made, points taken. Why insult/harangue people with the same tired argument("wouldn't know quality if it bit 'em")? Seems odd that the two posters with obvious commercial interests resort to this rather counter-productive approach. Successful labs offering various scanning options and price points detail the objective differences among them and strive to deliver results best suited to their clients' needs, budgets and goals. They deliver service, not attitude.

Click to expand...

This is not fair at all. I have been posting here since the beginning and I can honestly say that I have not gotten one client from DPUG. I have gotten a few from the Large Format forum but none from here. I actually like talking to photographers altho' this subject is somewhat tiresome.

I used to teach college and for me this is like someone saying that DK-50 is a better developer for nice tight grain more than D-23, D-76, DDX, Microphen, Xtol or Pyro. It just isn't true. It was a developer made by Kodak that was made so that labs could developer film faster, and make more money. If someone says this, I feel duty bound to correct them. For some reason I want to protect the newbies out there, as I used to be one myself.

I have experience in all these types of scanning. The 750 can yield results under the right conditions, and in the right hands. I'd say getting there is harder than getting there with a drum scanner. However, it is not going to compete with a drum scanner. It is consumer level, it utilizes plastic lenses.

If someone wants a scan from a flatbed scanner I will not provide it. My business model is not based on a wide range of services that will work for everyone. My model is based on delivering excellence. It isn't for you to tell me what my business model should be. If someone wants the kind of scan they can get for a dollar or two, I am not going to tell them that they shouldn't get it. However if they want to know why it is blurry, all the nuance isn't there, and why it can't be enlarged past an 8x10 I will give them an honest answer. You may not like the answer but its what I think is the truth, based upon my own personal experience.

I understand that Epson is telling everyone they can do 6400 dpi, and Imacon used to say they could do a DMax of 4.3 or so. We all would like to believe these things but we all know they are not true. Thankfully, the studious among us have executed the proper tests and the info is there for everyone to see.

For me its all about getting the truth out there and letting people decide for themselves.

Lenny

It may be worth trying out to help you get better focus. What I did with my V500 was to use an anti newton ring glass from a 6x7 format slide mount. The curved side of the negative was placed uppermost with the glass placed on top. There was a slight improvement but to be honest I have never really had a problem with 120 film, that was mainly the reserve for 35mm

Well this has turned out to be more of a pain than I had anticipated.

The V600 120 holder is such crap, it takes every fiber of my being to keep from crushing it. I bought the V600 because it's affordable and I have seen some nice looking web scans. I think the betterscanning holder is way overpriced, and with their no-return policy, I opted for the DigitalLiza 120 scanning holder instead - $40 on B&H - and it is awesome. It keeps the film perfectly flat and tight to the scanning glass, and you can simply pull the frames through the holder without having to cut the film to fit.

The problem is that the scanner hates it; I think because it is made of thick plastic and it sits too high on the glass. Sometimes I can use it without problems, but most of the time the scanner goes into error mode and shuts off, which then causes vuescan to crash.

I can't seem to find much info on the digitalliza, or how to use it with the v600, but I've heard it works well with DSLRs and copy stands so I'll probably keep it and try that method next.

I'm fine with the V600's quality. Sharpening in photoshop seems to work well. It's just the workflow that sucks.

I have been using an Epson V 600 for about a year now for 35mm and 120 films and also prints. I have been very happy with it so far, other than the holders are very flimsy. After about 3,000 scans they still work though.
I don't know what you are doing if you are not getting sharp scans off 120. I've had 120 negatives that were rolled on cardboard tubes for around 10 years and just scanned them last week. They were hard to get into the holders, but I still got satisfactory results. Betterscanning may be a good place to start with holders and ANR plate. It was also be far cheaper than buying a 120 scanner from Plustek or Minolta ( I assume these are no longer made ) I'll try to attach a couple of images from 120 negatives in this post.


I'm pretty certain that these are 120 negatives. I may have cut off part of the sky on the first making it look like it is not a 6x6 image.

You may be expecting too much to get as sharp of results with the cheaper Epson than the much more expensive Plustek or Minolta.

I read through this thread with interest, and I'm glad I persevered all the way to the end, so that I could learn about the DigitalLiza. This is pretty much exactly what I've been looking for for medium format. I use a 24.3mp NEX 7 to dupe my 35mm negatives and slides, and it delivers images that rival a Nikon Coolscan in terms of resolution. And since I'm using a razor sharp Micro Nikkor as the core of my dupe setup, not only is the resolution there, but the sharpness and contrast are as well.

I used to use an Epson for scanning 35mm -- I used an Epson 3170 back in those days, which scanned at 3200 ppi. I felt it was "good enough" for a while, but soon got frustrated with the lack of definition in my 35mm photos. So I upgraded to an Epson 4990 -- the model that was the immediate predecessor to the V700/V750 scanners. Well, 35mm scans were somewhat improved, but not enough. It was shortly after that that I discovered duping with a DSLR and I haven't looked back.

However, I still scan my medium format slides and negatives with my 4990, and I even use its stock film holders and Epson Scan software. I don't regard the 4990's film holders as "flimsy" -- I've seen worse -- and I just never really saw enough improvement in the betterscanning products over the standard Epson holders to justify their steep cost. I even performed an experiment with my 4990, where I used a series of shims to determine optimum height of the film above the glass and guess what I found? The optimum height was the exact height the Epson holders hold the film off from the glass. As for my negatives or unmounted slides being held flat, this is typically not a problem with medium format. 35mm may cup somewhat, but the medium format that I develop and that I've had developed lays flat. So this is a non-issue for me as well.

I scan my medium format film at 2400 ppi because I've determined that my 4990's resolution does not extend much past 2000 ppi, so there's really no point in bulking up an image file to a very large size if I'm not getting any resolution from it. Now, I will admit, however, that under certain circumstances, my 4990 will scan at higher resolutions than 2400 ppi, but for the most part and for what I need, 2400 ppi works just fine. Here are a few examples of 2400ppi scans from my Epson 4990, which have been downsized for posting on the web. Film is Fuji Provia 100.

The Carnival Magic cruise ship at Galveston Harbor, with the three-masted tall ship Elissa in the foreground. The second photo in this series is a 100% crop of superstructure detail. Bronica ETRSi, 75mm f/2.8 lens.




I attended a British Bike Rally some time back and shot a bunch of pics with my ETRSi. Here's one of a BSA Gold Star, followed by a 100% crop.




I don't recall what sort of post processing was done to the slides, but it was mild, whatever it was, or else it would show. Usually, I'll add a bit of contrast and saturation to my images, maybe a touch of USM, so that's probably what they got.

I wanted to show the 100% crops so you can see what the actual detail is that my Epson 4990 is recording. As you can see, it's doing a respectable job at 2400 ppi, and when one translates this 2400 ppi over to a 6x4.5 size slide, this gives me enough resolution where I can do 18" x 24" enlargements and still have plenty of detail left. So, yeah, it would be great having a drum scanner, but rather than that, I'll just figure out a practical way to mount my slides and negatives (like using that DigitalLiza film holder) so I can dupe them at an effective 5333 x 4000 resolution, and that way I can paper the sides of buildings with my medium format photos, if I want.

Nice scans. What settings do you use during the scan and how to you post process?

Most of the scans I do on the V 600 I just use the Professional mode at 1200 dpi for prints and 24oo dpi for 35mm negatives. That give me a montage of prints that I take into Photoshop Elements 10 to crop out into individual images . Then I do an auto color correct if the colors are faded or changed and an auto lighten to make some of the darker images lighten up. Auto lighten seems to make the image look strange though and I usually lower the lightness down from the presets a little. The picture of the woman in Red on the Great Wall of China didn't have any corrections done if I remember correctly. It was only taken about 10 years ago and had not faded or changed color.

I played around with it for awhile and eventually managed to get a better workflow. I went to the craft store and bought a sheet of flat black matte board and cut it to the same shape as the epson holder, then cut out a little more so that the digitalliza can fit right where the epson holder used to be, and sit perfectly straight on the glass in line with the sensor. The bigger improvement though was getting a sliver of glass to sit on top of the film. I realized the closer the film is to the glass, the sharper the scan. So now aside from the occasional crash, it works pretty well.

I'm about ready to order Betterscanning. There are .5mm and 1mm holders for the V600. The 1mm is standard. Which do you guys recommend? See Variable Height Epson Film Holder Thickness Choice

Also, I have my film processed by a lab. They return the 120 film ten shots cut 3-3-2-2. Is that going to be a problem. Should I have them cut differently?

@DaveO: The images you have attached are not sharp. They look like out of focus or photographed through a dirty window pane.

@cooltouch:

These images are sharp. Impressive for a flatbed scanner.

@lenny:

I have experience in all these types of scanning. The 750 can yield results under the right conditions, and in the right hands. I'd say getting there is harder than getting there with a drum scanner. However, it is not going to compete with a drum scanner. It is consumer level, it utilizes plastic lenses.

Click to expand...

A plastic lens... I'm loosing my faith in technology and progress <sigh>. Hard to believe, but I know you are not lying.

BTW, I use a Nikon LS 9000, which is ok for A3 high quality offset printing and large format prints up to 1,5 x 1 meter. But if I need perfect shadows or a file for even larger prints, I subcontract the scanning to someone with a drum scanner. As Lenny said: The Epson scanners (and sometimes even the LS 9000) belong to the consumer level. Don't be mislead by the marketing and advertising of those low end companies.