john_michael_swartz

<p>In my own tests using the V750, the most detail is to be had by scanning (using the film holders) at 6400dpi and sharpening before reducing the size. Because working in Photoshop with 8x10 at 6400dpi is not practical, even with a ton of memory and cpu power, you might make an action to do the sharpening and resizing automatically. At this step, you could add in other stuff like assigning/converting profiles and color space, and so on.<br /><br />A bit faster, but with the teensiest bit less detail, is scanning at 6400 but then using Vuescan's reduction feature for saving. I use a factor of 2, so the final output dpi is 3200 but with theoretically less noise (binning the CCD output like this is similar to averaging multiple samples) and more detail. <br /><br />The largest format I work with is 4x5, and although working at 3200 dpi in photoshop (layers and so forth) with 4x5 is doable, I do notice a bit of a slowdown when using brushes and so forth. (I work on a Hackintosh using an i5 processor with 16gb ram.) So 8x10 might be ridiculous at this size. You probably want to use a working version of 1600 dpi / use Viewscan with a size reduction setting of 3.</p> <p>The beauty of Viewscan over the pretty good Epson software is that it lets you scan 120 and up at 6400. Epson Scan complains if you try this, at least with the v750. I think it's worth it to use the 6400 setting, even with 4x5, albeit working with reduced-size versions, and if possible with sharpening applied at 6400 before said reduction. Subjectively, I have always found that sharpening before AND after a size reduction yields superior results than doing just one or the other or neither. Just follow your eye.</p> <p>I think this is basically what Charles Monday was advocating above.</p> <p>Additionally, Vuescan gives me more control over exposure time and color management, which is very important for my calibrated color management process. You have to scan your film with exactly the same settings as you made your color profile! There is nothing in the Epson software that even pretends to assure me that it's giving me the same exposure time for every scan.</p> <p>For a math-based discussion on the advantages of sharpening at higher resolutions: http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html</p> <p>The only possible caveat I can think of with scanning 8x10 at 6400 is that, as the machine warms up during the longer scan, you may get color shifts along the length of the final output. Additionally, as the film warms up, it may buckle and sag and ruin focus if you're not using a glass holder. However, if the v850 is using LEDs and is faster overall, this may not be an issue. I have at times considered keeping my V750 in an air conditioned, dust-filtered box for these reasons, but whatever.</p>

<p>The best equipment is the equipment you actually have and can actually use and suits your needs.</p> <p>For a while I was obsessed with the idea that monstrous Microtek Artixscan 120tf dedicated film scanner I was using was going to be technically superior to any flatbed scanner I could afford. The only software that would run it correctly was the software that came with it, and that software would only run properly on OS X 10.4. So I nursed it along on an old Mac Mini.</p> <p>Then I started doing more 4x5 work and got an Epson V750. Fine, I thought, I'll keep doing 135 and 120 on the Artixscan. Then I improved my color management technique and realized that for various software-related reasons, I couldn't color manage scans from the Artixscan the way I wanted to. Additionally, the video port on the Mini just DIED randomly one day, and so I started screen-sharing into it just to use it for scanning. (How are your IT skills? HA!)</p> <p>It was hard, but I decided to give up on the Artixscan because nursing it along was really just eating up way too much time and distracting me from the real work: making pictures.</p> <p>And you know what? As I embarked on a pretty massive scanning project with the Epson, I started to realize that it was just as good, and superior in many ways, to the Artixscan. It was faster, quieter, fully supported by current software; I could color manage with it the way I wanted to; and best of all, after running many tests, capable of pulling in just as much detail from my negatives as the dedicated film scanner!</p> <p>Looking back, I'm a bit embarrassed at how much time I lost obsession over a technicality that was really an assumption that turned out to be (mainly) false. Don't make this mistake! Just do good work and let me assure you that using a modern flatbed scanner, you can make excellent prints even from 35mm film. I regularly print 35mm at Super B sizes (13" x 19") and I'm very happy with the results (YMMV: I use Portra, and I like grain...! And remember, grain has little to nothing to do with your scanner unless you're scanning at low resolutions and getting aliasing effects... Use slide film -- or DIGITAL -- if you want less grain.)</p> <p>One of these days, I will treat myself to a good drum scan just to see if I absolutely must drink that KoolAid, but frankly, I've been too busy buying film, taking pictures, processing film, scanning and making prints I am very happy with to bother.</p> <p>My Tumblr (obviously you won't be able to appreciate print quality this way):<br />http://granary.tumblr.com</p> <p>Comparison of the Artixscan 120tf to the Epson V750 (Yes, with sharpening applied, okay? Sharpness is not the same as detail/spatial resolution. I learned this in my 7th grade science class in the unit about microscopes, geez. Looking at the two scans now, I would say that the grain is more cleanly rendered in the V750 scan, actually.)<br />http://jjoohhnn.com/blog/artixscan120tf-vs-epsonv750<br /><br /><br> My current scanning technique for color print film:<br />http://jjoohhnn.com/blog/scanning-print-film<br /><br /><br> NB I just use the stock holders that came with the Epson, did some tests to figure out the best height setting. I use Vuescan for scanning. I use Photoshop and occasionally Lightroom for "developing" and "printing". I use a PA249 monitor, and the stock calibration is better than anything I've been able to do myself with a puck. I print on an ancient Epson 2200. Obviously I can keep improving technique and equipment here and there, but the point is that you should never let that get in the way of just doing the work.</p>