E6 second try

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by mjferron, Dec 4, 2010.

  1. Much better. I actually resused yesterdays chems and added 4% to the recommended times. This time the temp was 105F (It's on the paperwork) and agitated 30 sec per minute. Film was an older roll of Kodak E100GX I had in the fridge. Shot with a Nikon F100 and 35mm 2.8 D. All scans on from an Epson V700
    00XnVp-308439584.jpg
     
  2. Look real yellows
    00XnVr-308439684.jpg
     
  3. Proper metering
    00XnVs-308441584.jpg
     
  4. And btw the V700 cannot scan 35mm film at all. Check out the poor detail in a 100% crop.
    00XnVu-308441684.jpg
     
  5. How many PPI did you scan "bad detail" at?
     
  6. Did you shoot hand held, with a mono pod, or a tripod? What shutter speed?
     
  7. Michael,
    For what it's worth, in a three-day scanning workshop that I attended a few years ago, we used the V700 and the older epson 4990.
    It was the general consensus of the workshop presenter’s that it did not pay to try and do scans on any film format, greater than about 2000-2200 on the v700 and the older epson, even by experienced operators.
    Even though, the v700 was considerably newer, the older, and cheaper epson 4990 performed imperceptibly as well as its newer sibling in the hands of experienced operators.
    BTW, tripod use and mirror lockup is considered a given, if you're going to scan with any need for sharpness.
     
  8. No you never scanned those with a flatbed your just tricking us. :)
    Glad you got your E6 processing sorted out.
     
  9. You've nailed it this time -- that's the look of E100GX that I'm familiar with.
     
  10. Michael, I'd like to see the shot 'Bad Scan' scanned with a higher end 35mm film scanner & posted here so we can compare the V700 quality against 'whatever else' gives you the results you feel you can live with. Actually, I don't think your 'Bad Scan' is all that bad. Depends, I guess, on your expectations and final print requirements. Best, LM.
     
  11. Michael, I'll try to demonstrate the difference between a Minolta Scan Dual ll and an Epson V500 using a Velvia 35mm slide. Hope this helps. Best, LM.
     
  12. Well that didn't go well. Let me try again. LM
    00Xnbr-308531584.jpg
     
  13. Let's try a V500 crop. LM
    00Xnbv-308533584.jpg
     
  14. And now a Scan Dual ll crop. LM
    00Xnbx-308535584.jpg
     
  15. Michael, I think the V500 sample was scanned at 2400 ppi and the Scan Dual sample at 2820 ppi. Perhaps not a perfect comparison but I think close enough for a judgment on the quality available from these two scanners. Hope this cast some light on rather than confusing the issue. Also, perhaps someone (that would be most anyone) with more skills than I could get better results. Best, LM.
     
  16. In any case, very nice looking results.
    Back when I actually had a good working darkroom I toyed with E-6, but I don't remember my results looking so clean.
     
  17. I don't think Michael really meant the the V700 scan was bad.
     
  18. Exactly Stuart. It's not an Imacon but better than a lot give it credit for. Takes a bit to get the best out of it.
     
  19. J. Falth. I'm not sure what the acual max resolution of the Epsons are but the known photographer, writer and master color printer ctien says it's best to scan at high resolutions. If you downsize for say an 8x10 it will keep noise and grain to a minimum. On B&W film I jack it all the way up to 4800 and things look good to my eyes.
     
  20. Congrats on the processing.
    Regarding the scan if you downsize it 2000 dpi, which is closer to its real resolution, it doesn't look bad, but it still exhibits a little noise introduced by the scanner.
     
  21. This is a test I performed a few years back. You are right for 35mm a flatbed will not give you print quality for more than 8x10 but as long as your expectations are in line you can get decent results.
    00Xnn6-308671584.jpg
     
  22. Also the V700 produces better scans than the V500.
     
  23. Thanks Mauro. The v700 needs all the help it can get for decent scans. I've found that flat film on the horizontal is a must. Emlusion side up and for my machine film holder adjusters on the low setting.
     
  24. If you give the v500 image a bit of sharpening it will crispen up quite nicely too.
    00Xnq0-308713584.jpg
     
  25. I get quite nice results from my V500.
    00XnqC-308715584.jpg
     
  26. Mauro Franic = Les Sarile?
     
  27. I could be wrong, but those map scans sure remind me of some Les Sarile work....or maybe I am thinking of the Crayons? ;-)
    Who ever, Who ever, those are some great scientific, rational examples. (unlike so many unsupported opinions one often finds).
     
  28. Mauro are those 35mm scans and do you remember what film it may have been..
     
  29. Kodak 100 UC. 6x7.
    Here is the original post:
    http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00SlJT
     
  30. I remember that long long thread. Thanks.
     
  31. Randall, the film for that test was temporarily donated by Les Sarile for me to scan.
    I also performed another test comparing the Epson, Nikon and Imacon.
    Thanks for the compliment. I agree, everyone participating in discussions should only do so with direct personal experience and examples.
     
  32. I have compared my Epson V750 to my Nikon Coolscan IV. For 35mm, there's no choice, the Coolscan is clearly superior. However, I can't get 120, 620, 116, 127, 122, or 4x5 into the Coolscan, and only a few of those would fit the very pricey Coolscan 9000. So the V750 remains very important here, and with a Better Scanning large format film holder, it can definitely resolve film grain on B&W film.
    However, if I want to get 35mm scans just good enough for 4x6 prints, the Epson is a lot faster, and has the advantage of Silverfast. I've done IT8 calibration for Kodachrome and Ektachrome on the V750, and it helps.
    Of course, since I just upgraded to a Coolscan V, the speed advantage is a lot less decisive. Now I should just add Silverfast Ai for scanning Kodachrome on it with IT8 calibration. I'd probably stick with Nikon Scan for C-41 film, I'm of two minds about NegaFix.
     
  33. Stuart, The sharpened V500 scan, while much improved, is still a tad under the Coolscan. That said, for the money, it's good enough for me & the sizes I print to. (8.5x11 with an occasional 12x18) Thanks for that confidence boosting example. My apologies to Michael for highjacking his thread but his example and comment on the V700 results took us off in another direction though it was a worthwhile learning experience for all concerned. I really am pleased for him in his success in hitting the 'sweet spot' in his E6 processing techniques. The euphoria in that endevour got lost in the scanner comparisons. Michael, your success in scanning Velvia is encouraging. Your results, at web size at least, are stunning. I've always had difficulty getting good results from Velvia regardless the scanner used.(Epson V500 or Minolta Scan Dual ll) I'll surely try again now. Best, LM.
     
  34. Len my first try was Velvia 100. This was Kodak E100GX. (no longer made)
     
  35. Nice shots! Excellent color! Very sharp!
    BTW, tripod use and mirror lockup is considered a given, if you're going to scan with any need for sharpness.​
    Good suggestion, but the F100 doesn't have mirror lockup.
     
  36. I find that the V700 is fine for 8x10 prints....at least of non-demanding subject matter like portraits. For landscape, I'd still run a film scanner. I have obtained pretty nice 16x20 prints from 6x7 scans, and 24x30 prints from 4x5.
    Looks like home E6 can work very well.
     
  37. I struggle to get much resolution from my Epson 4990 - I think 8x10" is just about the limit (and pushing it!), however, it IS possible to get an image with great colours, dynamic range and without any noise reduction, which is better than can be said if you take it to most commercial outfits with their imacons.
    Now if someone can just donate to me a Minolta Dualscan, or even better, how about a Heidelberg Tango?
    (hint)
     

Share This Page