Epson V700 -vs- Nikon Coolscan V - 35mm B&W

[michael_hogan]

Here is a link to a full version of my test image. It is a straight reflective scan of an opticaly enlarged print made some time ago on an old HP Scanner. It might be helpful for readers to see the rest of the frame.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/2088832

 

-Mike

[roger_smith4]

Hi Les,

I agree there is a resolution advantage with the Nikon but at the price of exaggerated grain. If I ever were to move up to MF I'd probably find the Epson adequate, as whether or not your really need detail in each blade of grass depends on how much you plan to enlarge the image. At 50% I think the Epson's competitive.

 

As always, more data is better and leads to better buying decisions, so keep posting scans.

[michael_hogan]

Les - Vaseline, stockings over the lens? You are kidding right?

 

Let me clarify what I mean by "soft" - I am talking about print quality similar to that produced by a cold light or dichro enlarger. The diffuse light, since it is scattered rather than columnated does not exaggerate grain, dust or scratches in the film base. Images produced by �soft� cold light or dichro enlargers are amongst the finest in the world. Ever look at an Ansel Adams print?

 

The truth is the human eye can only resolve ~4-9LPM. So while the resolution and dmax freaks might like the specs of Nikon all you are getting is gritty grain, scratches and dust that must be dealt with post scan. Wet mounting might get a better result by allowing higher resolution without the attendant dust, grain and scratch problems.

 

I own both scanners (LS-50 & V700). I have tested them side by side on a variety of subjects and the V700 produces a better end result than the Nikon for 35mm B&W film. Evaluate real prints from both machines � then decide.

 

-Mike

[roger_smith4]

Stockings over the scanner doesn't work quite the same...

The Scanhancer's probably the next best thing. Have you considered this for the Coolscan V?

http://www.scanhancer.com/index.php?art=22&men=3

 

Soft focus using household items:

http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/hp_digital_photography/article/0,2033,DIY_13956_4916380_02,00.html

[michael_hogan]

Les - My point is that I don't make mushy soft prints. Maybe I should have used the term smooth rather than soft. The Epson scans make tack sharp prints that are as good or better than my properly aligned Besseler 4X5 enlarger. I am not talking about 20X24 prints from 35mm as I have not tested that size. But at my bread and butter sizes 5X7 - 10X12 (actual image area) the Epson delivers.

 

I had a 2450 before the V700 and I considered it a rather crude proofing tool. I had drum scans made of anything critical or used the LS-50. Then I got the V700 because it was faster than the 2450 for proofing. To my surprise it was more than adequate for even my finest exhibition work. I still had not tested 35mm since I had the LS-50. Then one afternoon I decided to test - and found the V700 produced a superior result.

 

The V700 scans make tack sharp prints. The scans require much less post work.

 

Check out the review(s) on photo eye - Here is what the reviewer there had to say:

 

-I have just printed an A3 print of the harbour scene on an Epson R2400 and the detail above measures less than 1/4 of an inch, short of using a very high power magnifying glass you will not see any artefacts. The print shows excellent detail throughout. This scenario reminds me of my darkroom days. I would shoot and develop a 5x4 negative to a very high quality, but could never match that quality in a print, there would always be a slight problem - negative pop, deviation in focus etc. This scan is looking very good when printed and I would be more than happy to submit the file for usage to any magazine.-

 

And this:

 

-Just to keep things in perspective, I also printed this picture on an A3+ sheet of glossy media and at normal viewing distance it looks very sharp. Under close inspection it holds up well and should satisfy even the most demanding of users. The detail enlargements above are perhaps unfair to the scanner, but serve to show how much detail can be extracted from a flatbed film scanner.-

 

 

I concur.

 

-Mike

[35mmdelux]

Mike - This logic does not hold.

[michael_hogan]

Paul - My logic is quite sound; and I have the prints to prove it. If you have first hand evidence (other than hearsay) to the country please present it. I would love to hear from other users (like myself) of these machines.

 

It�s pointless arguing with someone who does not have the machine(s) in question. I have tested (first hand) all three:

 

Optical Enlarger with Nikkor f2.8 50mm lens (laser aligned)

LS-50

V700

 

My comments are based on first hand observation � not hearsay. Instead of arguing why don�t you run your own tests and post the results as I have done?

 

-Mike

[35mmdelux]

Mike - While the EP V700 might be a great and wonderful machine, the logic simply does not hold. Would you also argue that the V700 is better than a contact print?

 

If the V700 is better than a 4x5 "properly aligned" enlarger, then why would anybody bother w/ an Imacon or other drum roller?

 

I'm on your side Mike! I've got a V750M on the way as we speak. Let just say both are damn good. I've seen lots of inkjets on museum walls, but I wouldn't say they were "better" than what my D5 Omega can do.

 

I appreciate the info you've offered - its been a great help.

 

Best - Paul

[michael_hogan]

Paul - You seem to be forgetting that an optical enlarger is functionally analogous to a film scanner. Both machines have a light source, lens and film holder. Both machines cause SOME loss in image fidelity. There are many photographers that just don't get that simple point. Some photographers cling to the mistaken belief that an optical enlarger is somehow better that a good scanner. This is a false assumption that should be re-examined.

 

Your contact print analogy is not a good one assuming you are referring to a -in camera- negative as the source. There is no intermediate machine to degrade the image - so the processes are not at all analogous.

 

People bother with Imacon etc to extract every last bit of information the film will yield - especially dmax issues with E6 film. The need for this sort of extreme is driven by either obsessive photographers or the need to make really big prints ﾖ or both!. At my bread and butter sizes with black and white negative film there is no real advantage to a drum scan.

 

FWIW I contact print almost all of my fine art work in platinum/palladium from both in camera and (V700 scanned) digital ink jet negatives (R2400). The in camera negs have some advantage in tonality but it is small working in Pt/Pd. The benefits from engineering a digital neg in PS to fit precisely the scale of a given process are immense. Combine that with the ability to enlarge, crop, spot, dodge and burn, not to mention repeatability. In my mind the digital neg has an advantage over the in-camera neg on the whole.

 

Please post on your experiences with the V750 - I am always interested in the experience of others.

 

-Mike

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I print with an Omega D2V enlarger and I have an Epson 4990. Yes, it's the last generation Epson, but it's comparable to the newer ones.

 

The flatbed isn't even clost to the sharpness of the enlarger. But I use superb lenses in the enlarger - much better than the Epson lens. And the light doesn't travel through a sheet of glass.

 

Glad you like your Epson. But I think you may have a problem with your eyeglass prescription. Or there is something wrong with your enlarger.

[michael_hogan]

Robert - Glad you like your D2V enlarger. I too use the finest glass for all formats 35mm - 4X5 - there is nothing wrong with my enlarger.

 

For moderate size enlargemnt (in skilled hands) the V700 is as good or better than an optical enlarger. I can't comment on the 4990 in general, but maybe there is somthing wrong with your scanner or your scanning technique (pilot error)?

 

-Mike

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

The 4990 was touted as being the equal of the Nikon when it came out. It's not. But it's very good for a cheap scanner. I assume that the claims for the new Epsons are inflated, too.

 

The problem with full rez crops is that they don't show how a photo will print. I usually print 35mm no larger than 8x10. For larger prints I use larger negatives.

[michael_hogan]

Robert - I bet the Nikon with ICE is great for 35mm E6/colour neg - But it makes really ugly B&W scans that exagerate the grain and every flaw in the film base.

 

I totaly agree with your coments about 100% crop not showing what a print looks like - that's my point - the print is what matters; everyone seems to forget that. The Nikon can resolve the grain - but the prints look downright ugly. The V700 scans are smooth and luminous in comparison.

 

I don't enlarge 35mm past 6X8" (with a few exeptions) - I think 8X10 is pushing it with 35mm tri-x. I mostly shoot 4X5" Tri-X and Polaroid T55 PN for my portrait work. Young kidds and animals are the exceptoins - then I use 6X7 / 645 / 35mm depnding on how dire the situation is. Even shooting 4X5 I just don't like giant photographs - T55 looks great contact printed in pt/pd or enlarged to ~10X12 on a ~16X20" mount.

 

Years ago I built my darkroom around handling 20X24" - I went through a phase of printing lots of 16X20" & 20X24" prints. At some point my style changed - I now perfer small to med well crafted images.

 

The V7XX scanners don't get anythig past 3200 - it's smoke and mirrors past that. But for moderate enlargemnts you don't need any more - you just get file bloat. If a client want's a mural I can alway get a drum scan and incorporate the cost into the job.

 

-Mike

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

I print my B&W negs with an enlarger 98% of the time (I scan color most of the time). I only resort to scanning when I have a very difficult negative that needs tricky doging and burning. I guess I like the darkroom workflow - and as an amateur, I can take my time.

 

You might want to look at this scanner test:

 

http://shutterflower.com/scanner%20comparison.htm

 

It looks as if Fuji Acros scans much better than Tri-X. I mostly shoot Ilford HP5+ myself. And I use a point source light in my enlarger - that forces my to treat my negs with great care!

[tim_w1]

I know my post is a little belated, but I just wanted to add one minor point for the sake of accuracy.

 

It's been highlighted that the two images were cropped differently, thus making a direct comparison that much more difficult. In actual fact, the Epson image is aproximately 22% smaller in scale than the Coolscan image, which is significant if the core arguments relate to the subject of grain and resolution. Obviously the Nikon is going to suffer by comparison on this basis, and it would have been better for all concerned had the two images been sized to exactly the same scale.

 

I don't doubt that the grain in the Coolscan image will still stand out in comparison to the one generated by the Epson, but in this side by side comparison I think it's been a little hard done by!

 

Tim

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Glad you like your scanner, Michael. But I'll take the Nikon any day - I can alway soften an image in Photoshop if that is the effect that I'm after.

[bruce_oudekerk]

In the unlikely circumstance that someone actually reads this message many months after the last post I feel compelled to comment on the conspicuous absence of anything regarding the sharpening of the V700 scan. All Epson flatbed scanners seem to need significant sharpening of their scans to even approximate scans from dedicated film scanners. Without fairly high levels of sharpening all bets are off as one is comparing apples to celestial debris. I have made an attempt here to USM sharpen and re-curve the tonal range of the V700 scan, and resample the Nikon scan down to an appropriate size using bicubic. The area that most interests me is the sharp edge in the lower right corner. Grain is suppressed but edge delineation is maintained in the Epson scan.

 

 

I've been to: http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/ a few times in the past and I find the scans there very interesting and informative. The information I glean from them is often far different of many viewers however. For example the scans from the lower third of the page of Epson V700 v. Epson 4990 v. Nikon LS-8000 are most interesting if you sharpen all three best scans appropriately and adjust levels to approximate each other. Personally I think the V700 is perhaps the sharpest scan by a tad. The 4990 supposedly has an optical res of 4800 dpi but in reality there are only very small gains beyond 3200 dpi. Resampling to 6400 just excerbates te issue. That is my experience on mine and this test bears that out. But it also benefits most from very aggressive sharpening, a levels adjustment and modest color correction. I don't know what is going on with that. Even with a decent showing it is a fairly distant last. My point here is that I don?t know how any of these scans can be realistically compared until appropriate PP is applied.

 

 

Bruce Oudekerk<div></div>