ned1 Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 <p>The green sensor on my Coolscan V went on the fritz, so I scanned my latest batch of Ektar with my V700, which I use for medium format. UGGH! Instad of deep and vibrant the colors came out lifeless and dull. If I had started with the 700 I would never have realized what a wonderful film Ektar is.</p> <p>So I have two questions:</p> <p>Is this an Ektar thing, or do all color negative films look crummy on the 700? Note that Ektar is the only color negative film I shoot, the medium format is all E-6 which seems to scan OK.</p> <p>And where is a good place in northern NJ to get my Coolscan fixed?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 <p>In my experience (Epson V500 and Coolscan 9000), all negatives look poor on the Epson in comparison to the Coolscan.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timothygrayphoto Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 <p>Can't speak of the V700, as I have the V750. I've had no issues scanning Ektar 100 (35mm format) using Silverfast Ai Studio. Have not tried it using Epson Scan. The V500 is a different breed altogether as it uses LED lighting vs Cold Cathode, which are found in the V700/V750 and the Nikon, which could possibly explain the results Mauro is seeing.<br> Also, make sure you experiment with the height adjustment feet on the negative carrier - proper height adjustment positioning, along with film flatness in the carrier, are two variables which seem to cause owners of the V700/750 the most problems.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny_spinoza Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 <p>Are you using the same scanning software for both machines?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 <p>I've found the C-41 performance of my V750 quite fine with the supplied Silverfast Ai. I have NEVER used Epson Scan with the V750. (I used to suffer it on the 2450 when I needed 48-bit files, since it came with crippled 24-bit SilverFast.)<br> Sure, my CoolScan IV does better with C-41. But the V750 is quite respectable. <em>(Way</em> better than the 2450 in color response.) Overexposed areas are where the V750 shows it's weakness.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ned1 Posted March 19, 2009 Author Share Posted March 19, 2009 <p>Benny, no. I'm using VueScan on the flatbed and the Nikon scan for the Coolscan. Interesting point.</p> <p>Don't use the Silverfast SE that came with the 700 cause of the 24 bit problem. Is there a way around that other than upgrading?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthew_newton Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 <p>Maybe it is an LED light source issue. I haven't had any real issues scanning Ektar with my Epson 4490 (cousin to the V500). Color balance seems a bit more hit and miss then with most other negative films, but it isn't a serious issue. Colors are still certainly vibrant.<br> John, I've noticed the same problem with overexposed areas on the film with my 4490 as well. If I try to push the scanning to recover the far highlights I get a lot of color noise in the scan. Underexposed areas of negatives are just fine with the scanner, in fact it can pull shadow areas really, really well...but the highlights. Oh well, it does a good job on most things, so long as the film is exposed correctly.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 <p>The main problems of the V500 are:<br /> 1) Low Resolution (Just north of 2000dpi)<br /> 2) Low Dmax (very bad on shadows and highlights - of properly exposed film)<br /> 3) Digital noise<br /> 4) ICE artifacting at 6400 (ICE should only be used at 2400 on the Epson Scan)<br /> 5) Poor color rendition</p> <p>You may have seen my results posted in other threads. I would not use the V500 other than for previweing film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_photo Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>The main problems of the NIKON 9000<br> 1. Cost, 2500 with glass holder if you can find one<br> 2. Inadequate detail for large prints<br> 3. Some galleries, stock agencies, and art directors frown upon coolscan scans<br> 4. Serious reliability issues well documented on this forum with slow as mollasess turnaround time by Nikon<br> 5. Seriously lags behind a Tango Drum Scan for LARGE prints though adequate for less critical work and small "gallery" prints exhibited at your local Starbucks. <br> I would not use the Nikon 9000 for critcal work but would, like many, send my best work out for professional scans. However, I would use a 150 dollar V500 to proof my work as it saves me quite a bit of cash versus having a coolscan that I know fails to achieve the full potential of my medium format film.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrydressler Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 <p>This is why I got the V700 over the 500 and also the fact I shoot things larger than MF ...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>John Photo,<br> Do you shoot 6x7? Why do you consider the detail of your scan with a Coolscan 9000 inadequate?</p> <p>If you don't mind me asking, what camera, scanner, and printer do you have?<br> 6x7 and a Coolscan 9000 gives you the best quality possible short of a drum scan? Who frowned on you with that?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 <p>Edward, here is an educational thread that compares different scanners:</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00SlJT</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 <blockquote> <p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=491528">John Photo</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 20, 2009; 02:25 a.m.</p> <p>The main problems of the NIKON 9000<br> <br />5. Seriously lags behind a Tango Drum Scan for LARGE prints though adequate for less critical work and small "gallery" prints exhibited at your local Starbucks.</p> </blockquote> <p> So what is a LARGE print?<br> Do you have a 100% crom from a Tango Drum scan?</p> <p>I have looked at this site, but the scans were only done at 2400 so it is kind of hard to tell just how well it would do at higher ppi.</p> <p><a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/</a></p> <p>It is surprisingly hard to find full res samples from most drum scanners. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauro_franic Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 <p>John Photo,</p> <p>a) how much do you spend a month on drum scans (i.e how many pictures make it pass your V500 rough proofing)?<br> b) is $2,500 that much then?<br> c) if you shoot 645 and drumscan, you will get better quality shooting 6x7 and using a Coolscan.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 <p>OMG John Photo, tell me you are not trying to make 30x40 inch print from a 645 camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_shriver Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 <p>Yes, the Epson V700 comes with the crippled 24-bit SilverFast LE. That's why I paid the extra bucks for the V750, I wanted the full 48-bit SilverFast Ai which comes with it. Yes, you can upgrade from LE to Ai, but I it costs more than the price difference between the V700 and V750.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbmartin2 Posted April 10, 2009 Share Posted April 10, 2009 <p>I get the best results scanning from my V700 using the 48 bit hdr option in Silverfast SE. Save it as a tiff file, then open it in Camera Raw in PS. Be sure to use scanner sharpening and set gamma gradation to at least 2.2 (I set it at 2.5). I find file manipulation far easier in Photoshop, than trying to muck around too much in scanner software.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbmartin2 Posted April 23, 2009 Share Posted April 23, 2009 <p>http://i.pbase.com/o3/90/16790/1/111678991.M5qaHn1M.00350029scnar.jpg</p> <p>A scan of of Ektar 100 taken with F100 and 200mm f4 AI. Scanned using Epson V700. Below a 100% center crop at 6400 dpi</p> <p>http://i.pbase.com/o3/90/16790/1/111678988.dS0rzhrh.00350029scnacropr.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted April 24, 2009 Share Posted April 24, 2009 <p>Many of us are able to produce excellent scans with the Nikon 9000 ED, particularly when scanned wet. I'd think that John Photo's problems may be caused by poor technique. Or he may simply be rationalizing not spending the money for a Nikon scanner.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now