Is there a 'best' film for scanning on Epson V500?

[ryan_smith9]

<p>I have heard that it is nearly impossible to scan Kodachrome and get decent results which leads me to my question. Has anyone had better luck with one film over another when using a scanner, in particular the Epson V500? </p>

[andylynn]

<p>What are you looking for? Indoor, outdoor, slide, negative, portraits, vivid colors, fine grain... and what have you tried?</p>

<p>I have that scanner with betterscanning.com glass inserts and lately I've been opting for the super-cheap route (Fuji made, store brand 200 color negative film, processed at Target and scanned at home) and had some pretty good results - but it's still a flatbed and has its limitations, if I need amazing quality I need to shop it out and the shop can give me good results with a lot of different films. I've also had good results scanning old Kodachrome - but if it were new Kodachrome and I wanted high end results I wouldn't use the flatbed.</p>

[ryan_smith9]

<p>Main use will be outdoor/street shooting. I will want this for scanning negatives. I have not tried anything yet as I will be getting my new Leica M2 in a matter of days. I just want to make sure I am using film that will transition to digital well.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Any color negative film shouldn't tax the scanner hardware at all. Expect to have to spend time in post-processing getting the color and contrast to look the way you want (as you would with a digital raw file).</p>

<p>Personally I like a softer, realistic look and use Fuji 400H and 800Z on the street as well as Reala or 160C when I need finer grain. It's trivial to increase saturation and contrast in post but difficult to impossible to do the opposite equally well.</p>

[timothygrayphoto]

<p>Anything by Kodak or Fuji will scan well depending on your technique and the software (not necessariyl in that order). Silverfast supports Kodachrome and the results are impressive. If your scanner supports iSRD or SRD (Silverfast software features) you can even remove dust & scratches a la Digital ICE.</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>consumer grade color negative films like Fuji Superia 200 and 400, Kodak Gold 200, but to obtain good scans you need a well exposed and processed film material</p>

[mauro_franic]

<p>I would not recommend making your film selection to fit your V500. You will outgrow your V500 once you decide to get decent scant. Choose the film you would to capture your shots that you will look/scan 10 years from now.</p>

<p> </p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Or buy a colour enlarger and try printing in the darkroom.</p>

 

[lex_harris]

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5020806">Ryan Solti</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Apr 06, 2009; 12:32 p.m.<br>

I have heard that it is nearly impossible to scan Kodachrome and get decent results</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is a myth. Some scanners (for example my Nikon LS5000ED) DO have more trouble with Kodachrome, and some (for example my Imacon 646) have no trouble at all. <br>

See <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00CTcF</a><br>

It depends on the scanner, and probably even on the individual example of a given scanner model (for example others report no trouble at all with Nikon LS5000ED and Kodachrome).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> which leads me to my question. Has anyone had better luck with one film over another when using a scanner, in particular the Epson V500?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As suggested in a previous post, choose your film first. A good scanner should be able to scan pretty much anything without trouble.</p>

 

[dan_lee16]

<p>Only have had trouble with some of my experimental development of films.</p>

<p>With a good bright image on the film from correct exposure + correct dev, I have no problems.</p>

<p>With the V500 you should do a test in photoshop... scan a frame at 6400 dpi.. then 3200 dpi, sharpen both as optimally as you can either before or after resizing the 6400 dpi down to 3200 dpi (or view the 3200 dpi @ 200%).</p>

<p>I have found that scanning straight at 3200 dpi results in more detail and better focussed grain. As opposed to the conventional flatbed wisdom of scannig @ max resolution @ the sensor and pull it down to it's effetive resolution.</p>

<p>So if the 3200 dpi is better, than it will still be better @ 2000 dpi then the 6400 @ 2000 dpi.</p>

<p>Though these things use dual lenses dont they? A diff one for 6400 dpi? So perhaps the depth of field is smaller a bit with the other lens (greater magnification) and my stock holder is a little more out of focus than it would be with the normal lens?</p>

[evan_hart]

<p>I'm having excellent results with Ektachrome 100 and the V500. Significant improvement over Fuji 200 and Coolscan IV that I used to use a year ago</p>