Scanning Medium Format

[rohnan_black]

<p>Hello, my fiancee has an exhibition coming up, and we need to scan our 6x6 120 negatives. We have a Epson V500 that we have been using, but i am unsure at what resolution to scan them? We are having them printed 20x20.</p>

<p>Please advise, thanks!</p>

<p>P.S: No we can't have them scan professionally, it's very expensive and the delay is much long here. I think the V500 should be able to handle 120 negative for printing 20x20.</p>

[wogears]

<p>You should scan at 3200 dpi, which is half the maximum (claimed) optical resolution. This will allow you to print 20" at 300 dpi. Be aware, however, that the actual resolution of the V500 when scanning transparencies is about 1600 dpi. Your prints should be okay at average viewing distance, but if there is a lot of detail, you might be disappointed.</p>

[rohnan_black]

<p>What about scanning time? I'm using a computer that's 8 month old, and it's asking me for 30 minutes to do a scan! That's insane and i don't understand why.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Ronan, I'm basically in agreement with Les. I own and have used a V500 for scanning 6x6 negatives though I've never made prints that large. I'm sure I'd be pleased with the results though they may not satisfy those with ultra high expectations. My bet is that for the price you'll be satisfied too. Come back & let us know how you made out. Many here could benefit from your experience. Best, LM.</p>

[rohnan_black]

<p>So far it's annoying... the software that comes with the scanner is... 'challenged'.</p>

<p>Slow slow... if only the software would let you go full manual instead of trying to 'think' which it fails completely at.</p>

<p>So far the results are good though.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Why do you "think that the V500 should be be able to handle 120 negatives for printing 20x20"? </p>

<p>And do you mean inches or centimeters?</p>

<p>I have few difficulties with Epson Scan, which I use with my V700, but then I'm reconciled to carrying out colour etc adjustments in Photoshop so I'm not trying very hard to match the original, just making sure I get the detail.</p>

[rohnan_black]

<p>Why i think it can handle the task? Because it's an Epson v500 and not a regular flatbed scanner from walmart.</p>

<p>Inches of course.</p>

[LenMarriott]

<p>Ronan, Get a free copy of<a href="http://www.hamrick.com/index2.html?utm_expid=9032507-17.YsiW946gRLq5aPQIXrZryA.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ca%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26esrc%3Ds%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CC0QFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.hamrick.com%252F%26ei%3DaYHpUfPEKNTsqQH-34HwCw%26usg%3DAFQjCNF4namQGzg-Jbd8ZS9F_ikV1QEy7g%26bvm%3Dbv.49478099%2Cd.aWM"> Vuescan </a>to see whether it's fast enough for you. If you like it you can buy it. If not you are no further behind than you are now. I have both Vuescan & Epson software & don't have the problems you are having. Could be in the setup. Best, LM.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>If you mean 20x20 inch prints, unless the film is from a Holga or something like that (i.e., already crappy quality), I don't think an Epson V500 can deliver high enough quality scans, regardless of what software and/or processing you use. Even assuming there are no issues with the film's Dmax etc., the resolution will be too low. I base this opinion on having an Epson 3200, scanning 6x6 (and other formats) with it, and seeing sample scans from the newer models. For an exhibition, the answer is to have the film professionally scanned, on something at least like a Nikon 9000 (or an Imacon or a drum scanner) by someone experienced in scanning.</p>

 

[c_watson1]

 

<p>"<em>Why i think it can handle the task? Because it's an Epson v500 and not a regular flatbed scanner from walmart.</em><br>

<em>Inches of course</em>."</p>

<p>That's a lot of attitude for someone who has received way more than they've given in just shy of three weeks on PN.</p>

<p>Play nice, Ronan.</p>

 

[Robin Smith]

<p>I agree. I doubt the quality at 20 x 20 inches would be good enough for me. Using a similar Epson scanner I can just about manage 15 x 15 at acceptable but not stellar quality.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>Whether the Epson v500 is good enough may be a matter of film type. Sharpening does help, and of course a finer-grained film will show less grain after sharpening. In fact, the Nikon would probably bring out more grain anyway.<br>

I've done side-by-side tests of a V500 vs a Nikon 8000, and up until about 16x16 inches, it is very difficult to tell them apart if the V500 scan was properly sharpened. No one looking at it would miss the very tiniest details unless they were also comparing them directly in good light and knew what to look for. It would also depend on the type of photograph, and whether the tiniest details were really that important to the photo.<br>

I find the regular Epson Scan software to be perfectly good. I do have Vuescan, but don't bother with the Epson (only with the Nikon). A scan could take a long time with dust removal, but the Epson is far faster than the Nikon.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>"Slow slow... if only the software would let you go full manual instead of trying to 'think' which it fails completely at." ... Do you know how to get into professional mode in the Epson scan software? This enables you to select manually the area to be scanned, and manually set levels, curves etc. If you use the default mode it will try to detect the edges of the frame, which can be hit and miss and could be on reason why the scans are taking so long.<br>

I agree you are pushing it to get 20 inch prints, however its worth a try. I find the Epson software quite usable.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>You can speed it up by not using ICE in the scan and cleaning up the dust and other marks on the negative in post.</p>

[rohnan_black]

<p>@C Watson I guess my answer didn't come out the way i was thinking. English isn't my first language (it's my third). For my defense, i had no idea what he was asking and answered 'generally' which is Epson V500 > Walmart Scanners (the no brand/low quality one's).</p>

<p>@<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=509668">Dave Redmann</a> It's from a rolleiflex. Having it scanned locally was over $300 + 5 business days. Having it scanned on a drum scanner was over $500 and 10 business days. Since a lot of people said it can be done, especially for 20x20 which isn't large, i went for it. Crossing my fingers it works out.</p>

<p>Well photos are done. The software slowness was thanks to Microsoft. It was doing a forced update causing the computer to slow down. Once that was done, it took about 2 minutes to scan each 120 negative.</p>

<p>Epson software was used on professional like always, but it LOVES to revert to default settings, even though i was using custom profiles. Very annoying, very poorly designed.</p>

<p>The only other issue, is some of the film was processed by a lab (i do 90% of my own development) and those were horrible. Lots of scratches and dust. That took a good chunk of time to clean up... Those negatives had a LOT of artifacts, while the one's i develop myself had none (or nearly none). Very awkward... I had to replace some of them with other photos.</p>

<p>Digital ICE was not used since it was all 6x6 B&W photos. Digital ICE works very poorly with B&W photos since they are silver based (and not transparent). Unless they changed the technology/software in the past year. I just skipped it.</p>

<p>Each files are around 250-300 MB large, less than i am used too when shooting DMF, but a lot more than when using my D3 or when scanning my 135. It should be interesting.</p>

<p>Everything is off to printing, i'll see a proof on Monday before hopefully giving the A-OK.</p>

<p>It was a VERY different experience, i usually shoot digital.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>$500 for a scan is too much. I do a full, 8,000 ppi scan, 16 Rbit RGB, of a med format neg for $125. About 2 gigs of data... There is no reason to charge 4 times that....</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>I asked "why do you think that" because in my opinion you are wrong. However rather than just come out with that, I thought I should try and understand what was the basis for your statement in case you know something I don't , or have made 20" prints from v500 scans before and been satisfied. Seems not.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Why i think it can handle the task? Because it's an Epson v500 and not a regular flatbed scanner from walmart.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A V500 is basically one of the lowest film scanners out there. I got mine new from a reputable retailer for about $130. A dedicated medium format film scanner like the Nikon Coolscan 9000 goes for over $2,000 USED. The Opticfilm 120 goes for $2,000 new. It was pulled from the market shortly after launch because of some focus issue I believe. Allegedly it should be back on the market soon. I'm still waiting for comprehensive reviews. Anyway there is simply no way a $130 scanner can compete with a $2,000 beast. Trust me. I own a V500.</p>

<p>If you want something better than a V500 but not too expensive check out <a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/film_developing_scans.html">NCPS</a>. I find the best thing to do is to send the film to them to be developed and scanned. They will scan the whole roll for you and the scans are good. You can interpolate up their files a little bit to get to your target print size at 300 dpi (p is pixels). Turn around for me was pretty quick.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What about scanning time? I'm using a computer that's 8 month old, and it's asking me for 30 minutes to do a scan!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Something is wrong. It does not take 30 minutes to scan a couple of 6x6 frames. I used the included epson scan software and speed really isn't an issue.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>You should scan at 3200 dpi</strong>, which is half the maximum (claimed) optical resolution. This will allow you to print 20" at 300 dpi. Be aware, however, that the <strong>actual resolution of the V500 when scanning transparencies is about 1600 dpi</strong>. Your prints should be okay at average viewing distance, but if there is a lot of detail, you might be disappointed.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with this. I always scan at 3200 dpi. The information I have seen from third party sources seem to indicate the true maximum resolution is in the neighborhood of 1600 dpi. But you need to scan at 3200 dpi and shrink the file to 1600 dpi to get the maximum resolution. I have no idea what the maximum resolution number is that is written on the box. Those numbers usually have no relevance to reality. When you get a new scanner the first thing that needs to be done is you need to find out what the true maximum resolution is and how to get it. I have scanned at 3200 dpi and printed poster size prints from the file. They look fine at "normal" viewing distance but if someone is hanging drum scans next to your prints be prepared to get owned.</p>

[tom_bowling1664874721]

<p>Of course, $125 would be quite a bit to pay if you simply gave the neg to a professional lab and asked them to make a wet print.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<p>Tom, I don't dispute this. High end scanning is expensive. Unless you get your own drum scanner its not for every image... If you were to give your neg to a lab and ask them to make a 20x30 print you might very well pay that much or more for good quality. If you are talking about an 8x10 print, of course not. I generally don't think that labs do very good work, at least not most of them. They bang it out, their business model is based on volume. Some are very personal and terrific, and they charge accordingly. Then again, scanning can offer a lot more. There is far more control than in the darkroom, one can do very sophisticated enhancements, there are multiple choices of paper and ink combinations and you can print very large if you want to, all fairly easily. You can also make digital negs for alt process and for darkroom work where an adjustment can be made once instead of multiple times. There's pluses and minuses...</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Ronan, tell us how you like the prints--or maybe more the point, how your fiancée likes them. After all, that is what matters.</p>

<p>That said, I guess the way I'd look at it is this: printing, mounting, and other costs for 20x20 prints suitable for an exhibition are not going to be low. Were it my film from my Rolleiflex (or any camera capable of excellent results), if I wasn't going to print B&W in a wet darkroom, I would want to make sure the scans were good enough quality. Larger printers for light-sensitive paper come in (roughly) 200, 250, 300, and 400 ppi varieties, so grayscale file size (assuming no cropping) should be somewhere between 31 and 122 MB. Using as an example a place I've had drum scans made (West Coast Imaging), the costs would run $25, $40, or $50 per scan (depending on resolution / file size). Overnight or two-day shipping to reduce the turnaround time would add a total of another $25 to $50. IMOPO that's a cost of the show that I'd accept.</p>

<p>Last but not least, your English is quite understandable. But English is such a complicated language, with so many words and so many shades of meaning. Those of us on photo.net whose first language is English ought to remember that problem (and joy) when discussing our common interests with those who didn't start life speaking English. We should avoid assuming the worst or taking offense easily.</p>