Scanner advice?

[jeana_doers]

I know the question on which scanner I should get has been asked before, but I think I have somewhat of a specific problem.

 

I can get the epson v500 for free, the 550 for 50, and the 600 for 100 dollars.

 

I'm mostly going to use it for colour negatives and slides to show other people, and to proof B&W before printing.

 

Which one would you all recommend? I am not really in a good financial stand point, and 50 dollars is quite a chunk if change.

 

Thank you all for your time and consideration.

[larrydressler]

<p>Take the V500 for free. It will do what you ask. It though is better for Medium Format than 35mm but if you are mostly making for web scans or proofs it is more than enough for 35mm. Just get ready for a learning curve on scanning and post processing.</p>

[peterbcarter]

<p>What Larry said, for different reasons. There is virtually no difference between all models and the V500 is free. No brainer.</p>

[thirteenthumbs]

<p>+3 on the V500. The V600 is the same scanner with a legal size document bed. The V550 recently replaced the V500 and the differences are minor.</p>

[mac_hordam]

<p>Three perfect answers, my only advice would be to stop reading any more answers and go get that free scanner.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>As a firm believer in you get nothin' for nothin', why for free or so cheap? Are these used machines? Do they all work properly? Are they "hot"?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>'Free' is a good price to pay.</p>

<p>Even trumps questions about whether the Epson is the best brand of scanner for a given price.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p> There is virtually no difference between all models and the V500 is free.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>ditto</p>

[ken_kuzenski]

<p>Jeana, one more opinion. I've got a V500 now and I've been perfectly pleased with it. I've got several 16x20" prints on my walls taken from 120 scans on my V500 and on the 2450 that the V500 replaced. But one thing I'd suggest is that the Epson software is OK for low-resolution and non-critical scanning. But for a really GOOD scan, one I'll turn into a good print, I use "Vuescan" software. I run it for 6 or 8 passes on the neg, long plus short exposures, and I adjust the histogram before scanning so nothing is cut off, bright or dark, which is something I'll deal with in the editing. I don't know what Vuescan costs today, I bought my copy many many years ago, and I've been absolutely delighted with it (and the free upgrades) since then. <br>

Short version: I'd say take that V500 for your proofing, "showing people" and such, and if you want big prints from your scans, save up and buy Vuescan software. Good luck! --ken</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Ken: When you say you run 6 or 8 passes, do you create 6 or 8 images that you then combine? What is the purpose of running more than one pass?</p>

<p>Have you ever adjusted the histograms before scanning using Epsonscan?</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_kuzenski]

<p>Alan, the software does multiple passes, and does long and short exposures, if requested. What I understand is that the multiple passes reduce noise, particularly in dark areas. Random pixel blips happen on scans (I have read--I know nothing of this myself) and running multiple scans and averaging them reduces this. The new Epson software MAY do this but I haven't explored it, being basically perfectly satisfied with Vuescan for the good stuff.</p>

<p>I do a lot of low-light and night photography ( http://people.duke.edu/~kuzen001/npav309_LR.jpg ) and I've seen that one pass with the epson software left that picture in the link very noisy, pretty much not usable. Multiple passes with vuescan gave me that shot. If you're really interested I can find an A/B comparison (or even run one for you). I'm no expert but it seems to make a BIG difference to me. You can email me at firstname dot lastname at duke dot edu and I'll send you links if you want to compare.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I'm trying to figure how multiple passes at different pass speeds would make a difference. The regular, "flat" no adjustment Epson scans I've made always are in the middle of a histogram. Neither end is clipped. The D Max of the scanner can only see so much. It;s at the max so shadow areas will get the most penetration and data possible based on the D MAX of the scanner at the normal operating speed. Speeding up the scan will get you less data as less light will penetrate the negative. Slowing it down won't get you more because of the D MAX of the scanner. Scanning the film twice at the same speed can not get you more data. The light (D MAX) can only penetrate the negative so much. Scanners are adjusted for max possible. You can't get blood from a stone so to speak. </p>

<p>It seems that what might be happening is that multiple scans create a blending effect that seems to eliminate the noise. But that could be done with noise removal tools in post processing. I doubt if you're actually getting more data. </p>

<p>In any case, if you're happy with your results, that's all that counts. Scanning seems to be something of a black art anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[ken_kuzenski]

<p>Alan, I’m sorry, I’m not explaining this very well—for one thing, I’m no expert, and for another, my English is, how you say, “inelegant.” :-) The scan passes are all done at the same speed, that doesn’t change. There’s a “long plus short exposure” option I turn on for good scans, but I think that just takes a deeper look at both ends of the histogram to pick up as much detail as possible, light and dark. (I could well be wrong about that.)</p>

<p>The number of passes the scanner makes—what I’ve read is that, as you suggested, more passes decreases noise. Supposedly this is because individual corrupt pixels are averaged out. Honestly, I don’t know. The only thing I’m certain of is that when I returned to shooting some 120 a few months ago, and tried the stock Epson software on a fairly new PC, I got results that weren’t great—not terrible, but not fit for a good print. So I went to the hamrick website and got the latest version of Vuescan my license entitles me to, ran another (more intense) scan of the same neg, and got beautiful results. I’ve got a 16x20” print over my desk right now of it, and it’s just lovely.</p>

<p>I checked my PC this morning and didn’t find a quick A/B example, but I may play with that over the weekend, just to see. I also should spend more time exploring the Epson software; I do routinely adjust the histogram to bring out this or that part of a photo, but I haven’t spent any significant amount of time trying other ways to maximize the quality from an Epson-software scan. And as you say, there’s a certain amount of voodoo involved in getting results. :-) But I can say with confidence that, for me, Vuescan has made a very significant difference in the quality of my “good” scans. And I still use the much faster Epson software for routine scans. Just MHO, of course.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>OK. Thanks for the info.</p>

[david_tellet]

<p>I've never seen the histogram in the Vuescan software - is the option hidden or maybe my version doesn't have it (I do have the "pro" version). Like Ken said, I always understood the multiple passes as the way to remove noise, dust, and hot pixels and not so much to get more data. I suppose it is possible that the software shifts the origin a tiny amount on each pass so that things like edges can be better defined. Makes me want to do some tests. <br>

Nevertheless, the V500 should do fine.</p>