Alternative To Epson V800 For Medium Format

[ianbarber]

<p>I currently own an Epson V800 but having seen scans from my negatives on a friends Nikon 9000 ED, it clearly shows the Epson just is not delivering the results I would like from 120 roll film.<br>

This maybe because it can scan at 4000ppi and has auto focus.<br>

The Nikon 9000 ED would be my choice but they are currently out of my budget range. The few I have seen are listed around £2000.<br>

Does anyone know of an alternative scanner to the Nikon 9000ED which will auto focus. Plustek is one I was reading about but have no first hand information on it.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Braun FS-120 is 1500 euros. However, it is possible to get excellent scans from 120 on your Epson. You might invest in better film holders, and take some time to learn scanning. Like photography, there is a lot of craft skill involved. I suggest going to Flickr and searching "Epson V600" "Epson V700", etc. before you make a very large investment in a scanner. <br>

You might also want to post some of your scans, so we can have a look at what is happening. Let us know what software you are using, and how you are using it (settings, adjustments and so forth).</p>

[ianbarber]

<p>I have attached 2 scans straight from the scanner.<br>

On this occasion I have used Vuescan Professional but I am getting similar results from Silverfast AI. I also use the Better scanning Holder with ANR glass.<br>

These were scanned at 3200ppi 16 bit grey scale and all other default settings.<br>

I have put both images on DropBox<br>

<strong>Image #1 - Buttercup</strong> - <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/butter-cup.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/butter-cup.jpg</a></p>

<p><strong>Image #2 - Country House</strong> - <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/country-house.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/country-house.jpg</a></p>

[wogears]

<p>Those are not even close to what I get from my V700, with the OEM holders and ANR glass.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18237657</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/18237658</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>I agree with Les, I can get much better scans on my lowly V600. Part of it has to do with film type and how developed. It is no less complicated than getting good wet prints in both color and B&W. At times, it is more complicated. I also use the better scanning holders with glass, but I use the Epson software, as I found Vuescan didn't do enough for me on my 3170. I may try it again someday.</p><div></div>

[david_henderson]

<p>I can never tell, on a screen, how much better or worse a scan is than another and indeed what element of any difference is down to the photography. So let me try a different route. What do you want to do with the scans? I mean if you want to make 24" x 20" prints, you need a better scanner than a consumer flatbed. But if you want to make 12" x 8", you arguably need to use the current one better. If you want to make both - say mostly fairly small prints with the odd rather big one for the wall- then depending on volume the way forward might be to learn the V800 better and send out the few scans you need for the large prints to someone selling Nikon 9000 or Imacon scans. I wouldn't want to spend what a used Nikon costs if I only really needed its capabilities a few times a year.</p>

<p>Its only an opinion but what I think is this. I'm happy with my Epson V700 scans for anything up to about 12" sq from 6x6 originals. They aren't quite as good as what I used to get from a Nikon 9000 (less shadow detail, a little less sharp) but I'm OK with them on balance. The scanner will of course go bigger than that but as I get beyond 12" x 12" mark, the margin by which a real film scanner will get me a better result goes up and I'd rather pay for a better scan. This is using the Betterscanning holder, AN glass and having followed Betterscanning's instructions on how to test/ determine/set your holder to match the focus point achieved by your actual scanner.</p>

<p> I did own a new Nikon 9000 for a couple of years so I've had the opportunity to compare at various sizes, and the conclusion I drew was that I'd be better off buying in the bigger scans than having getting on £2000 tied up in the ability to make those scans myself . I claim no special expertise in scanning and I don't consider it an interesting pursuit. I'm sure the scans I buy in are at least as good as I can make.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>The photos and photo links posted above appear to have been either post processed or auto processed during the scan. So the results really don't show what the scanner is doing and prove very little. </p>

<p>Shut off all adjustments and scan flat., Then post the resulting image without any post processing other than reducing the size. When I look at my photos "flat" with an Epson V600, they need a lot of sharpening and lighting ajustments to make them look anything near normal. </p>

[ianbarber]

<blockquote>

<p>Those are not even close to what I get from my V700, with the OEM holders and ANR glass.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do they look as though its a developing issue to you les ?</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Scanned images almost always require post processing, it's the nature of the beast. Unless you have a perfect image capture and perfect developing process for a given film type that matches the scanner's specs (nearly zero percent chance) it is unavoidable. The image I posted above was processed using my "standard" scan process, which is basically a small contrast adjustment and a small amount of sharpening. The scan still managed to capture a fair amount of detail throughout the range. It is hard to show it in a 700px file on a screen.</p>

<p>I suspect Ian's scans have little to no post processing, but the second one seems so flat that it may not show much range even after post processing. I had a roll turn out that way once from a trip to Wales, I never could get much out of it. The roll was underexposed and under developed, on a very flat lighting day. I couldn't wet print much of it either. </p>

[ianbarber]

<blockquote>

<p>The roll was underexposed and under developed, on a very flat lighting day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you could redevelop that film knowing what you know now, what would you do different ?</p>

[custom film holders for fl]

<p>Those do look soft. In addition to what the others suggested, did you calibrate the height of the holder and as a last step you always make sure the software is still at "Film with filmholder" right before you hit the scan button, correct?<br>

Doug</p>

[ianbarber]

<p>I have now reinstalled Vuescan and performed another test.</p>

<p>All settings on vuescan were zeroed out apart from the focus slider which I placed at 1 because I am scanning with film holder.<br /> This was scanned at 3200ppi with a Better Scanning Holder.</p>

<p>The image looks flat (low contrast) which is what I would expect from a straight scan with no scanner settings applied.<br>

From memory, I focused on the Ben Shaw text.<br>

<br /> <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/drinkandremote-3200ppi.jpg">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18940456/drinkandremote-3200ppi.jpg</a></p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Your results look fine, and similar to what I get with medium format with my older Epson 2450. I get very nice prints doing some sharpening and work with tonal values, similar to darkroom prints at 11x14 to 16x20 inches. Despite being flat, due to the flat lighting, some highlights are still overexposed and "blown out." I adjusted the tonal range in ACR. I think a decent 16x20 print could be made from this scan.</p><div></div>

[ianbarber]

<p>Thanks for that, it puts my mind at rest more.</p>