john_evans15

<p>Thank you for the information!<br> I have actually managed to get a couple of scans of certain old slides (positive) from a friend, who scanned them some time ago at work using the expensive Nikon scanner (I just found out they cost about 2000$ used!). I also borrowed a few slides from him, amongst the ones he scanned, and scanned they myself with my Epson V500. So far as I can tell, the difference is quite significant between the two, even though his scans were made at a quite lower resolution. When I will get to my computer, I will post two samples, if this may be interesting to any-one. The important thing is, as I can tell, although the film quality has a limit, and after a certain enlargement or resolution it would not get any better, the most significant difference is revealed through dust, film defects or scratches. If the scans made with Nikon have super precise, sharp microscope-like dust particles or scratches, the ones made with V500, although at a higher resolution, look strikingly different: just blurry little white spots, with no precision or microscopic hair particles visible at all. </p>

<p>Thanks to all for the comments!<br> So it seems that generally, with minor exceptions, as I thought, the camera (the body only, without the lens) has only insignificant influence upon the quality or feel of the pictures. I will thus experiment mainly with old lenses and films to try to get a look authentic to a specific era.</p>

<p>Hello,<br> I was wondering whether the era the camera is from affects the quality of the image. It seems to me that the only thing which affects the quality is the film, how it's processed and the lenses, whereas the camera only moves the shutter and rolls the film, which two mechanical functions any camera seem to either do or not do. So if the camera has say 1/1000 shutter speed, then not matter how cheap or old it is, it will do it the same way (unless it is broken), and the quality of the image therefore will be the same. The same applies, moreover to simply rolling the film (switching the exposure), which is the same in all cameras be they 10 or 100 000 dollars (unless broken). That is, I cannot see, how a camera which is more expensive or newer will open the shutter at a given speed "better" than any other camera: it either does it or it does not. So it seems to me (but maybe I am wrong), that the only things which affect the quality are the film, processing and lenses, whereas merely opening the shutter and rolling the film would be identical in any working camera. <br> So the first part of the question is<br> a) Is there any way the camera may affect the quality of the image (excluding the lenses)?<br> b) Since I only use old film cameras (both high and low end), from the 1930's to the 1970's, does that mean that if I will buy an expensive camera made in 2010, the quality will improve? Or will it be no different from buying only a modern expensive lens, and mounting it upon some old but good 1960s camera?<br> c) I also have a very old Kodak camera from the 1900s, which uses something between large and medium format (I was told that some available film could be cut to fit it). If I will use it, will my pictures look like they are from the 1900's, or will they look absolutely modern, because the film is modern? Will the era of this camera have any affect upon the quality?</p> <p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you for the advices!<br> Now I believe I have sufficient information to decide on what to do:I'll continue scanning with my V500, and when I'll buy a dedicated scanner, I can always rescans only those frames which I will need/like. But so far, as I can see, what I get is, therefore not that awful as I thought. I'll some different cameras and different films, as well as improve my skills in general, and for now will continue with the same scanner for having a general reference to the pictures I have. </p>

<p>Thank you all for the suggestions!<br> First of all I'll check out what this Vuescan is, and see if it, when learnt properly, will improve the quality.<br> So does it mean that my V500 is worse in quality than a V700? If I'll upgrade, will I gain much?<br> Or should I upgrade to a so called dedicated scanner, like an old Nikon (as I understand dedicated means the one made exclusively for scanning film, right?) will it significantly improve the results?<br> "And yes, they will all look like cheap 1960's magasines, because that's how those shots were made."<br> -- Well, there were also expensive 1960s magasines, which is what I'm aiming at! : ) (Or did the all expensive ones use medium or large format, as opposed to 35mm?)</p> <p>Thus now I am facing this dilemma: if I continue scanning all my films with my Epson V500, will I have to rescan them all, if I'll buy me later a proper dedicated scanner? Is it then a waste of time what I'm doing now? Also, how much approximately do these dedicated scanners cost? And where can one buy them? I live in Toronto, and here it's like living under socialism: we have only few "basic" products, very small variety, and it's all the same everywhere (Future Shop, Canada Computers, &c.) When I was buying this V500 of mine, I bought it because wherever I asked, they said that this is the best thing you can get for scanning film in Canada, and otherwise I would need to order things online from the US (in which case shipping + tariffs will be almost half the price of the purchase itself).</p>

<p>Hello,<br /> I have recently resorted to film photography and thus to scanning my 35mm colour negative film. <br /> My scanner is Epson Perfection V500 Photo. I am not 100% satisfied with the results, but I am not sure whether the problems come from the film, from the camera, from my poor photography skills, or from scanning. I use the common Fuji film you get anywhere, usually 200 or 400, no more.<br /> The general question is: is there much difference in quality between home scanning, and printing (or, perhaps professional lab scanning)? If I scan an image, and the print from the same film, will there be significant difference in quality between the two?</p> <p>a) The first specific problem, is that I know not whether the auto exposure feature on the scanner (without which the images would stay shady), affects the quality and colour. Depending on which area of the picture the exposure is based (be it the darker place, the lighter place, or the entire shot altogether) the colour changes dramatically. I am not sure if this is supposed to happen (I though exposure should only affect the brightness and contrast, and not the colour). So depending on where I move my exposure frame in the preview window (that is, upon which area the exposure is to based), the images goes either redder, yellower, bluer or greener. Is that supposed to happen? How do I know the original colour of the frame?</p> <p>b) The second specific problem, is the colourful noise in the dark places. That is the areas which are the darkest consist to some extent of brightly coloured grain or noise, in bright green and pink dots (I am sure there is specific name for this noise in optics, sorry I know it not, however). Is this defect on the film itself, or a scanning problem? If I print the same image, or give to the shop for them to scan, will the noise still be there, or not?</p> <p>c) Lastly, it is the general quality and detailedness. As I look at various old family prints I have from the 80s and the 90s (mostly made with simple amateur cameras), they seem much sharper (almost like digital photo quality sharpness) than what I get now in the scanned images. All the scans I get look like film from the pre-1970s (somewhat blurry). Also, I think of how in movie theatres, 35mm film is projected upon an huge screen, which results in a super sharp image, but if I was to enlarge my scans to the same size, I suspect they would definitely look much much much blurrier (although I scan with 6400 resolution, and when I tried a higher one, it did not improve any more)</p> <p>I would be very grateful for any advices!</p> <p>Here are some samples of my scans: (although it is the same building shot within the same 10 minutes, the colours are very different, and the last one especially looks like a picture from a cheap 1960s magazine)<br /> <img src="http://s29.postimg.org/gh11ej92v/img078_Copy.jpg" alt="" width="556" height="898" /></p> <p>(<br> <img src="http://s29.postimg.org/r54sddj1z/img079_Copy.jpg" alt="" width="881" height="561" /><br> <img src="http://s29.postimg.org/cbq4smbav/img083_Copy.jpg" alt="" width="887" height="561" /></p>