Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on February 06, 2015, 05:50:00 pm
-
I am considering the Epson V850 Pro scanner for when I shoot film (I have never been happy with scans I have received from any lab even the better ones) and this seems like the right scanner to get (unless someone has a better suggestion) but aside form that, I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions for scanning software to use with it?
Thank you.
Best,
BH
-
The software for scanning seems to provoke more entrenched positions than for RAW, I know hardly seems possible ;D
My demands on the V850 have been restricted to monochrome to date and for web posting ::)
The included, well free download, Epson Scan has been fine. It is pretty configurable and I suspect like RAW programs for MFD it is tuned for their product.
I have no doubt expertise in any of the other programs would lead to similar results but it churns out the goods for my purposes.
There are a pile 35mm scans and some 6x4.5 and 6x6 on the Flickr link in the sig with one 1/2 plate I have posted here previously, tagged as V850.
-
I would prefer always Vuescan over Silverfast, if you work with negativs. For slides Siverfast is fine. I found even the Epson software better for negativs than Silver fast, but with Vuesscan I get always the results from negativs that I wanted. With Silver fast it was always a pain. I used Epson 4900, 3200 and V750 that are predecessors of the V850. Epsons are fine for home work but I doubt it that you will get from the Epsons results that you are looking for. Drumscanner or Imacon is a different world...
-
Drumscanner or Imacon is a different world...
Absolutely agree but I couldn't contemplate running a 36 exp roll through either of those just to have a "contact" sheet ;D
Ideally both low and high options but the skill level, and investment, for that high step is large.
On software if you produce a"flat" scan and export the heavy lifting can be in the "proper" program of your choice that you are familiar with. Fighting any scanning program to achieve a final product is probably not the way to go, just IMHO. (Like jpeg v RAW?)
-
Thanks for the help guys
-
I use Epson Scan for quick scanning and contact sheet type thumbnails because it is quick and efficient at those sorts of tasks. But for full res scans I use Vuescan. Vuescan has it's quirks and needs some understanding, but I feel it's working with me and not trying to second guess me, and if I'm going to sit and wait for a 4x5 to scan the little extra time in setting it up is negligible.
Steve
-
According to my experience, photographing the slide with a high resolution 135 or MF cam and a sharp tele-macro lens gives superior 'scanning' results compared to any flat scanner solution. I also appreciate much the advantage to get directly a raw file in which color temperature and tint, chromatic abberation, geometrical distortion, vignetting a.s.o. directly can be adjusted/corrected.
-
I agree with Chris. I am using the V750, and have always found the Epson scanning program more than fine for 4x5 negs, Kodachrome slides, 35mm negs, and positives. The scanner also came with the 3rd party Silverfast scanning program, but I never saw an advantage to it - plus it's more complicated!
-
According to my experience, photographing the slide with a high resolution 135 or MF cam and a sharp tele-macro lens gives superior 'scanning' results compared to any flat scanner solution. I also appreciate much the advantage to get directly a raw file in which color temperature and tint, chromatic abberation, geometrical distortion, vignetting a.s.o. directly can be adjusted/corrected.
This has been our experience as well. With an especially good system a Camera based film scanner (http://www.dtdch.com/page/film-positioning-system) can even exceed a drum scanner.
-
This has been our experience as well. With an especially good system a Camera based film scanner (http://www.dtdch.com/page/film-positioning-system) can even exceed a drum scanner.
I am surprised by this. Normally one expect that drums scans and high end scanners like the imacons should have an advantage.
Maybe it old wisdom that has become an anachronism.
Do you have a link to a comparison, if possible not made by a vendor of either? If not, then even a vendor based comparison will help.
In my case the use of the scanner is just for fun. I have an old rangefinder and I am thinking of getting an xpan, so no need for the "best", but I am intrigued.
Best regards,
-
I am having great results using m43 in a rig similar to the one Doug's company (albeit, nowhere near as nice or automated) makes. That said, it is bulky, and when using negative film, I actually am working on a method providing better control than the single capture with RAW. Just need to actually test it. Once I test it, I'll probably post up the results, or use it for one of my first blog posts when I spool up my personal website.
-
I am surprised by this. Normally one expect that drums scans and high end scanners like the imacons should have an advantage.
Maybe it old wisdom that has become an anachronism.
Do you have a link to a comparison, if possible not made by a vendor of either? If not, then even a vendor based comparison will help.
In my case the use of the scanner is just for fun. I have an old rangefinder and I am thinking of getting an xpan, so no need for the "best", but I am intrigued.
Best regards,
Absolutely, shoot me an email and I can reply with a link to a set of comparison test files against a Tango operated by a vet of scanning. The files are very, very large so sharing them in a fully public link is a technical challenge. But we're glad to send them to anyone even if it's only an academic/fun interest.
Or if you are ever in NYC and would like to bring by a piece of film to scan (and make your own comparison against whatever alternative option you want to get a scan done by) we're glad to provide that as well.
Re: expectations of drum scanners - like scanning backs, they were by far and away the best option of their era; years ahead of their time. But the last time anyone invested significantly in R+D for either technology was well over a decade ago. Technology marches forward. Prior to 60mp and 80mp backs and the Schneider 120 ASPH lens it was hard for us to compete with high-end scanning; now it is fairly routine (except for scanning 8x10 where high end scanners are still very competitive).
As a fringe benefit the workflow is an order of magnitude or two faster than using a film scanner assuming you're doing any meaningful quantity :).