Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: keith_cooper on October 22, 2014, 09:47:08 am
-
Epson UK have just sent me one of their new V850 film scanners to have a look at.
Whilst I've quite a variety of films/slides to try it out with, I've never shot large format, so have nothing to test it with.
If anyone in the UK has a 5x4 neg/transparency they would be prepared to lend me to test it, that would be great, and allow me to include it the in the review (I'm in Leicester in the UK, so anyone close is welcome to come over and actually try it out - mail me directly or phone?)
I note that the scanner comes with Epson scan software and Silverfast8 SE+ and a copy of X-Rite's i1 Profiler for scanners, that includes transmissive and reflective IT8.7/2-1993 targets for scanner profiling.
When i1Profiler 1.4 first added scanner profiling, I did briefly look at using it with my ColorChecker SG target {short review (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/profiling/i1_profiler_scanner.html)}, so it will also be interesting to see how the two new targets perform on my older scanners, such as the venerable Umax PowerLook III (using Vuescan via a SCSI->firewire converter).
I'm not sure how long I've got the scanner for - but please do let me know if there are any specific questions about it?
-
Hi Keith,
It is very interesting that in this day and age Epson has the courage to put a new higher-end scanner on the market. I hope they do well with it. As I live in Canada you can most likely obtain the media you need closer to home but if you need help from me, please PM me.
If you are planning to do a review, it would be ideal to see its value-added compared with the V750.
As for the software, if you plan to do a thorough review including the capabilities obtained through scanning software and you wish to test SilverFast as one of the viable options, I would recommend getting it upgraded to the full version Studio Ai8 for testing purposes. But the need for this depends on how much you want to get into the software side.
-
Thanks Mark - I suspect not that detailed a look at the non Epson software.
Mainly because I don't do a lot of film scanning these days, so don't feel I have the depth of up-to-date experience to make valid comments/comparisons about its functionality. I did think of getting some MF film in to test out, but realised that none of the shops I used to use are still there and the lab I used to use is a car-park - looks like my Mamiya kit box will continue to gather dust...
I'm sure the scanner will get some very detailed studies in due course, but I wanted to be able to write up a good overview, and re-scan some existing negatives.
-
The key to getting good results from Epson scanners is getting the film-holder height just right, so I am especially interested to see the improvements they've made in that area.
-
Hi Keith,
I'm really interested. My old LS-2000 finally bit the dust and I need a way to scan a load of old prints. Not fine art, just rescuing family history before it's too far gone. I'm particularly interested in how well it does on scanning 35mm negs, and how well Digital Ice works on crappy old negs and prints. Vuescan does an excellent job on cleaning up things. I hope that it supports the new scanner.
-
The key to getting good results from Epson scanners is getting the film-holder height just right, so I am especially interested to see the improvements they've made in that area.
The best way of assuring this on the V750, though not essential once you have the frame properly adjusted, is to use the glass mount assembly and film cleaner to hold the film to the glass. The 850 is said to come with a special mount adapter.
-
Hi Keith,
I'm really interested. My old LS-2000 finally bit the dust and I need a way to scan a load of old prints. Not fine art, just rescuing family history before it's too far gone. I'm particularly interested in how well it does on scanning 35mm negs, and how well Digital Ice works on crappy old negs and prints. Vuescan does an excellent job on cleaning up things. I hope that it supports the new scanner.
Digitial ICE is outdated with important limitations; lacks the kind of fine-tuning achievable with iSRD in SilveFast.
-
Vuescan does an excellent job on cleaning up things. I hope that it supports the new scanner.
Hi Jeff,
It does (http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/epson_perfection_v850.html).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi Bart, that's good news. I really don't need to learn another piece of software. I've used Vuescan for many years. I swear that Ed Hamrick doesn't sleep. You can send him an email any time and always get a quick, helpful response.
-
Hi Mark, Vuescan cleans up well enough for me. Whatever it uses is excellent. Silverfast may be better but I'm happy where I am.
-
That's what counts. Software is very much user-preference.
-
Hi Bart, that's good news. I really don't need to learn another piece of software. I've used Vuescan for many years. I swear that Ed Hamrick doesn't sleep. You can send him an email any time and always get a quick, helpful response.
Jeff, I agree. One of the obvious benefits is not having to learn new software for all the scanners that I have owned for more than a decade. Also had only to pay once for the software, frequent updates/improvements ever since. I've also learned a lot about the inner workings of scanners from discussions with Ed, and he even added a specific feature (relative RGB densitometer when you press the CTRL key) that I requested, one of the few he hadn't already implemented.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The best way of assuring this on the V750, though not essential once you have the frame properly adjusted, is to use the glass mount assembly and film cleaner to hold the film to the glass. The 850 is said to come with a special mount adapter.
This (http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries.html) is the best way of achieving perfect focus on the Epson V750, used in conjunction with either T-locks or ANR glass, depending on the springiness or sagginess of the film. I love curled film strips, because I can use the T-locks to obtain perfect flatness, without extra glass and all the associated dust and problems.
From pictures I've seen, it appears Epson have upped the number of height adjustments on the film holders from 3 to 5. Is that right, Keith?
-
From pictures I've seen, it appears Epson have upped the number of height adjustments on the film holders from 3 to 5. Is that right, Keith?
Yes, there are now 5 settings
-
I wonder how this stacks up against the Nikon Coolscan 500 (which I have but it's pretty much sitting on my shelf these days) which only takes one negative at a time. Are the scan results equivalent or better?
-
I wonder how this stacks up against the Nikon Coolscan 500 (which I have but it's pretty much sitting on my shelf these days) which only takes one negative at a time. Are the scan results equivalent or better?
I'm afraid the only other film scanner I have here is my old Canon FS4000 - which sits in a drawer in a bag (my shelves have structural dust in some places)
-
I wonder how this stacks up against the Nikon Coolscan 500 (which I have but it's pretty much sitting on my shelf these days) which only takes one negative at a time. Are the scan results equivalent or better?
Alan, I assume you meant the Coolscan 5000? If so I have one of those too. The sharpness of that unit and its overall technical quality are hard to beat. My research to date indicates it exceeds an Epson V750; how it stacks-up against an Epson V850 needs to be tested by direct comparison, using a resolution target, because they say they improved the lens. If Epson were to put one of those scanners into my hands I could do all this testing, because I have the relevant comparators and know how to use them. One does need to be careful about how the Epson scanner is used - at least for the V750, and probably same will be true for the 850 - remains to be seen.
-
...they say they improved the lens.
Really? That is interesting. Can you point me in the direction of your source? I have yet to find any useful comment from Epson on this.
-
It's mentioned in the product announcement on DPReview. Epson must be the source of the information.
-
It's mentioned in the product announcement on DPReview. Epson must be the source of the information.
Mark, I don't see anything about a new/improved lens in the Epson release ( though I could have missed it), only that the new scanners use the same dual lens system as the 700 series. The big differences seem to be LED light source instead of cold cathode, and improved film holders.
-
Neither did I but I don't think DPReview invented the information. Where else would it have come from?
-
The key to getting good results from Epson scanners is getting the film-holder height just right, so I am especially interested to see the improvements they've made in that area.
You are right. I have a lot of framed slides. The thickness of the frames varies a lot. If you put frames with different thickness in the same holder, it hard (or impossible) get to height of the slide itself right.
If Epson has improved the height settinngs, is it possible to use the 850 holder in 7xx series?
-
If Epson has improved the height settinngs, is it possible to use the 850 holder in 7xx series?
I have read somewhere that the new film holders are not compatible with the V7xx machines. Maybe something else Keith could investigate?
-
I have read somewhere that the new film holders are not compatible with the V7xx machines. Maybe something else Keith could investigate?
Not unless someone wants to bring a 750 round to my house in Leicester I'm afraid ;-)
-
I have read somewhere that the new film holders are not compatible with the V7xx machines. Maybe something else Keith could investigate?
Given the prevalence of non-backwards compatibility as a revenue-enhancing strategy these days, my expectations that I will be able to use the new holders on my V700 are very law. But I don't know, just venting.
-
From the information I have read so far and heard from European customers who have already bought an V8xx, it appears to be a classic Epson minimal update with some repackaging and a once-again vague set of marketing materials that make definitive comparison difficult.
I think this upgrade is similar to the update from the 4490 to the V500 to the V600 to the V550. Those had a updated shells and things like social media options but from what we could tell had the same basic scanning hardware except for the relatively easy to switch out from CCFL to LED in the light lid. If one is on a tight budget for scanning medium format, for the money, the refurbished V500 from the EpsonStore's clearance center is the best deal out there and produces scans just as good as the 600 and 550.
While some of the marketing materials leave open to interpretation whether the optics of the V8xx have been upgraded, I have not seen anything definitive and would be surprised if Epson went to the expense and effort to do a full optics upgrade. Moderately priced scanner optics have not seen a big improvement for years. If Epson did invest in a new optics system, I think that would be the headline on all their marketing materials. I have no doubt that scans from a V8xx will probably show to be a bit sharper than a V7xx in a well controlled test but I would be willing to bet that is down to getting the film flatter and in the correct plane of focus versus better optics. The less-diffuse LED light source may produce a bit more contrast too. Customers of mine have been seeing the advantage of flatter film and precise height adjustment for quite some time.
I have been offering my more robustly built BetterScanning.com holders with ANR glass (real glass versus the ANR plastic used in the "upgrade" offered by Epson) and step-less height adjustment for years. Epson got someone to reverse engineer a new set of holders to try to mimic the advantages I developed for my holders. If, as they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I guess I should be flattered.
It is unfortunate to see they downgraded the Silverfast software from the Ai version with the top of the line V8xx but I am sure they are trying to wring out as much profit as possible as they try to extend the life of their initial investment. These V7xx/8xx scanners are still great to have as an option for medium format and large format shooters who want to buy new but can't afford to jump up to the next class of scanners. If Epson starts offering great prices on refurbished V7xx scanners like they have on the V500, that could be killer option.
Doug
-
As a happy betterscanning.com customer I am bound to agree with Doug, and furthermore, although the five-step height adjustment in the new Epson holders is a definite improvement over the old three-step system, my experience with the betterscanning holders tells me that for many users, it will still be too imprecise to wring the last drop of goodness from these excellent scanners.
Regarding the CCFL-->LED swap-out, I have grown extremely fond of the natural, almost print-like look of my V750 scans, compared to the harsher, grainy effect imparted by the LED in my Konica-Minolta film scanner.
-
I've had some time in the last few days to go through some of my old films and slides, and it works very well.
In terms of performance, it's easily besting my Canon FS4000 with some B&W negs, bringing out highlight and shadow detail I've never seen before in some images.
The Epson scan software is very usable, and has the advantage of properly recognising the film holders which speeds up looking my "what are these and when did I take them" negatives (of which I found rather a lot of ;-)
I tried SilverFast a few years ago, and wasn't overly impressed, and I have to say that the bundled version hasn't changed my mind at all - I just don't like it from a usability point of view. The need to insert an actual physical disk when registering it was a nice blast from the past too...
As a side benefit of the inclusion of the i1 Profiler targets, I now have rather good profiles for my old Epson 1200U and UMAX PowerLook III... Good old Vuescan (no fancy registration required).
-
"These V7xx/8xx scanners are still great to have as an option for medium format and large format shooters who want to buy new but can't afford to jump up to the next class of scanners. If Epson starts offering great prices on refurbished V7xx scanners like they have on the V500, that could be killer option."
Have you found the V700 to be a substantial improvement over the 4870, film holders aside?
-
>>Have you found the V700 to be a substantial improvement over the 4870<<
In terms of true resolution, if you have the film in the optimal film suspension plane for your particular scanners optics, when comparing scans you would probably find it hard to justify the price to upgrade to a V7xx. Other things like faster scan times, ability to scan more frames in a batch, etc., might be more motivating.
Doug
-
Keith, I agree with you about the UI problems of Silverfast, but in my long experience of the V750 I have concluded that it is a necessary evil if I am to get really good scans out of the machine. I've never been able to set up the Epson software to achieve the same rich tonality that I get from Silverfast. Vuescan I haven't really bothered with - wrestling with Silverfast drained me.
-
Keith, I agree with you about the UI problems of Silverfast, but in my long experience of the V750 I have concluded that it is a necessary evil if I am to get really good scans out of the machine. I've never been able to set up the Epson software to achieve the same rich tonality that I get from Silverfast. Vuescan I haven't really bothered with - wrestling with Silverfast drained me.
I bought my (perpetual) copy of Vuescan years ago for the FS4000 and found the interface very clear, but I know that this is very subjective ;-)
I've been mainly using the Epson software for the review, looking to get the most out of the scan and not worrying about tonality or curves until the TIFF was in Photoshop. The tools (and my experience) are much more extensive there, so as long as I'd got the full tonal range and detail out of the scan software, it's done its job.
I'm almost done writing up the review, but unfortunately all our web sites have gone AWOL so it maybe a day or too until I can publish the overview/review
-
Keith, I agree with you about the UI problems of Silverfast, but in my long experience of the V750 I have concluded that it is a necessary evil if I am to get really good scans out of the machine. I've never been able to set up the Epson software to achieve the same rich tonality that I get from Silverfast. Vuescan I haven't really bothered with - wrestling with Silverfast drained me.
Are you talking about SilverFast 6 pr SilverFast 8?
-
Are you talking about SilverFast 6 pr SilverFast 8?
Silverfast 6. Damned if I'm paying 149 Euros for the upgrade.
-
Silverfast 6. Damned if I'm paying 149 Euros for the upgrade.
I thought so.
No-one can tell anybody else what's worthwhile spending their money on - totally personal decision; but at the same time you may wish to review in your own mind the wisdom of passing judgment in public about products that have have been replaced with fully new versions that are totally re-designed and re-engineered from what they used to be. At the very least, if you want to pass judgment and be relevant, do it for relevant product; you can easily update your knowledge of the product and your opinion about it by downloading free trials before you spend a cent on it. Then you'll be in a better position to know whether the upgrade cost is worthwhile to you or not.
-
I have SF 6.5, which is not very intuitive. Is version 8 better?
-
I have SF 6.5, which is not very intuitive. Is version 8 better?
Much. Download a trial and have a look. They put a huge effort into re-engineering and re-designing the whole application.
-
I might not find it overly intuitive or appealing to use, but I'd definitely suggest that people getting a V850 give it a try. I don't find Adobe Lightroom of any use for my photography either, but can see its usefulness for many ;-)
It would be useful if the developers actually publicised the upgrade price from the bundled version, without needing you to enter serial number. Also, the process for getting a copy of the software for a machine without an optical drive seems unduly cumbersome.
-
I might not find it overly intuitive or appealing to use, but I'd definitely suggest that people getting a V850 give it a try. I don't find Adobe Lightroom of any use for my photography either, but can see its usefulness for many ;-)
It would be useful if the developers actually publicised the upgrade price from the bundled version, without needing you to enter serial number. Also, the process for getting a copy of the software for a machine without an optical drive seems unduly cumbersome.
Hi Keith, We could have an interesting philosophic discussion about what makes for "intuitive or appealing" software, and what is the importance and metrics of these criteria in the choice of what to use, and how much of this is objective or subjective; but it would be "OT" in this thread, and perhaps more to the point, when dealing with case-specific examples it's really helpful to know in some depth the products one is talking about.
-
Hi Keith, We could have an interesting philosophic discussion about what makes for "intuitive or appealing" software, and what is the importance and metrics of these criteria in the choice of what to use, and how much of this is objective or subjective; but it would be "OT" in this thread, and perhaps more to the point, when dealing with case-specific examples it's really helpful to know in some depth the products one is talking about.
Not quite sure of your drift in this instance? I've been testing software both as a photographer and my previous career in HCI research for quite some time.
I tried it with quite a few films/slides and it just didn't 'click' with me. It's the bundled software and I'm primarily looking at the scanner (which works just fine with the Epson s/w) so I'm disinclined to go into it in great detail.
Still worth a try though... I've no personal or business interest in whether people use it or not
-
Not quite sure of your drift in this instance? I've been testing software both as a photographer and my previous career in HCI research for quite some time.
I tried it with quite a few films/slides and it just didn't 'click' with me. It's the bundled software and I'm primarily looking at the scanner (which works just fine with the Epson s/w) so I'm disinclined to go into it in great detail.
Still worth a try though... I've no personal or business interest in whether people use it or not
Hi Keith, I think we agree there is a definite personal element in the choice of software, but if one wants to discuss it objectively, that opens up whole other dimensions; that's all I was getting at. But you're reviewing a scanner, so as I said, probably OT. And I do respect your experience reviewing stuff - I read many of your reviews and appreciate them.
Cheers,
Mark
-
I thought so.
No-one can tell anybody else what's worthwhile spending their money on - totally personal decision; but at the same time you may wish to review in your own mind the wisdom of passing judgment in public about products that have have been replaced with fully new versions that are totally re-designed and re-engineered from what they used to be. At the very least, if you want to pass judgment and be relevant, do it for relevant product; you can easily update your knowledge of the product and your opinion about it by downloading free trials before you spend a cent on it. Then you'll be in a better position to know whether the upgrade cost is worthwhile to you or not.
Jeez Mark, so sensitive. Reread my comment and you'll see I'm actually recommending Silverfast - with reservations. I won't upgrade because, as I understand it, the new version a) still doesn't adhere to Windows UI standards, so would need further pointless effort to master; and b) there's little or no increase in image quality (indeed, I can't see how they could engineer that).
-
Jeez Mark, so sensitive. Reread my comment and you'll see I'm actually recommending Silverfast - with reservations. I won't upgrade because, as I understand it, the new version a) still doesn't adhere to Windows UI standards, so would need further pointless effort to master; and b) there's little or no increase in image quality (indeed, I can't see how they could engineer that).
I'm not the least bit sensitive and whether or not you recommend any particular brand of software is for me completely unimportant. I was making a comment about relevance.
As for adherence to standards, I would be very surprised if their Windows versions don't adhere to Windows standards - they or Windows users can speak for that if they wish; I use a Mac, so I don't know, and it all works fine on my Mac - both Snow Leopard and Mavericks.
I don't know what aspects of image quality you're expecting from scanner software versus other software that can also be used for certain purposes, so I don't know what to make of that comment. But you are right about one thing at least - quality can't be engineered if it is constrained right from the original media or if the scanner itself has limitations that can't deliver what the media can offer. Lots of links in this chain with one thing constrained by another, so one needs to be quite precise regarding what one is talking about.
-
Mark,
Thanks for the recent LuLa article about Camera/Macro based techniques for scanning negatives. You indicated that you plan to review a V850 and compare the quality/workflow to the Camera/Macro based technique. I look forward to that.
Since 1978, I have thousands of 35mm slides, B&W & color negs. I also have over a thousand APS color negs in those little 25 & 40 exposure cannisters (yikes!).
I have been putting off this project for a long while because I'm not sure of the best solution. Also, I dread the work! Winter is coming and this is as good a time as any for such tedium.
I am intrigued by the new Epson scanners and was considering purchasing one before your recent article appeared. If I go that route, I will choose the V800 or V850 depending on the total package cost after upgrading Silverfast to the full studio version and getting extra 35mm slide and negative holders. I don't need the extra set of larger format holders included with the V850.
I also have a Nikon D600, SB-910 flash and off-camera cord, but no macro lens or slide/negative holders. The macro route is appealing because a macro lens will be useful beyond the scanning project, and the quality/control/time factor may be superior anyway (24mp raw files). At this time, I only use Lightroom for post-processing.
The APS negatives contain important family photos during my two kids' formative years. I want to do them justice, but maybe I should just scan the original prints and be done with it?
Or, I can procrastinate another few years... Ha Ha! ;D
At any rate, I look forward to your review and comparison of the Epson V800/850 to the Camera/Macro method.
Ken
-
Hi HSWB,
The Epson 800/850 is available for pre-order but not on the market yet, at least in North America, as far as I can tell (mainly looking at the B&H website). If you don't have an appropriate macro lens, and depending on what you would get, the cost can easily exceed the cost of the scanner, and you may need some set-up gear, so if you;re financially greenfield on both options, I wouldn't expect a major economic advantage of the one route over the other. Use of time is another matter, and here's where it gets a bit tricky. The Epson 850 will have holders that can mount 3*6 photo strips of film, so 18 photos per frame. In SilverFast, with its batch scanning and job manager capabilities, the productivity of digitizing batches of photos at a time is pretty good. With the camera scanning, it's true that it's only a click, not a scan pass, but you do need to line up each frame under the lens properly before making that click - so faster probably, but how much faster - remains to be tested. I haven't conducted this horse-race - yet; but may, as there is some interest in productivity. I may be having much more to say about all this "in the fulness of time", and comparing options is on the agenda. Stay tuned. One thing I can definitely advise you as of now: as long as you have the negatives, DO NOT waste your time scanning the prints. The prints are already heavily degraded relative to what you'll get from film scans even before you start any post scan editing.
-
Mark,
Thanks for your prompt and informative reply.
For the APS negatives, I figure I'll have to cut them into strips, and alignment will probably be an issue.
Cheers,
Ken
-
For the APS negatives, I figure I'll have to cut them into strips, and alignment will probably be an issue.
Just an option ...
If you can find a used Canon FS4000, it came with a motorised APS film loader - I never used APS but did scan some film for a friend with it. IIRC it is supported from Vuescan
-
Since 1978, I have thousands of 35mm slides, B&W & color negs. I also have over a thousand APS color negs in those little 25 & 40 exposure cannisters (yikes!).
Ken, if the majority of your work is in smaller formats (ie 35mm or smaller) I'd strongly recommend against the Epson scanners and suggest you buy a specialist film scanner instead - perhaps one of the Reflecta/Prime Film models. The Epson is fiddly as hell for film strips and the results for 35mm fall short of those from a good, purpose-built film scanner with good software (I'd suggest Silverfast, others like Vuescan).
The big Epson scanners really shine with larger materials.
-
Thanks everyone. The plot thickens!
-
Mark,
Thanks for your prompt and informative reply.
For the APS negatives, I figure I'll have to cut them into strips, and alignment will probably be an issue.
Cheers,
Ken
Hi Ken,
Not clear alignment would be an issue. Here's a link (http://www.instructables.com/id/Make-a-Scanner-Mask-for-110-Film/step7/Do-the-Same-Thing-For-APS-Film/) that may give you some hope and there are other sites discussing this problem. The key to productivity would be framing the photos correctly for the scan. You may wish to contact SilverFast tech support and ask whether the application's "find Frames" algorithm would work for automatically framing the image dimensions of that film (I don't have that film size, otherwise I would test it for you; but manual framing any odd-ball image size is very easy, just by clicking on a frame corner and dragging it to fit). Another test issue would be whether the film could be held flat enough in the 35mm frame holders Epson will be supplying with that scanner. To see this, you would have to open one of those canisters, unravel the film and try it in a shop. Flattening the film first would probably help, but that will be a risky and time-consuming procedure. Glass mounting film strips is another option. Doing this with film cleaner is a lot less messy and easier than using mounting fluid, but again would need to be tested to see whether it would hold long enough on the glass to be useful.
-
Some interesting findings on the medium format film holder of the V850 / V800 (http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/index.html)
-
Some interesting findings on the medium format film holder of the V850 / V800 (http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/index.html)
This is not interesting at all, because I do have the same problem with my GT-X980 (V800) as well, which drives me crazy!
aaron
-
The interesting thing is that there is indications that Epson finally have been considering to redesign the holders.
Until that will happen I will make a writeup and D.I.Y tutorial of how to tweak/mod the holders to become usable.
/S
-
After I'd written up the review of the V850, one on the people on my Digital B&W LinkedIn list (Stefan Ohlsson) kindly offered to scan one of the negatives I'd use in the review on a V750, and Imacon 949 and a Heidelberg Tango.
I've included 100% crops of these images, along with the V850 and my old Canon FS4000 in a short followup article that may be of interest.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/scanner/scan-compare.html
It's not meant to be a rigorous quantitative comparison - hope its of some interest to people who wondered about how scans compared?
-
Guys,guys,guys...
Firstly thank you Mark for what is a very detailed and time consuming report... Epson owe you big time I believe...
My question is looking at this from another perspective, and i must add that I was a former V750 owner, and I had Doug's great scan holder kit (saved so much time thx Doug) I usede Silverfast and Vuescan.
However... ScanCafe charge 22c US to scan a neg or slide (35mm)..
By the time you add on the Silverfast upgrade AND the target color card (from experience there is no better way to nail colour management on the Epsons).. It it worth buying a scanner at all...?
Ok many variables linked to that question;
How big is your archive?
What format are your files (35mm, 120, 5x4, 10x8... neg, chrome etc)
How dust free is your workspace
How's your dexterity..? (how good are you with your hands..? brain surgeon good or do fiddly things (smartphone) annoy you?).
All of these things play a significant role in the cost/time equation of DIY scanning.
Furthermore, from your archive, how many are you really going to work on and print/upload/sell ...?
Additionally how are you going to intergrate these files into your normal RAW workflow and software, particularly colour negs...?
I'm very interested in hearing what this rich forum can offer as to peoples choices, opinions and experience.
Personally I got half of my archive scanned by a company(as a case study really) and then edited them down in LR, tweaked them, cleaned them up and printed/uploaded/sold the best ones... Of that first 50% or so less than 5% see the light of day, what was more important (comforting) I think, was that my earlier work was digitized and on a couple of hard drives. Any real cracking shots that had a future purpose were then scanned on a film scanner for maximum quality.
One final question...
Has anyone scanned a Passport Colorchecker target and made a DNG profile instead of buying the Silverfast one..? Colour is colour right...?
Steve
-
Hi Steve,
Given the vast difference between users of scanners, and uses of the scans, it's hard to generalize.
For low volume/large format (film), the current V7.xx/V8.xx series scanners offer a useful solution. Dedicated scanners for film, will usually give better results, but the availability of such devices is getting problematic. I agree that there is somewhat of a learning curve involved, and working in a clean environment helps, but that hasn't changed for decades.
One final question...
Has anyone scanned a Passport Colorchecker target and made a DNG profile instead of buying the Silverfast one..? Colour is colour right...?
I'm not a DNG user, I use a different Raw converter, so DNG profiles are not my main interest. However, I did scan a ColorChecker SG on my V700, and profiled it with i1Profiler and use that profile in VueScan for reflective scans with relatively good result. VueScan also allows to produce profiles for films, for which a scanner target is available (from Wolf Faust (http://www.targets.coloraid.de/)).
These types of targets allow much more accurate profile generation than possible with a 24 patch target, for scan applications that allow to use ICC profiles, e.g. VueScan. Reprofiling is necessary with the aging of the lightsource of the scanner, and tweaking of the scanned results is necessary due to variability in film stock and aging/archiving conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
My solution and modifuications of the Epson V850 film holders.
http://www.stockholmviews.com/epson_v850/epsonV850tweaks.html
Enjoy ;D
-
Has anyone scanned a Passport Colorchecker target and made a DNG profile instead of buying the Silverfast one..? Colour is colour right...?
If memory serves, I tried this by converting a NEF (which is actually a TIFF in a NEF wrapper and not a true raw file) from a NikonCoolscan to DNG, but it would not open as such in the Adobe DNG Profile Editor which apparently only recognizes DNGs from true raw files.
On a related note, I also tried to create a DNG profile from a DSLR shot of a Kodachrome slide of a Colorchecker, but the Profile Editor gagged on that too. Turns out the color shift varied from light to dark (i.e., if you white balance the light grey patch, the dark grey patch would not have equal RGB values) which was beyond the software's capability.
-
Guys,guys,guys...
Firstly thank you Mark for what is a very detailed and time consuming report... Epson owe you big time I believe...
My question is looking at this from another perspective, and i must add that I was a former V750 owner, and I had Doug's great scan holder kit (saved so much time thx Doug) I usede Silverfast and Vuescan.
However... ScanCafe charge 22c US to scan a neg or slide (35mm)..
By the time you add on the Silverfast upgrade AND the target color card (from experience there is no better way to nail colour management on the Epsons).. It it worth buying a scanner at all...?
Ok many variables linked to that question;
How big is your archive?
What format are your files (35mm, 120, 5x4, 10x8... neg, chrome etc)
How dust free is your workspace
How's your dexterity..? (how good are you with your hands..? brain surgeon good or do fiddly things (smartphone) annoy you?).
All of these things play a significant role in the cost/time equation of DIY scanning.
Furthermore, from your archive, how many are you really going to work on and print/upload/sell ...?
Additionally how are you going to intergrate these files into your normal RAW workflow and software, particularly colour negs...?
I'm very interested in hearing what this rich forum can offer as to peoples choices, opinions and experience.
Personally I got half of my archive scanned by a company(as a case study really) and then edited them down in LR, tweaked them, cleaned them up and printed/uploaded/sold the best ones... Of that first 50% or so less than 5% see the light of day, what was more important (comforting) I think, was that my earlier work was digitized and on a couple of hard drives. Any real cracking shots that had a future purpose were then scanned on a film scanner for maximum quality.
One final question...
Has anyone scanned a Passport Colorchecker target and made a DNG profile instead of buying the Silverfast one..? Colour is colour right...?
Steve
Thank you Steve, I'm pleased you appreciated the review.
Yes, Scancafe etc is a reasonable solution under the conditions you describe. But what you order or can get from them needs to be related to the purposes of the scanning - resolution and bit depth of files appropriate to your final output requirements. I have seen results from one or two of these services and compared apples to apples with DIY scanning, they're OK.
A really rapid approach to digitizing and culling archives for the selects on which you want to focus is to use the Epson V750/850 with SilverFast in batch scan mode, and batch scan the media at low res 8 bit per channel for speed, then open the results in Photo Mechanic, which is second to none for viewing, sorting, culling and entering metadata into image files. Then take your selects as you see them in Photo Mechanic, go back to the film scanner and create high quality/high res scans to the extent appropriate to your needs.
As for negatives, I've written a fair bit on this website about good approaches for scanning colour negatives. As well, if you saw my Camera Scanning article on this website, that subject is treated extensively there too, but "scanning" with a camera instead of a scanner. This is also good for speedy workflow and the workflows in that article produce convincing results.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Hi Mark,
Yes I'm with you on the 'quick scan-edit-re scan' approach, it's just I had scan cafe do the quick scans...!
I will go back and read your colour neg scan article again but like you I seem to remember 'photographing' mine and creating a reverse profile in LR, it wasn't perfect but gave enough for me to make a decision wrt editing. Luckily I seldom shot colour neg...
One irk I found with earlier versions of Silverfast was that it treated Ilford XP film like TRi-X and Neopan... it gave it grain...!!!! I used XP for many reasons one being how smooth it was...
Thanks again.
Steve
-
Steve,
Creating a reverse profile in LR for dealing with negatives doesn't work very well. The approach I described in the Camera Scanning article works far better.
SilverFast cannot create graininess in film scans, unless you had sharpening settings set too aggressively. The scanner you are using makes a difference. A Nikon 5000 will emphasize grain more aggressively than an Epson V750/850, for example. In any case I don't recommend sharpening in any scanner software.
If you batch-scan the negatives with SilverFast and just want to see what the image looks like in positive before making selects, you can do that very quickly in batch scan mode without wasting a moment on specific settings - only select transparency-negative as the scan mode so SilverFast "knows" to make it a positive result.