Epson v750 scans not the greatest, looking for suggestions

[VincentDJohnson]

I have an Epson v750 Pro scanner I bought new back in 2008 to scan mostly 4x5 film. It typically gets used for a few week period about once as I catch up with new film I've shot, so it's not like it's a daily workhorse. About a year ago I took it apart cleaned the bottom glass as scans seemed muddy and it had a grayish film layer on the interior side. Yet I'm still not getting good detail on things that should be obvious; like close blades of grass, and words on buildings.

My typical scanner settings are:
-Pro mode
-48 bit color
-3200/4800 dpi
-unsharpmask at medium
-Digital ICE at Quality

and I always use the film holders that came with the scanner.

Any suggestions on ways you've improved the quality, or is this scanner just that limited and I haven't noticed till recently?

Here's a 1-to-1 zoom of the scan from a recent 35mm color positive.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/vincentjohnson/28685333047/in/dateposted-public/

[trshaner]

I have a similar Canon 9000F flatbed scanner and the results with 35mm film is very similar (not too good).

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html

The optical resolution of the Epson 750v is only about 2300 ppi according to the above test report. You should get slightly better results by placing the 35mm slide or negative directly on the glass since that's where the scanner's lens is focused. You're going to need to apply sharpening with a large radius and amount, which is probably better done after the scan using PS, LR, or other editing application.

The attached Canon 9000F scan is of a 35mm Kodacolor negative using the film holder (Left) and with the film flat on the glass (Right). Same toning and sharpening settings applied to both using LR.

[Mark D Segal]

From what I can see the slide is both out of focus and over processed. I don't know what software you are using, but to start with I would recommend turning off ICE and turning off all sharpening within the scan software. Use a powerful air blower on both sides of the slide for cleaning it and deal with anything residual in post-scan spotting. I think you should solve the focus problem before you do any sharpening, but when you get to sharpening, sharpen the scan in post-scan software using a gentle, non-destructive sharpening application, such as Photokit Sharpener which does very well with film scans (for Photoshop) or Lightroom's own sharpening tools if you are working in Lightroom post-scan.

The focus issue may be a more mechanical problem. The V750 should definitely produce better results than what your photo indicates, provided of course the media itself is sharp; often we don't know how unsharp our originals are till we see them enlarged from a scan - check them with at least a 6x magnifier to be sure you know what you are working with. You say you took the scanner apart to clean the glass. Are you absolutely certain that you re-assembled it exactly right? Putting the film into the holder should work well enough provided the film is flat - if the holder has height adjusters you may try rescanning at different settings for those adjusters and see whether one of those settings solves the problem. If you are getting no joy from the holder, I would suggest using the Fluid Mount Accessory, pinning the film to the glass using either a piece of Museum glass (that specific brand) on top of the film, or film cleaning fluid to very temporarily hold the film onto the glass.

[Mark D Segal]

I have a similar Canon 9000F flatbed scanner and the results with 35mm film is very similar (not too good).

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/EpsonPerfectionV750Pro.html

The optical resolution of the Epson 750v is only about 2300 ppi according to the above test report. You should get slightly better results by placing the 35mm slide or negative directly on the glass since that's where the scanner's lens is focused. You're going to need to apply sharpening with a large radius and amount, which is probably better done after the scan using PS, LR, or other editing application.

The attached Canon 9000F scan is of a 35mm Kodacolor negative using the film holder (Left) and with the film flat on the glass (Right). Same toning and sharpening settings applied to both using LR.

Todd, I agree with the 2300 effective PPI for that scanner; it coheres with my measurements as well. But that doesn't explain why scans should come out unsharp - if the optics are working properly and the software is being used properly FOCUS should be OK and the scans should look sharp enough as long as they are not being magnified beyond 100% at their native resolution. So to be clear about what's implied - if we're talking a 35mm slide, he has about 2300x1.4 or 3220 total pixels on the long dimension. If prepared for an Epson printer at 360 PPI, his long dimension could be about 9 inches without resampling. Put-up on a high-res display at no more than 100% magnification (1 image pixel per screen pixel) the results should look OK, particularly in the center, IF the focusing were correct. All those scanners except an Imacon have problems with edge/corner sharpness regardless of the focus, but the center should be reasonably good. If his media image is sharp and the scan isn't I suspect a mechanical focus problem.

[saiguy]

Mark,  I have an Epson Expression 11k flat bed scanner. I bought a piece of Museum Glass for holding 35mm strip film flat but have not had cause to use it yet. That glass has a coating on one side. The frame shop said they put the coating side down towards the art work, photo, so to protect the coating from glass cleaning products.

Do you put the coating side up, or down, relative to the film?

I have 2 glass cleaning products from Sprayway. A USA made product. One of them is very powerful stuff, Formula 40, also very toxic. I talked to them and they said they have never tested it on Museum Glass. The other is called Glass Cleaner.

What glass cleaner do you use for Museum Glass, or for the flat bed glass?

Hope this is not an "out of thread" question.

[Mark D Segal]

Put the coated side down on the film.

I wouldn't use any cleaning products on Museum glass unless specified by the manufacturer. A bit of warm water on a rag is usually sufficient for both the Museum glass and the scanner glass. I haven't needed to use most cleaning products so I don't know what the risks would be. I have occasionally removed stubborn specks with lens cleaning or eyeglass cleaning fluid. That seems harmless and works.

[trshaner]

Todd, I agree with the 2300 effective PPI for that scanner; it coheres with my measurements as well. But that doesn't explain why scans should come out unsharp - if the optics are working properly and the software is being used properly FOCUS should be OK and the scans should look sharp enough as long as they are not being magnified beyond 100% at their native resolution.

I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/

[chez]

I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/

Yes I went through with setting up my 750 using the different height settings and it made a big difference. Also with large negatives, keeping them perfectly flat is an issue and the holders that come with the V750 are not that great. Take a look at Betterscanning filter holders, they are worth the cost.

[Mark D Segal]

I did a quick search on Epson 700/750 focus issues and found out they both use a two-position focusing system. For reflective scans the focus is at the top of the glass and for transparency scans the focus is above the glass. So placing the film on the glass isn't going to help. Apparently the film and slide holders have focusing legs that can be set for three different heights above the glass (2.5mm, 3mm or 3.5 mm). So perhaps adjusting these legs may help to fix the focus issue. I agree with your previous suggestions concerning other issues (ICE and other processing settings) also contributing to the poor scan results. More info here on the focusing issue:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/epson-v700-v750-focus-height-finding-the-sweet-spot.151784/

Right. That's why I recommended trying the Fluid Mount Accessory, which is a framed piece of glass that sits raised from the scanner bed. And yes, adjusting those legs (what I called the height adjusters above) can help quite a bit, so we're talking about the same thing here. Chez's suggestion to use Betterscanning holders may well be worthwhile. I haven't tested them myself, but I've heard good things about them from people who have. I would just re-iterate two points I made above: the re-assembly of the scanner should be checked for proper seating and the sharpness of the media being scanned should be reviewed to know for sure what to expect.

[Garnick]

I agree with all of Mark's suggestions, and a +1 for the BetterScanning film holders from Doug Fisher.  They are very rigid and well made holders and also height adjustable.  Definitely worth the cost if quality scanning is what you are looking for.  I've also used the Epson Fluid Mount with the Museum Glass, mostly for 4x5 film, but occasionally roll film as well.  It does a great job for both.  For more years than I would admit to I have been using the Ilford Antistaticum clothes for removing dust etc. from film, both in the darkroom and later for film scanning purposes.  I don't know if they are still available, but I do know that they do a great job at dust removal and setting up an anti-static environment on the film so that it does not attract more dust.  I made sure I had a good supply of these clothes many years ago and still using them.  A good, filtered compressed air system works as well, but best after using the cloth, since a high pressure air flow can sometimes set up a static charge on the film which can attract dust.  I just checked and the Antistaticum clothes ares still  available from camera stores etc., B&H for example.

Gary
   

[saiguy]

What if you had a piece of glass that had thickness equal the the hight of the film holders? Place the film on that and Museum Glass on top of the film.

I have a digital thickness gage for paper but the battery is dead. With a ruler it looks to be 1/16 inch. for the Museum Glass I have.

[Mark D Segal]

What if you had a piece of glass that had thickness equal the the hight of the film holders? Place the film on that and Museum Glass on top of the film.

I have a digital thickness gage for paper but the battery is dead. With a ruler it looks to be 1/16 inch. for the Museum Glass I have.

I don't think you can use just any piece of glass - it should have appropriate optical properties. You would have to know the exact height of the top surface of the glass above the scanner flat bed. Remember with the Fluid Mount Accessory which is measured exactly, the glass is placed within a frame that sits on the scanner bed. The thickness of the Museum glass is a non-issue - the Museum glass is only for holding the film to the FMA glass without having to use liquids.

[VincentDJohnson]

Hey, thank you  all for the detailed suggestions. Lots of reading to do and testing afterwards. I'll be sure to post up any improvements it might have made.

I have been looking at third party film holders too, but at the cost for some sets I was also thinking I might be able to buy a dedicated consumer 35mm scanner for just a bit more. As any change might be better than what I'm getting now. We'll see. Got a busy summer ahead so hopefully I've got a solution before fall.

[chez]

Hey, thank you  all for the detailed suggestions. Lots of reading to do and testing afterwards. I'll be sure to post up any improvements it might have made.

I have been looking at third party film holders too, but at the cost for some sets I was also thinking I might be able to buy a dedicated consumer 35mm scanner for just a bit more. As any change might be better than what I'm getting now. We'll see. Got a busy summer ahead so hopefully I've got a solution before fall.

A dedicated 35mm scanner will do a better job, but I thought you also scanned 4x5.

[Mark D Segal]

He could keep the Epson for the large format and still use a dedicated film scanner for the 35mm. The problem though is that there are few current model dedicated film scanners that will do a much better job than that Epson V750. If he can find a lightly used A1 condition Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400, either the original or model 2 for a low enough price he'll be getting something really good. The discontinued Nikon 5000 costs a fortune, just not worth it. He can buy a Plustek 8200 - not bad but still around 450 dollars, or a Plustek 120 for $1800 at B&H - this one is optically very good, but had operational teething problems in the early days and is slow - not sure how reliably they perform these days.

[trshaner]

Or he could go the scannerless route! 

https://luminous-landscape.com/scannerless-digital-capture-and-processing-of-negative-film-photographs/

[Mark D Segal]

YES INDEED TODD:-) :-)

BTW, on that subject - not to hijack the thread, but I got tired of letting my Phase One P40+ just sit in a closet gathering dust - mea culpa it was an expensive mistake buying that rig because I learned after the fact that it just doesn't respond to my style of photography; but no question it can make very fine photographs, so just this past couple of weeks I've been rigging it up as a camera scanner. I got really very good pricing on a Schneider 80mm lens that can be used in reverse at the end of a Mamiya bellows unit built for that camera, which I also found on eBay for a very good price. So I have all that set-up now, and what's nice is that I can use it tethered to a laptop with Capture One 11 (free for owners of Phase backs). Capture One is a learning curve all to its own and I'm still at the stage of optimizing alignment, which is very exacting, but it all looks promising. So far I'm seeing VISIBLE resolution (from the USAF target) of about 4600 PPI, with the potential that I could push it to around 5000, which is more than twice that of the Epson V750/850. I can get the mag ratio close to 3:1, which would allow me to make stitched scans of 35mm negs capable of quite huge prints at high resolution - most likely far exceeding what the original media holds. At the processing end I'm still using that MakeTIFF/SilverFast HDR workflow for negatives I discussed in my part of our shared article - it remains efficient and robust. So the total procedure is to make the capture with Capture One, send it to MakeTIFF, send the resulting TIFF to SilverFast HDR for inversion, and then onward to Lightroom or Photoshop for any further processing.

So good you remind of this - scanning is not the only option by a long-shot.

[trshaner]

IMHO anyone considering purchasing a dedicated film scanner who has a 20+ Megapixel camera should consider the "scannerless" option. The cost using readily available parts should be no more than a good dedicated scanner. The benefits are speed (seconds), reduced grain, dust and scratch rendering due to using a diffused light source and high image quality.

That P40+ setup sounds good. With 2:3 aspect 35mm film you have a 27 Megapixel image, which is probably only limited by the lens and film image resolution. It's been requested that Adobe add a native raw data "Invert' function, which would allow processing negative film images totally in LR without the controls working backwards. New XMP profile capability has already been added, which opens the door for creating "film specific" LUT based camera profiles.

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Todd,

Actually, with a P40+back shooting a full frame 35mm transparency, the arithmetic makes it an effective 35MP raw image (7320/1.5)v*7320h = 35.7MP. The important thing though is that I've now got the resolution perfected to 5161 PPI based on photographing the USAF, looking at the center and all four corners. Alignment is really a delicate business but it works. This is really very close to Imacon and good drum scanner territory. You are right that the capture process is much faster than scanning, but there's stuff in front of pushing the button that consumes some time. An alignment check should be performed at frequent intervals, especially after changing any magnification or positioning of the media, and it is necessary, at least with this camera, to allow a good 20 second interval between the mirror-lock-up and the capture. This wouldn't apply to mirrorless cameras, but it applies in spades to a 645DF or any other mirrored DSLR. This sensor is so sensitive at these resolution levels that ALL vibration needs to be excised before capture. Effective raw image size can be increased substantially by photographing the 24mm dimension of the media magnified across the 44mm dimension of the sensor in two captures, one displaced from the other so both ends of the film are photographed and blending them. I haven't tried that yet to see exactly how well it works and what raw dimensions I end-up with, but should be interesting.

Capture One does have an invert function, but only in the version of the application targeted for the conservation/institutional market and it costs about 2500 dollars, so I'll stick with my established workflow for now. I would really like to see Adobe add the invert function into LR as you mention, because if it were possible to confine the whole workflow to Lr it would save a huge amount of storage (a rendered P40+ file is about 220 MB in 16 bit) and cut the workflow time substantially - let's hope.

[John Nollendorfs]

Hi Todd,

 I would really like to see Adobe add the invert function into LR as you mention, because if it were possible to confine the whole workflow to Lr it would save a huge amount of storage (a rendered P40+ file is about 220 MB in 16 bit) and cut the workflow time substantially - let's hope.

Mark:
Can't you invert in LR by going to the curves menue and invert by dragging left side up and right side down? Would be simpler to just check an "invert" box.