View Full Version : Unhappy with Epson V500
JeremyLangford
04-16-2008, 18:06
I am not a happy camper right now.
I have had an Epson V500 for a while. Before I got it, I had always had my negatives scanned at my local Wal-Mart after getting them developed. I bought my own scanner so I could save money and stop having to pay Wal-Mart to scan my negatives, and I have been scanning myself for a couple of months. I also though that I would be able to do a better job If I scanned them myself.
Today, I decided to compare of one of my old Walmart-scanned pictures on my computer, and then take the same negative, and scan it with my Epson V500. The results do not make me happy at all.
The Walmart scan is very obviously waaay sharper and has way more detail. Also, the colors are just way better in the Walmart scans. I knew I wasnt buying a very, very expensive Nikon scanner, but these results are pretty bad. I thought that the Epson would be just as good for internet use (the final pictures at a low size, around 600px), but at this size, there is still significant difference from the Wal-Mart scans. I am really disappointed and have no idea what Im going to do. All I wanted was to make all my pictures available on the web somewhere, but now I dont think my scanner can handle it.
ItsReallyDarren
04-16-2008, 22:25
What kind of software are you using to scan your images and how familiar using it? Scanning software takes a bit to learn how to use. Also I think with the Epson scanners there is a little bit of focusing that needs to be tweaked to get the sharpest quality.
What I noticed about scans from mini labs are that they are indeed looked sharper and have more color but I can get the same results from my scans after a bit of photoshop. When I make scans I try to preserve as much detail from the film, that way I have ample room to adjust and tweak with the image. The initial results are rather dull and flat but can be easily manipulated.
Also, it could be a dud scanner. If things dont get better try exchanging it for another one.
Hi Jeremy,
Something is wrong with your methods or your scanner. I have a V500, and it's plenty good at getting sharp scans. Many flatbed scans are improved with some sharpening, but if you are having problems with images you are posting to the web, something is wrong.
I have a V700. It performs much better than my old Canon 9950f. Which were better still than the Kodak Photo CD's I got from Rite Aid.
It's probably your scanning method. Make sure the film is flat and properly loaded. Also, check your scan settings. What resolution are you scanning at? Is sharpening enabled? Even though my scanner came with Silverfast, I still use the standard Epson software. I like its layout better and it performs great.
Jeremy, I have a V100, baby sibling of what you have, and I find its scans satisfactory. The Wal-Mart scans may seem better because of (excessive?) sharpening. You might like to look in your scanner's manual and restore all settings to default. If things do not improve, maybe the unit is defective.
historicist
04-17-2008, 04:29
Scans from minilabs usually have something like auto levels and auto colour adjustment applied to them, so they look good out of the box, whereas home scans require further adjustment.
I've got a V500, and its pretty good with 35mm, not quite as good as my Collscan IV, but close. The only thing I find really annoying is that the ICE doesn't work nearly as well as it does on the Nikon.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 05:03
Trust me. I hope more than anything that I am doing something wrong. But after trying many different things last night, I couldn't ever get the detail I get from the Wal-Mart scans. Its not just how the pictures look right after the scan. Its how they look after curves adjustments and an Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. I will take some screenshots of what Im talking about when I get home after school.
Pherdinand
04-17-2008, 05:17
i don't know what is up with your v500.
I use a v700 since more than a year, i have enlarged 35mm to above 30x45 cm, with good results, i have scanned medium format (6x6) frames from a pre-war rolleiflex, tri-x 400, delta 3200, fp4+, and printed at 40x40 cm with excellent sharpness and tonality.
The scanner can resolve the grains of tri-x 400, as well as the grains of fp4+ exposed at iso200 and developed in diafine. (PanF+ at 50 has already too small grains.) My limitation is by the film and the lens and technique, not by the scanner, - except some iso100 slide film where i can see more shadow details in the deeeep shadows with a strong loupe, than the scanner can resolve.
BUT
the Epson software is messed up with respect to colour management. Be sure you know what happens with your images. Also, be sure you use the scanner at its optimum by putting your film to the proper distance from the glass window. Don't know if it is the case for the v500, but for the v700 you can adjust the height of the film holders and it helps a lot testing it in more settings.
Finally, i already cleaned TWICE the scanner window INSIDE. It cane with considerable dust speckles and some faint fogging; and after a year it developed serious fogging in the inside. Probably due to plastic components outgassing in there and precipitating on the window. This also help top increase contrast, shadow detail and smoothness of scans.
The bottom line is, whenever i got less than satisfactory results from a scan, it was either my mistake with the software, or my mistake with the film / exposure.
Pherdinand
04-17-2008, 05:19
Lately (only lately) i started using ICE ("quality" setting - takes 7 to 10 minutes for a 6x6 frame at 2400 dpi). I realized how great it is.
With larger pieces of junk sometimes i can see the remainings, but easy to clean up with healing brush in photoshop. The small specks completely clean up with ICE. Both on slides and colour neg.
I just wish it would work on traditional black and white too :(
I've been using the V500 for my 35mm scans with no real problems. Your always going to have to tweak the levels and curves and probably do some sharpening in post processing before you get a satisfactory scan, but that goes with every scanner.
Scanning color is another issue, still very fixable in post processing as well.
My recommendation to you is to not scan above 2400, don't do any processing in scan and adjust levels, curves, sharpening, and color in Photoshop.
pesphoto
04-17-2008, 05:37
I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000 up for sale Here (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=130214224220&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=003).
Finally, i already cleaned TWICE the scanner window INSIDE. It cane with considerable dust speckles and some faint fogging; and after a year it developed serious fogging in the inside. Probably due to plastic components outgassing in there and precipitating on the window. This also help top increase contrast, shadow detail and smoothness of scans.
:eek::eek::eek: .... I thought it only happened to my V700 :bang: Thanks a lot for that tip !!! So far I only cleaned the fogging from the outside and it helped to some degree.
The V700 is great WHEN optimized ... (adjustment of height) AND the film is 100% FLAT. The Epson film-holder, especially for 35mm film, doesn't hold curly film flat. I only get reasonable results by using ANR glass inserts, which are fixed with small stripes of rubber band to press the film as flat as possible.
If you're using the EpsonScan software, try switching on the Unsharp Mask and see if that helps - Epson scanners can give quite soft images without a bit of unsharp mask. (It's better to apply USM later using something like Photoshop, but a quick go with the USM in the EpsonScan s/w might help to tell if that's the problem).
Also, if you make high resolution scans and then resize them smaller (eg for web use) they can also go soft, such that they look less sharp than scans made at the lower resolution directly. Applying some edge sharpening helps to fix that - I apply some for all of my images resized for web use.
shadowfox
04-17-2008, 08:10
Jeremy, just a suggestion, post two pictures, side-by-side, one from your V500 and the other from Walmart. So the others who has good results with it can confirm visually.
It's easy for us to think we have a good enough result until we compare it with something else.
mabelsound
04-17-2008, 08:38
My recommendation to you is to not scan above 2400, don't do any processing in scan and adjust levels, curves, sharpening, and color in Photoshop.
How come no scanning above 2400? I like the sound of that, as I'd prefer quicker scans, but I'm curious how come you think that.
My V500 is due to arrive today. I got it not because the store scans aren't satisfactory, but because they can't scan some of my frame sizes...
myoptic3
04-17-2008, 08:59
If your scanner does a worse job than the Walmart scans, you are in trouble. Walmart scans leave out a huge amount of detail, leaving the shots looking like digital images w/ apparent sharpness but no shadow detail. If you have never seen a neg scanned w/ a good film scanner, then you would never know what is missing. If you just want internet resolution, you may as well buy a cheap digicam because you will get the same results as a Walmart scan, and you won't have to buy film and pay for the negative development.
From my experience, scanning above 2400 showed no increased resolution, just file size. When I would crop down to a specific size (ex. 6 in X 9 in) and zoomed in at 100% on a 2400 scan vs. a 3XXX scan, there was really no difference in quality.
Please do experiment for yourself though. You may find differing results.
How come no scanning above 2400? I like the sound of that, as I'd prefer quicker scans, but I'm curious how come you think that.
My V500 is due to arrive today. I got it not because the store scans aren't satisfactory, but because they can't scan some of my frame sizes...
Pherdinand
04-17-2008, 10:08
I can concur with that one - resolution-wise there's no improvement above 2400.
However, i wonder if it helps against noise, to scan big and reduce, in case of deep shadows on a slide film, e.g. ...
mabelsound
04-17-2008, 11:20
Scanning now on the V500. For various reasons, this roll is overexposed so it's hard to tell if I like it or not.
But the main problem is that the negs are slightly curved lengthwise, and so won't be entirely in focus. Can I just lay them down on the glass instead?
mabelsound
04-17-2008, 12:44
Well, I can certainly see where Jeremy is coming from. Right off the bat, the images are awful. Completely washed-out, too blue, and no black at all. I can get more or less the same quality as store scans with some adjustment in editing software, though.
I had no trouble laying the negs down on the glass, with a clean, thin glass sheet over them. The seem to have focused fine this way. But wow, the initial result is disappointing.
I assume that, like anything, you need to learn the system?
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 14:36
this screenshot shows exactly what Im talking about. It seems that the Epson pixels are just completely unorganized and grainy looking. Once I edit these pictures in photoshop and downsize them for the web, the same sharpness difference that you can see in the screenshot is still apparent in the face in that picture.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8823/fullscreen1tb7.jpg
Walmart scan is on the left, Epson V500 scan on the right. My Epson software is set 2400dpi, 1818px target size (Same as Walmart scan) 48bit, and with Grain Reduction, Digital Ice, Color Restoration, and Backlight Correction selected.
ben@btwhite.org
04-17-2008, 14:59
I think I would turn off the Grain Redution, as I think you are losing detail to it as I suspect the posterized look you are getting is from that. I would do the color correction in Photoshop, as the Colors in the Epson scan look overcorrected. I would agree the Epson scan looks quite soft, I am curious to see what it looks like with all of the special features of the scanner turned off.
My 0.02,
Ben
I'd try it without any of those software settings selected to see if it makes a difference...specially grain reduction. It already appears to be a pretty grainy shot so this software based grain reduction is going to have to take away a lot of image quality to reduce the amount of grain.
Edit: Ahh, beaten to the punch.
hans voralberg
04-17-2008, 15:10
this screenshot shows exactly what Im talking about. It seems that the Epson pixels are just completely unorganized and grainy looking. Once I edit these pictures in photoshop and downsize them for the web, the same sharpness difference that you can see in the screenshot is still apparent in the face in that picture.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8823/fullscreen1tb7.jpg
Walmart scan is on the left, Epson V500 scan on the right. My Epson software is set 2400dpi, 1818px target size (Same as Walmart scan) 48bit, and with Grain Reduction, Digital Ice, Color Restoration, and Backlight Correction selected.
I guess that's 100% crop, otherwise you got some rather grainy neg to start with. Turn off everything on the Epson software, except USM. Try not using ICE, see how it goes. And btw that's about the worst scan I've even seen.
mabelsound
04-17-2008, 15:27
Here's half a roll I shot with a Robot Star on AGFA UC100, and scanned in the V500 at 2400dpi. All the scans looked terrible until I corrected everything in Lightroom. There was no easy template of settings that worked for all pics. (Granted, many of these were blurry and overexposed to begin with--I was testing the camera to see what needed repair.) I'm happyish with the results, but it took me three hours to do this.
http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604592053244/
Those moire type rings...those are artifacts of scanning? How the hell do I get rid of them? And obviously, I didn't use ICE, you can see dust everywhere...
Here's half a roll I shot with a Robot Star on AGFA UC100, and scanned in the V500 at 2400dpi. All the scans looked terrible until I corrected everything in Lightroom. There was no easy template of settings that worked for all pics. (Granted, many of these were blurry and overexposed to begin with--I was testing the camera to see what needed repair.) I'm happyish with the results, but it took me three hours to do this.
http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604592053244/
Those moire type rings...those are artifacts of scanning? How the hell do I get rid of them? And obviously, I didn't use ICE, you can see dust everywhere...
They are newton rings. Did you put the film directly on the glass (or glass mount your slides)?
Jeremy, please turn all the software junk off. I can see why you are bummed. Looks like a software setting problem. Yuck!
this screenshot shows exactly what Im talking about. It seems that the Epson pixels are just completely unorganized and grainy looking. Once I edit these pictures in photoshop and downsize them for the web, the same sharpness difference that you can see in the screenshot is still apparent in the face in that picture.
http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/8823/fullscreen1tb7.jpg
Walmart scan is on the left, Epson V500 scan on the right. My Epson software is set 2400dpi, 1818px target size (Same as Walmart scan) 48bit, and with Grain Reduction, Digital Ice, Color Restoration, and Backlight Correction selected.
Looks out of focus to me, but might be an effect of all the things you checked. As suggested before, try un-checking them one by one, to see whether one or more of them do real damage.
You also might try vuescan. Even my Nikon Coolscan IV showed a dramatic improvement when driving it via vuescan. A demo download is free. Just all output is spoilt by $-signs - good enough to evaluate.
I will fourth the motion-all the ICE, grain reduction etc. is killing the image quality. If you find the Epson scans too noisy (I doubt you will) get NoiseNinja or some such. Turn off all correction settings, except possibly auto-exposure.
ICE is really over-rated in my opinion, and all the other grain/scratch "tools" make evrything blobby.
I'd ditch the 48 bit color depth too, for now. It won't help your image quality and makes the files big.
ICE is really over-rated in my opinion, and all the other grain/scratch "tools" make evrything blobby.
You haven't seen the IR-scratch-dust removal in vuescan. That is actually very good, a lot better than the ICE software used in Nikon Scan 4.0.
But Jeremy really has to check, how the ICE on the Epson software is doing.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 15:57
Ok. Heres a picture of the settings I used. (No Adjustments)
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/430/settingsjc9.jpg
And Heres the scan after I changed it to 600px tall in photoshop.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4255/scanac1.jpg
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 16:05
I know that I should have to edit the scan from the Epson and get it to look the same as the Wal-mart scan, but I have been trying stuff all day and I cant get even close to getting as sharp as the Walmart scan.
The main problem is, with the Wal-mart scan I can take the unsharp mask up a ridiculous amount and the picture will still look fine (and obviously very sharp).
However, with the Epson scans, I can barely take up the Unsharp Mask because I just get this crappy grain look that comes out.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 16:06
I am pretty convinved that theres nothing I can do to get my pictures as sharp as I want. I think I am going to have to sell my Epson and get a better scanner. Im super bummed out about it though.
mabelsound
04-17-2008, 16:22
They are newton rings. Did you put the film directly on the glass (or glass mount your slides)?
I put the neg film right on the glass, because it was too bowed to stay in focus otherwise.
Is there a way to have them right on the glass and avoid the rings?
I am pretty convinved that theres nothing I can do to get my pictures as sharp as I want. I think I am going to have to sell my Epson and get a better scanner. Im super bummed out about it though.
Jeremy, it sounds like you are convinced. I still think you have a settings problem (film height or software). I'm not near mine right now, but why is it scaling at 53%? All I know is if I had to rely on Walmart/Walgreens scans, I'd dump film like 1st period French.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 16:53
Jeremy, it sounds like you are convinced. I still think you have a settings problem (film height or software). I'm not near mine right now, but why is it scaling at 53%? All I know is if I had to rely on Walmart/Walgreens scans, I'd dump film like 1st period French.
Thats what Ive always though. Maybe its just my Walmart, but my Walmart scans truly do blow my Epson V500 scans out of the water.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 16:59
Ok. Heres a picture of the settings I used. (No Adjustments)
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/430/settingsjc9.jpg
And Heres the scan after I changed it to 600px tall in photoshop.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/4255/scanac1.jpg
I took that Epson scan^ and edited in photoshop to get the best possible result. I also took my Walmart scan and got the best possible result in photoshop. Here are the end results.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8084/comparesx5.jpg
(you may have to click on the picture somewhere to see it full size)
The Walmart scan is on the left and the Epson V500 scan on the right. If you look at the subjects face, you can see that difference I am talking about. The Walmarts scan is crystal clear and the pixels look clean and organized. The Epson scan just looks horrible if you look close at the face.
This is truly a very dissapointing thing for me to find out about my scanner.
Please pardon a simple question, did you set all default settings and calibrate the scanner before using? Most have a reset and calibrate in the toolbox someplace.
I have a $99 canoscan 4400 that was good from the start. I recilabrate periodicaly but have had consistantly good results.
From the example posted either reset defaults, turn off all "assists" and go at 1200 dpi. Otherwise, I'd return it.
JeremyLangford
04-17-2008, 18:10
Please pardon a simple question, did you set all default settings and calibrate the scanner before using? Most have a reset and calibrate in the toolbox someplace.
I have a $99 canoscan 4400 that was good from the start. I recilabrate periodicaly but have had consistantly good results.
From the example posted either reset defaults, turn off all "assists" and go at 1200 dpi. Otherwise, I'd return it.
I will try that but I think the problem is in the detail that the scanner is able to get. Its just not good enough for what I want (as you can see from the comparison picture.)
Gray Fox
04-17-2008, 18:37
First off, I would say that by laying the negs on the glass that the height is probably incorrect and the scanner cannot focus properly. I would also suggest putting your negs in a sleeve page and flattening them under a stack of books overnight, then trying them in the OEM neg holder. I have an Epson 4490 which gives good results with the above method, and even better results with an after market adjustable height neg holder for 6x6 and 6x9. All of the above does not mean that you might have gotten a bum scanner, though. Just tossing a couple ideas into the mix. Oh, I, too have had good luck with Vuescan's IR dust and scratch remover with the scanner set to the lowest USM setting to counteract the slight softening. Think I read that tip on here a while back.
hans voralberg
04-18-2008, 02:20
I took that Epson scan^ and edited in photoshop to get the best possible result. I also took my Walmart scan and got the best possible result in photoshop. Here are the end results.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/8084/comparesx5.jpg
(you may have to click on the picture somewhere to see it full size)
The Walmart scan is on the left and the Epson V500 scan on the right. If you look at the subjects face, you can see that difference I am talking about. The Walmarts scan is crystal clear and the pixels look clean and organized. The Epson scan just looks horrible if you look close at the face.
This is truly a very dissapointing thing for me to find out about my scanner.
I'm not as convinced as you are, actually I'm convinced otherwise. The sample is bloody small and honestly, except sticking a loupe to the screen I cant see any different in your "grain" or "sharpness". The Walmart scan actually has more blown hightlight.
And it appears that you're trying to push alot out of the original scan, what setting for the PS USM are you using ?
I would also suggest putting your negs in a sleeve page and flattening them under a stack of books overnight
The best way to flatten negs is to wind them, emulsion side out, on a developing spool (if you have one) and leave them for a few hours.
hans voralberg
04-18-2008, 02:27
That's great to know oscroft, never thought of that.
Jeremy, I did a 90 seconds PS job on your pics, not quite as contrasty/saturated, but no significant grain and I think the sharpening is enough for your taste
http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/1259/scanac1bg4.jpg
sfb_dot_com
04-18-2008, 03:42
Hi Jeremy,
Looks to me that you've got your knickers in a twist over this. All this post-processing seems to have actually made the images worse rather than better. You've actually got green and red casts in your pictures as a consequence, and all the subtle colour gradations are now lost. The original scan looked OK to me with fairly neutral skin tones and accurate if flat colour. I have say that this is a completely unsuitable picture for a test as you have harsh fluorescent lighting which a daylight balanced film emulsion is going to record incorrectly for starters. I actually think that your scanner has made a reasonably good job of resolving it. As for sharpness, don't ever put USM on at scan time. You may think your scans look soft, but come print time, they will be fine. Always apply USM, or edge-sharpening at print time which Lightroom will allow you to do. I have prints from film scanned on a V750 up to 15x20 on 35mm and they look fine at normal viewing distances. I also think that the other red herring is the film flatness issue affecting sharpness. Poppycock I say, it's the least of the major factors affecting the quality of the image. Most important is the density of the exposed neg, the original exposure, sharpness of the taking lens, lighting. etc etc.
I feel a bit like you didn't get the results you wanted with no user input, so from then on, you have just been wanting to justify the urge to ditch the V500 which I think given a bit of sensible handling should more than meet your requirements. Scanning is a bit of a black art, but once you have mastered it, it's just another skill to add to your portfolio. Keep on trying, and good luck!
Andy
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 06:12
Hey, just a little update on my V500--I tested it with some prints and slides, with all the software stuff turned off, and results are BEAUTIFUL. The colors are just about perfect.
It's only negatives where I'm not getting any reds, and everything looks all cyan-y. Maybe it's the film I was using--this discontinued AGFA stuff...although my Kodak UC400 pictures were washed-out, too. Anybody know what I might be doing wrong? How come negatives are scanning all blue and overexposed?
Here are some test scans from the cheap V100 Epson, at 24-bit, 2400 res. from Walgreens processed negatives. I didn't get scans from Walgreens on this roll, only prints. The prints look sharper and cleaner and more saturated, but I'm happy with the scans, which have more shadow detail.
Only the default option of unsharp mask - medium was turned on in the prof. menu of Epson Scan. Output was to JPG at #1 setting (highest JPG quality).
http://matsumura.smugmug.com/gallery/4746431_Uop76#281232541_UCZQY
Pherdinand
04-18-2008, 09:55
Jeremy,
If u scan colour negatives, the orange mask is screwing it up for you.
The epson scanner software is UNABLE to find the proper colour balance on its own.
You HAVE to help him,no way out.
You have two ways of getting good scans from a colour negative.
1: Scan without any adjustments IN 48 BIT and proceed in Photoshop. Scan with double the resolution you wanna finally have and you may get better sharpness. Put USM on "low", turn off everything else except ICE if u want to avoid dust spotting in photoshop. If you use ICE, use it well, on the Quality setting.
2: Scan the preview, click on auto exposure, pick the mid-gray colour picker tool in the Epson scan software "Levels" adjustment window and click with the tool on a region of the image where you know it should be neutral gray. It works wonders.
You can finetune the result in Photoshop.
Pherdinand
04-18-2008, 09:55
Sorry, the above was for mabelsound. But maybe for Jeremy also.
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 12:07
Jeremy,
If u scan colour negatives, the orange mask is screwing it up for you.
The epson scanner software is UNABLE to find the proper colour balance on its own.
You HAVE to help him,no way out.
You have two ways of getting good scans from a colour negative.
1: Scan without any adjustments IN 48 BIT and proceed in Photoshop. Scan with double the resolution you wanna finally have and you may get better sharpness. Put USM on "low", turn off everything else except ICE if u want to avoid dust spotting in photoshop. If you use ICE, use it well, on the Quality setting.
2: Scan the preview, click on auto exposure, pick the mid-gray colour picker tool in the Epson scan software "Levels" adjustment window and click with the tool on a region of the image where you know it should be neutral gray. It works wonders.
You can finetune the result in Photoshop.
Excellent, that's just what I wanted to know. Doing that Robot roll really got me familiar with how to use Lightroom (and a bit of PS), and if I can get it close with the gray picker, I'll be golden. Gonna go try it now.
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 12:34
OK WAIT!!! I can't believe this...when I switch to THUMBNAIL PREVIEW MODE in the Epson scanning software, the images come up PERFECTLY BALANCED. The software is adjusting everything FLAWLESSLY. WTF?!!? How on earth can I get it to balance correctly with thumbnail mode turned off?? I don't WANT the software to cut up the negs for me...but I DO want these adjustments!
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 12:44
OK, here's the line from the EPSON Scan manual:
"Normal preview displays your previewed images in their entirety. You must select the scan area and make any image quality adjustments manually.
"Thumbnail preview displays your previewed images as thumbnails. Epson Scan automatically locates the edges of your scan area and applies automatic exposure settings to the images. This is the default preview type when scanning film or slides."
AM I INSANE OR DOES THIS MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL?!!?!!? Why on earth should I not be able to take advantage of the automatic IQ adjustments unless the damned software is manually cutting my negatives?!? What if I want to cut them myself, with a black border left in? What if my negatives AREN'T 24MM X 36MM RECTANGLES?
Somebody please tell me I can do it my way...
If you want a black border click on the configuration button and go to the Thumbnail Cropping Area and pull the button to large.
http://homepage.mac.com/rayhill2/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/Books.jpg
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 13:10
If you want a black border click on the configuration button and go to the Thumbnail Cropping Area and pull the button to large.
Got that...but my main problem is that I'm taking weird sized frames on 35mm film. They're 24x24. So I can't use the thumbnail mode--the software puts one and a half photos in each thumbnail. Yet I want the image processing of thumbnail mode.
hans voralberg
04-18-2008, 13:14
Well you cant have the cake and eat it I guess, how about trying Vuescan, I think it does that
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 13:17
Well you cant have the cake and eat it I guess, how about trying Vuescan, I think it does that
Well...getting scans from this camera is the only reason I bought the damned scanner. Here's what the thumbnails look like (below). (Pls note the overexposure isn't the scanner's fault--I was only testing the camera, which is meterless!)
I downloaded Vuescan and have not yet figured out how to do this with it. We'll see...
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 13:27
Hmm...tried it in VueScan and it works, but the auto-adjustment is not nearly as successful. Epson Scan makes instantly usable images; VueScan would require a fair amount of retouching (though not nearly as much as ES without auto adjust).
The obvious solution would be to scan in thumbnail mode, then move the negs three quarters of an inch over. What a pain...
briandaly
04-18-2008, 13:27
Wary,
You've got lots of detail with very little grain in that shot.
What film type and format are you scanning?
Wary,
You've got lots of detail with very little grain in that shot.
What film type and format are you scanning?
It's Ilford XP2, 35mm - shot with my OM2.
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 13:40
HOORAY!, I figured it out! The problem was that, when I scanned in normal mode and got one big image, I was putting my marquee around BOTH strips of negs. As a result, the big white bar between them was part of the "image" that ES was trying to auto-adjust, and the white balance was way off. When I put a very tight marquee around the negative strip ONLY, the auto-adjust works perfectly well. I think I can get away with adjusting only blacks and whites in photoshop/lightroom.
When I put a very tight marquee around the negative strip ONLY
I put a separate marquee round each individual frame myself, then click on the "All" button and it scans them all separately
briandaly
04-18-2008, 13:52
It's Ilford XP2, 35mm - shot with my OM2.
Thanks wray.
With the XP2 Vs BW400CN debate going on over on another thread, I figure I really need to try this stuff out:)
Pherdinand
04-18-2008, 13:55
Mabelsound,
in the preferences options or stg like that, there is a checkbox "auto adjust" or something similar. It is checked by default. This means whenever you change the marquee size or position he redoes the auto adjust.
If you uncheck the box, you can drag the marquee e.g. around ONE or part of one frame, push the auto adjust button (the first button on the left above the ICE etc options) or is it called auto exposure button?:), and it adjusts for that marquee. Then you can drag your marquee wherever you want, he will NOT change the exposure/colours/etc. until you press that button again.
mabelsound
04-18-2008, 16:14
All right, so you can do multiple marquees then? That's excellent news, makes it even better.
Does it do a separate adjustment for the contents of each marquee, or does it average them?
newsgrunt
04-18-2008, 19:13
I'm using an Epson 2450 with Epson scan and you can adjust each image separately. it then scans each one as you adjusted it, very useful. Tried silverfast but just wasn't feeling it even though image techs I work with love it.
RObert Budding
04-18-2008, 19:39
I fiddled with an Epson flatbed for a while, but I was never happy with the results. So I bought a Nikon film scanner.
>>All right, so you can do multiple marquees then? <<
Yes and you can individually adjust the parameters for each scan. I have put up some tips on this at this link in case it helps:
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/batchscanning.html
Doug
Pherdinand
04-19-2008, 09:12
Does it do a separate adjustment for the contents of each marquee, or does it average them?
separate.:)
You can adjust them all separately, with or without zooming in for better view, then select a folder and base filename and start - he will do batch scanning adding an incremental number to the base filename, of all frames (marquees) that are selected.
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 09:14
I fiddled with an Epson flatbed for a while, but I was never happy with the results. So I bought a Nikon film scanner.
At least Im not the only one.
mabelsound
04-19-2008, 10:35
Well, now that I figured it out, I like it a lot. Here's a few I just scanned...I just accepted the autoadjust, and tweaked the exposure and blacks in Lightroom. Left the dust thing off, as you can see. I like these images--they're adequate for my needs. I can see how you'd want better, but for $200, I'm bowled over.
http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604625329843/
I do wish the manual were better written...I was very confused for a while there.
hans voralberg
04-19-2008, 12:10
Those photos look superb Mabel, congrat on taming the beast
mabelsound
04-19-2008, 12:16
Those photos look superb Mabel, congrat on taming the beast
Thanks!
Heh heh..."Mabel"
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 12:47
Well, now that I figured it out, I like it a lot. Here's a few I just scanned...I just accepted the autoadjust, and tweaked the exposure and blacks in Lightroom. Left the dust thing off, as you can see. I like these images--they're adequate for my needs. I can see how you'd want better, but for $200, I'm bowled over.
http://flickr.com/photos/mabelsound/sets/72157604625329843/
I do wish the manual were better written...I was very confused for a while there.
WOW! Those are great. The one of the chicken is soo sharp. I pulled it into photoshop at full-size and I can take up the USM a great amount and not get the wierd pixely look that I have been complaining about getting when I try to sharpen my Epson scan.
Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
briandaly
04-19-2008, 12:54
Glad you figured it out, mabelsound.
Results look great for the sizes shown. I've got a Canon 8800F on the way - hope I can get to grips with it without too much pain.
mabelsound
04-19-2008, 13:53
WOW! Those are great. The one of the chicken is soo sharp. I pulled it into photoshop at full-size and I can take up the USM a great amount and not get the wierd pixely look that I have been complaining about getting when I try to sharpen my Epson scan.
Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
Sure! First, I got an uncut roll of negs from the lab and immediately wound them up against the curl and fastened them with tape. An hour and a half later I unrolled them, laid them flat, and cut them into strips of five exposures, which I removed from the protective sleeve only as I scanned each.
Next, I loaded them into the stock film holder as the manual says. My settings were 2400dpi, 24-bit, everything turned off except USM on low. No ICE, etc. Since these were normal 35mm frames, I previewed them in thumbnail mode. I allowed the software to auto-adjust the color and contrast of each frame to eliminate the cyan cast, then scanned them as TIFs into a folder on my desktop, with extra space around the edges so they wouldn't get cropped.
When this was finished I imported them into Lightroom, straightened and cropped, and adjusted both blacks and exposure so the highlights were just beginning to show. I thought about boosting the vibrance and saturation just a little, to get that AGFA intensity, but decided to go with the cooler stock colors. I do think the V500 tends toward flatness, but the color information is definitely there if you choose to draw it out.
I do think Lightroom is really special. I love the results I get with it--adjusting blacks first and then exposure seems to be key. It's superb at drawing out what's already there, as opposed to slathering sugar all over everything.
mabelsound
04-19-2008, 13:54
BTW, I can't fault the Zeiss glass I was shooting with either. Contax G1 + 90mm. Awesome lens...though it didn't always focus on what I thought it was focusing on...
Will you let me know the exact settings you used for scanning?
Jeremy, I just did a scan with the V500 at similar settings to Mabel and on a Nikon 9000. At 100% there is a difference in detail and contrast, but it is not huge. You might see a difference at 8 x 10, but only with a close inspection of both side by side. Good luck with finding the right settings, it's plenty capable once you learn how to use it.
hans voralberg
04-19-2008, 15:00
Jeremy, I honestly suggest you trying to get decent negs to start with and dont pull hell out of USM :P (half-joking, no offense)
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 16:35
Jeremy, I honestly suggest you trying to get decent negs to start with and dont pull hell out of USM :P (half-joking, no offense)
Ha. I know you're jealous of my fisheye pictures. Its ok though.
Im definately not givin up on the V500 anytime soon. I think I mainly just need to stop pushing the USM so hard. I just love when I can get pictures super sharp.
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 17:39
Heres a self-portrait I just got finished scanning and photoshopping. It looks fine to me, but I would be scared to see how it would compare if it were done by a better scanner. I think the better scanner would just allow me to be able to use the USM more effectively and get an overall sharper picture. Im thinking about getting a drum scan of one of my favorite pictures, and then comparing it with the V500 scan. I just want to make sure that I am getting as much detail out of the film as I want. I dont want to have worst pictures, just because I wouldn't give in and get a better scanner. I want to take advantage and use the fact that I am shooting onto film, which holds an amazing amount of detail.
http://i26.tinypic.com/20zy26e.jpg
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 17:47
Heres another that I took the other day.
http://i28.tinypic.com/2hiayvc.jpg
JeremyLangford
04-19-2008, 18:00
heres another. I think this one really looks like its about as sharp as the scanner could get it.
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/6149/dirt2lg7.jpg
skibeerr
04-19-2008, 23:17
Pherdinand, thanks heaps for the fogging tip.
I have had better results scanning with an old durst 9x2 glass plate on top of the negatives.
Actually I hate scanning, probaly me ;-(
hans voralberg
04-20-2008, 02:16
Pherdinand, thanks heaps for the fogging tip.
I have had better results scanning with an old durst 9x2 glass plate on top of the negatives.
Actually I hate scanning, probaly me ;-(
Go printing then, I just did
mabelsound
04-20-2008, 04:48
Jeremy, those look great. I think you ought to back off the USM and stop pixel peeping. The V500 is solid for the price...accept it and move on!
newsgrunt
04-20-2008, 05:44
Mablesound-you can still go in and tweak levels after Epson Scan auto adjusts it. I do this regularly and you can also set the amount of auto adjust.
Jeremy-the scans look alot better but I believe that usm should be applied last step. Setting usm too high at the scan stage could hamper you down the line when you bring it into PS or Lightroom.
Good luck guys.
JeremyLangford
04-20-2008, 09:45
Heres another one I scanned of my grandfather.
http://i32.tinypic.com/wj70ht.jpg
Nice Jeremy! I think you'll be happy with the control your own scanner will give you.
As for USM, in my unwanted opinion it should be disabled in Photoshop until the owner takes an online class on its effective and ineffective use.
JeremyLangford
04-20-2008, 10:00
Nice Jeremy! I think you'll be happy with the control your own scanner will give you.
As for USM, in my unwanted opinion it should be disabled in Photoshop until the owner takes an online class on its effective and ineffective use.
I just love sharpness. And sometimes, with my Walmart scans I can take the USM up sooo much without it making the picture look any worse.
Pherdinand
04-20-2008, 11:59
I just love sharpness.
Dear Jeremy,
You are on your way to large format photography.
The good news are, with the v500 you can scan large format film frames:D
JeremyLangford
04-20-2008, 12:07
Dear Jeremy,
You are on your way to large format photography.
The good news are, with the v500 you can scan large format film frames:D
Ha. right now I definately can't afford it, but I would love to try it some day.
newsgrunt
04-20-2008, 12:28
Dear Jeremy,
You are on your way to large format photography.
The good news are, with the v500 you can scan large format film frames:D
I thought the 500 only went up to medium format ?
JeremyLangford
04-20-2008, 13:00
Im having a really hard time scanning some negs for my dads friend. The whole role is so curly that theres no way to get them to stay in the flimsy plastic negative holder that came with my V500.
1) Whats the best way to straighten out curly negs?
2) Hasnt someone said something about putting a piece of glass over the negatives to keep them straight while scanning?
hans voralberg
04-20-2008, 13:06
Roll the film the other way around, so the curl cancel each other out.
Put it under a heavy stack of book for 2-3 days
You need anti-newton glass otherwise there will be weird rings all over the places
1) Whats the best way to straighten out curly negs?
If you have a plastic developing spool, wind the negs onto it with the emulsion side out and leave it like that for a while - for freshly developed negs a few hours is sufficient, but if they've been curled up for a long time they might need to be left for a day or two.
It's more convenient with an uncut roll because you can wind the whole roll on in one go, but if the negs have been cut you either need to use more spools (one per strip) or do one strip at a time.
2) Hasnt someone said something about putting a piece of glass over the negatives to keep them straight while scanning?
As Hans says, you'll get Newton's Rings - funny rainbow patterns all over images.
mabelsound
04-20-2008, 13:48
Roll the film the other way around, so the curl cancel each other out.
Put it under a heavy stack of book for 2-3 days
Not both in succession without unrolling the film, though!
JeremyLangford
04-21-2008, 20:24
I have to share this very ausome discovery that I just made. I compared another Wal-mart scanned picture with a scan by Epson V500. The results make me very, very happy because the pictures are pretty much identical in my opinion. This is one of my favorite candid "street" pictures.
Here is the Walmart scan. All I did to this was apply an Unsharp Mask at 500% with a 0.3px radius and the threshold at 0. I also applied a slight S-curve with the RGB curves (doesn't do anything to the colors, only increased exposure and brough out the blacks).
http://i26.tinypic.com/awuslx.jpg
And here is the Epson V500 scan I made at 1200 dpi, and no adjustments selected. After I scanned I did the same unsharp mask as the Walmart scan, and the same small RGB S-curve. The only thing different I had to do was increase the greens and yellows in another curves layer with the blending mode set to "color". That was the only way I could get the same type of colors as the Walmart scan. But it was really easy to get the colors matched up pretty good.
http://i29.tinypic.com/zinjm9.jpg
The one thing I did notice was how much Walmart must have been cropping me photos. If you look at the top and bottom of the two photos, you can see that the Epson has a lot more in it.
I think this means that I will keep my Epson V500. I think the main reason I was able to get the good result that I was looking for is because I switched the Auto Exposure to stop changing whenever I moved the selection around the negative, but instead to perform its Auto Exposure technique whenever I click on the Auto Exposure button. After I did that, I started to make a selection around the center, or main part of the negative, press the Auto Exposure button then, and then take the selction around the whole frame you are scanning. So thank you to whoever taught me how to do that in this thread somewhere.
visiondr
04-21-2008, 21:15
Jeremy, I looks like you're on your way to solving the problem. I have one issue, though. Consider toning down the colour saturation and contrast. My eye are starting to bleed!
Jeremy, I looks like you're on your way to solving the problem. I have one issue, though. Consider toning down the colour saturation and contrast. My eye are starting to bleed!
Agreed. I played with the last image above in Photoshop and it's very easy to get pleasant, natural colors out of them. (I hope you don't mind that I gave it a test touch up.)
Mabelsound,
in the preferences options or stg like that, there is a checkbox "auto adjust" or something similar. It is checked by default. This means whenever you change the marquee size or position he redoes the auto adjust.
If you uncheck the box, you can drag the marquee e.g. around ONE or part of one frame, push the auto adjust button (the first button on the left above the ICE etc options) or is it called auto exposure button?:), and it adjusts for that marquee. Then you can drag your marquee wherever you want, he will NOT change the exposure/colours/etc. until you press that button again.
Thanks a lot for that tip !!:):):) I often have to select frames manually (lots of photos in dark light with difficult to recognize borders) and always wondered how I can individually select the auto exposure for every single frame.
I didn't follow the whole thread but one more important thing (at least for the Epson V700): Make sure to select " Film holder" when using a film holder and "Film area guide" when placing the negs on the scanner's glass plate. Switching between "Film holder" and "Film area guide" changes the optics and focal plane of the scanner.
Pherdinand
04-22-2008, 00:38
i understand now, Jeremy.
You are after the "look" the Walmart scans show, not after the "quality". That seems to be different.
Honestly, the two images you posted have VERY wicked colours. No wonder it is difficult to get them with your scanner.
They look like cross processed, or something.
JeremyLangford
04-22-2008, 05:27
i understand now, Jeremy.
You are after the "look" the Walmart scans show, not after the "quality". That seems to be different.
Honestly, the two images you posted have VERY wicked colours. No wonder it is difficult to get them with your scanner.
They look like cross processed, or something.
No, no. Ive never been after the "look" at all. Only quality. The only reason I matched to the Walmart colors was to easily compare the "quality", which is identical in my opinion. I can easily get the "look" of the Walmart photos in Photoshop.
JeremyLangford
04-22-2008, 06:03
Jeremy, I looks like you're on your way to solving the problem. I have one issue, though. Consider toning down the colour saturation and contrast. My eye are starting to bleed!
If it wasn't so much more expensive, I would have all my photos cross-processed. I don't want my photos to have completely natural colors. I want the colors to add more to the photo and to set a mood for the photo. But I understand what you guys mean. I am posting some pretty crazy colors on a forum thats 98% B&W.
hans voralberg
04-22-2008, 06:25
If it wasn't so much more expensive, I would have all my photos cross-processed. I don't want my photos to have completely natural colors. I want the colors to add more to the photo and to set a mood for the photo. But I understand what you guys mean. I am posting some pretty crazy colors on a forum thats 98% B&W.
Expensive ? It should be cheaper ? What kinda lab is that lol ?
JeremyLangford
04-22-2008, 06:43
Expensive ? It should be cheaper ? What kinda lab is that lol ?
Its Walmart. They have to send it off.
My preferences for settings with the scan software included with the V100 (3.0?) is to turn everything off except for the dust setting on low. Scan at 48 bits, 2400. I've been able to rescue some Walgreens Kodak 800 Max negatives and retain the natural colors in the negative.
I may try my next scans with all of the enhancement settings off including the dust one.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.