EPSON V600 or V700 or .... ?

[ColSebastianMoran]

Hello Raid -- Enjoyed our meeting in Boston!

V600 will do 120 film; the V700 can scan larger transparencies/negatives.

My V500 scans of 6x9cm negatives give me prints of 12x18 inches that I think are plenty sharp. That's 6x the linear dimension of the film. The V700 is better.

Flatbed for 35mm is only good for web/screen images. I doubt you'll be satisfied with flatbed scans of 35mm.

Google "Moran Epson V500" for more, including sample images at 12x18, or just PM me and I'll send you a file of this image:

[Bob Michaels]

Originally Posted by raid

Then I would need two scanners, and this is not what I want.

Raid: realistically you choices are a combination of 35mm film scanner and a flatbed for MF or the better solution of a MF film scanner (Nikon 8000/9000 or Minolta Multi Pro) which will also scan 35mm perfectly.

Consider what you may spend for a scanner vs. what you have already spent for all those lenses and cameras. Then remember that line about a chain being no stronger than its weakest link.

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by maddoc

When I want excellent tonal range over emphasized grain and contrast for BW films (135) then I prefer my V700 every time over the Coolscan 4000ED (which in turn is more convenient to batch scan a complete roll at once and Nikon Scan is better to use for color material than Epson Scan software). . .

You could smear Vaseline on the lens of the Nikon and get the same effect.

Consumer flatbeds are fine if you don't print too large. I've yet to see one that produced much over 2400 dpi of real resolution. Just don't expect to pull much detail out of really dense regions of slides.

http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/

[raid]

Originally Posted by Bob Michaels

Raid: realistically you choices are a combination of 35mm film scanner and a flatbed for MF or the better solution of a MF film scanner (Nikon 8000/9000 or Minolta Multi Pro) which will also scan 35mm perfectly.

Consider what you may spend for a scanner vs. what you have already spent for all those lenses and cameras. Then remember that line about a chain being no stronger than its weakest link.

Of course, I am aware of this critical point, Bob.
This is why I am taking my time to look deeper into what I need to get.
When the Nikon CoolScan III was still current, I had it, and I liked it for 35mm negatives and slides scans. Now it is obsolete.

The purchase of a good scanner (or two), would imply independence from commercial scanning.

[raid]

Originally Posted by ColSebastianMoran

Hello Raid -- Enjoyed our meeting in Boston!

V600 will do 120 film; the V700 can scan larger transparencies/negatives.

My V500 scans of 6x9cm negatives give me prints of 12x18 inches that I think are plenty sharp. That's 6x the linear dimension of the film. The V700 is better.

Flatbed for 35mm is only good for web/screen images. I doubt you'll be satisfied with flatbed scans of 35mm.

Google "Moran Epson V500" for more, including sample images at 12x18, or just PM me and I'll send you a file of this image:

Hi Col. Sebastian,
It was a pleasure meeting you in Boston. I may get back to Boston in the coming weeks, but this is still in the planning stage.

My wish for the V600/V700 is mainly for MF scans.
Your image looks very good here.

[raid]

Originally Posted by Shac

The V700 is great for 120 and above (not so great for 35) IMO

This seems to be the general finding here.

[raid]

Originally Posted by Keith

Scanning results on the V700 seem to be a little dependant on film type in my experience. I've recently started using some Fuji Acros and for some reason the scans are the sharpest I've had with any 135 film.

Hi keith,
So you are among the minority who finds the V700 to be good with a 35mm film. Maybe the ACROS lends itself somehow for scanning with the V700?

[venchka]

O.C.D.-Pixel Peeping Flavor is rampant at these scanner conversations.

Agreed. If somebody else is paying the freight, and I needed the best possible print, I would buy a pro quality drum scan. For the other 99.99% of the time, Epson rocks!

Wayne

[venchka]

Semantics. I know folks who don't loose originals.
"I would buy a pro scan." Better?

Wayne

[paulfish4570]

will someone please describe wet scanning? do you actually wet the negative and mash it flat?

[BobYIL]

Originally Posted by raid

Hi,
I want to buy a scanner that can handle MF negatives and 35mm, and I am planning to get the Better Scan glass for flatter negatives. I am planning to keep the cost below $600. Are there many options here?

Thanks.

Raid

Regarding to the 35mm side of your wish: If you pay great emphasis on the output quality (even for web) then put these two formats apart from each other. To like flatbed results demands some compromises first; for I did, I learned and I can comment on.

For example with a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 I get 35mm B&W above 30MB and color over 90MB files. 5400 II is better in speed.. I use both since years and they cost a fraction of their Nikon brethren.

The following thread is long, 12 pages; go through it in your convenience. Many questions in your mind will be answered when you reach the end.

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00SCs7

Bear in mind that the worst formats to scan, resolution wise as well as for tonality, are the ones smaller than MF; one ton of issues. Having to live with compromises on the flatbeds may kill the joy of scanning 35mm. On one side you think "I pay so much for a body, so much for a lens so what the heck are these for if they would not be expressed like they are worth for?!"

It's not much different than spending days for taking down a great article and then handing it to a novice interpreter to spare money and ending up only with a dull translation.

[venchka]

I wish y'all would display the 35mm crap you're getting from flatbed scanners. I also wish I had some of what y'all are smoking when you tell a valued member of this Forum to buy dead dinosaur scanners that can't be repaired and don't have up to date software.
State of the Possible makes a lot more sense than Once Upon a Time a Long Time Ago State of the Art.
Get real people.
Now, somebody tell me what's so bloody terrible about this...Click this image for a bigger version. Scanned on an Epson flatbed that was built sortly after Edison invented the light bulb.



Raid, you better shop for a drum scanner. Obviously they are the only scanners that meet the local quality standards.

Wayne

[thegman]

I found my V700 "good enough" for 35mm, and outstanding for 6x6 and 6x9.

I think you have to have very high standards if the output is not good enough. I know some people talk about how much we spend on cameras/lenses etc. but plenty of people here will shoot Tri-X 400 with a Summilux, and not resolve half the resolution the lens has to offer.

I think that if a V700 is not good enough for MF, then either send off for a drum scan, but I'd think it's more than good enough for 99% of us.

For 35mm, I think these days I'd get a Plustek and not bother with the older Nikons. Minoltas etc. The Plusteks look great, no review I've seen shows the Nikon is better in any serious way, and I'd like to support what Plustek are doing.

[venchka]

Originally Posted by aperture64

They can't because the majority of people that bash Epson flatbed scanners, especially for 35mm, don't own them. Like photography equipment, they are more concerned about numbers and performance tests, instead of going out and actually using the equipment. I am on my third Epson and have had no problem with any of them. Printed 35mm up to 12x18" and the results of the print completely exceeded my expectations. In the right hands, they are perfectly capable scanners. Sure, a dedicated film scanner may be better, but the price also reflects that and who wants to own multiple scanners for different formats?

Amen Brother aperture64!
Like all of the M5 detractors.

Wayne

[Austerby]

I've had a v700 for quite a while now and am perfectly satisfied with the output in 35mm, 120 and 5x4. It's versatile, easy to use and I'm not looking to replace it anytime soon.

This is a 6x4.5 scan

3 J's downwind in the Solent by Vidwatts, on Flickr

and this 35mm

Venice: street corner equivalent by Vidwatts, on Flickr

and this 5x4

Venice by pinhole by Vidwatts, on Flickr

[RObert Budding]

Originally Posted by raid

Of course, I am aware of this critical point, Bob.
This is why I am taking my time to look deeper into what I need to get.
When the Nikon CoolScan III was still current, I had it, and I liked it for 35mm negatives and slides scans. Now it is obsolete.

The purchase of a good scanner (or two), would imply independence from commercial scanning.

Some folks consider defects essential features.

Flatbeds and 35mm are fine if your primary output is the Web. Or if you're really pick about prints and only want 4x6 prints. I've printed color in a darkroom, so perhaps I expect a lot.

[venchka]

Note to Self:

Ban Self from all future scanning discussions. Self: Enjoy prints made from 35mm originals and printed up 12" x 18" and viewed from the proper distance.

See Y'all!

Wayne

[raid]

Do you recommend getting BetterScanning inserts and glass or do you use the Epson inserts?

Originally Posted by Austerby

I've had a v700 for quite a while now and am perfectly satisfied with the output in 35mm, 120 and 5x4. It's versatile, easy to use and I'm not looking to replace it anytime soon.

[Dan95]

I myself have a V700, no complains so far.

Though a few buddies of mine have encountered 'haze/fogging' on the glass of their scanners.

[agricola]

Raid
My experience with the V700 has been (how to put this!) 'very positive' with scanning 35mm film - slides and negatives. I have also used it for 120 and of course it is very good for that too.
When I compare the A4 inkjet prints I get from the scans of 35mm - with my wet prints (8x10) from my days in the darkroom - I am content to stick with the modern set-up. To my eye they are as good or better than I could get in the old darkroom. I just did an A4 inkjet print from a well exposed negative of my nephew - head shot, Summitar (1948) on the M4 - and the rendition is superb.
However I found one thing to be critical. And I have a chap on an english site to thank for this tip (it has been mentioned above also). That is to adjust the feet on the Epson 35mm film holder by rotating them until the arrow points to the + sign. It made a world of difference in the clarity/sharpness of the result. After much experimentation I have also decided to let the V700 apply medium unsharp mask when scanning. It seems to give all the snap I want from the outset.
I have blundered about for years to get this far, and I am conscious that there is still much to learn. It's a lonely path. But much, much better than being isolated in the darkroom.
all the best

[venchka]

Originally Posted by Dan95

I myself have a V700, no complains so far.

Though a few buddies of mine have encountered 'haze/fogging' on the glass of their scanners.

Temporary Lifting of Self Imposed Ban:

The fogging is true of all flatbed scanners. Something to do with out gassing of the internal parts. Take it apart. Clean the glass. Put it back together again. An annual chore with my Epson Expression 1680.

Wayne

[raid]

As a first step, I just purchased an EPSON V700 scanner. I will try it out first.

[venchka]

Good! If you learn how to use it, it's all you may ever need.

Wayne

[raid]

So you use the Epson film inserts, Wayne?

[venchka]

Yes I do. For 35mm (mounted slides & film), 120 (6x6 & 6x7) and 4x5.
I have thought seriously about buying 1 or 2 of the BetterScanning holders. Alas, funds have not dropped from a tree yet.

Wayne