shocked at Epson V500 quality with vuescan!

[michaelm6]

Long story short - I was really disappointed with my first few scans from the Epson until I tried vuescan....wow! Suddenly I have pretty accurate colors and huge dynamic range back in my images. Scanning is actually sort of fun now. And what's really interesting to me - I got a roll back from Ritz Camera today, and I had them scan it to disc for me. I thought the quality was pretty good - much better in fact that what I was getting from the V500. Well, here's a comparison for you. Lab vs Epson V500 w/ vuescan.

Washed out and overly yellow. Also oversharpened for my tastes.


Madelena by Michael Hulcher, on Flickr

Now here's my scan with some slight PP (color and levels)


Madelena by Michael Hulcher, on Flickr

It was very dark in the room. My shutter was maybe 1/15th and I was wide open at f/2 (zeiss planar). Now that is more like it!

[lam]

Care to share some Vuescan settings? I'd like to try this against my Epson Scan settings.

[Araakii]

Well the lab just "auto corrected" everything for you. It's not really that V500 is better, just that you have more controls over how you want the exposure to look.

[michaelm6]

Originally Posted by Araakii

Well the lab just "auto corrected" everything for you. It's not really that V500 is better, just that you have more controls over how you want the exposure to look.

Then control is certainly better. Yikes, that top scan is not what I'm looking for.

[michaelm6]

Originally Posted by lam

Care to share some Vuescan settings? I'd like to try this against my Epson Scan settings.

I manually color adjusted to suit my tastes. I entered the film profile and just played around with things until my preview looked good. I'm kind of confused as to why my scan came out differently than my preview, but I scanned to DNG so I could white balance everything and then make adjustments as I would to any 48 bit raw file.

[michaelm6]

another couple scans from tonight..


Madelena + Film by Michael Hulcher, on Flickr

converted BW


Picture in a Picture by Michael Hulcher, on Flickr

[crispy12]

DIY scanning is the way to go! Why should I let the lab decide how my picture looks and try to fix that 2mb jpeg in post?

Downside is the incredible amount of time I waste trying to get that 'perfect' scan!

[michaelm6]

Originally Posted by PKR

Flat bed scans from V500 and similar are fine for the web and small prints. If you want to evaluate the quality of a film image, get a wet scan done on a Creo or a Drum scan.
Vuescan is just "adjusting" the values in the data file.

The biggest difference between a drug store scan and one done on a low end Epson is the care taken in cleaning the film. A betterscanning film holder might improve your image quality.

Luckily, I'm only really interested right now in small files. Web stuff and maybe small prints. If I was really interested in overall IQ and quality, I would have stuck with my 21 megapixel Canon 5Dm2, or perhaps I would have gone for a Nikon D800. But I'm happy with this right now. Its really fun. I know what you mean though. Thanks!

[Keith]

That top scan is pretty horrible ... but that's the reason you buy a scanner. These labs are just using presets and auto correct is 'it!'

[maddoc]

The most important thing is getting the film as flat as possible and to have the height of the film-holder properly adjusted. Personally, I haven`t used my Nikon Coolscan 4000ED for some time now, my Epson V700 does an equivalent job (without emphasizing the grain structure when scanning BW film).

[david.elliott]

v500 and vuescan is a nice combo

I always see comments from people stating that it is only good for web use and very small prints. I've always found that to be a bunch of nonsense. I quite happily print up to 8x10 from both medium format and 35mm photos that I've scanned on my v500. They look great.

[Ronald_H]

Originally Posted by david.elliott

v500 and vuescan is a nice combo

I always see comments from people stating that it is only good for web use and very small prints. I've always found that to be a bunch of nonsense. I quite happily print up to 8x10 from both medium format and 35mm photos that I've scanned on my v500. They look great.

Indeed. I have made scans of medium format negatives that I have printed at 50x50cm and looked very good. I am mystified why you would need Vuescan though, the Epson software is simple but ok. I have both but I never felt the need to use Vuescan for the V500 (my Nikon Coolscan V is another story).

The V500 is even good enough for 35mm, almost as sharp as my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, but it has IR dust removal, is faster and considerably less noisy.

[Thardy]

I found Vuescan to be a good alternative to the Minolta software that came with my Scan Dual 4. You'll get even better results as you use it more.

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

Indeed. I have made scans of medium format negatives that I have printed at 50x50cm and looked very good. I am mystified why you would need Vuescan though, the Epson software is simple but ok. I have both but I never felt the need to use Vuescan for the V500 (my Nikon Coolscan V is another story).

The V500 is even good enough for 35mm, almost as sharp as my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual II, but it has IR dust removal, is faster and considerably less noisy.

I use Better Scanner holder and ANG for 120 and their 35mm ANG for 35mm (like someone said above just holds the negative flat, and that is important). I'm not an expert at scanning but the V500 soft is a little clunky but once used to it; it is OK. I would like to know if Vuescan or other softwares upgrades do help? That really is the OPs question. He says it does or is it just not knowing like me what you are doing at first.

[v_roma]

Scanning at home will give you the most control. That said, there are labs that do a pretty good job at scanning (much better than your top photo), including our own sponsors Precision Camera.

[Ronald_H]

To be honest I really don't think Vuescan will give better results than the Epson software when using the V500. The Dimage Scan Dual II was much better with Vuescan, the Coolscan V in extreme cases (poor negatives). Recent scan at 2400dpi, Epson software, low unsharp mask and IR dust reduction:


Germany 2012: Volkswagen Museum by Ronald_H, on Flickr

If you peek at pixel level you'll see a bit of noise and sharpening artifacts, but remember this is a $200 scanner, not a $2000 one. If you have the patience to let the original file load, you'll see that the text underneath the license plate is just readable. I would confidently print this at 50x50 and most people would be none the wiser.

[charjohncarter]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

To be honest I really don't think Vuescan will give better results than the Epson software when using the V500. The Dimage Scan Dual II was much better with Vuescan, the Coolscan V in extreme cases (poor negatives). Recent scan at 2400dpi, Epson software, low unsharp mask and IR dust reduction:


Germany 2012: Volkswagen Museum by Ronald_H, on Flickr

If you peek at pixel level you'll see a bit of noise and sharpening artifacts, but remember this is a $200 scanner, not a $2000 one. If you have the patience to let the original file load, you'll see that the text underneath the license plate is just readable. I would confidently print this at 50x50 and most people would be none the wiser.

I had the patience, and let the file load. That is pretty amazing.

[Stuart John]

I've been using the V500 with 35mm for a couple of years nows. It turned out to be much better than I really expected. I print up to 8x10 from the scans with not much problems.

[Trius]

this could be better as I am just learning ... V750 +VueScan, stock holders. I'll probably get the Better Scanning holders, etc., and will keep working on my technique. BTW, my real reason for getting the V750 was 4x5 work, not 35mm and 120.