v500 is here and works quite good

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

the only thing I dislike is the neg. holder,
when the film is not flat,
nothing handles it

wray · 05-08-2008

Martin, glad you finally received your V500. Well done image there! Yes, they are decent scanners for the money and I do have to agree about the film holders.

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

hey Wray great to hear from you,
did you scan negs with holder?
is that possible?

this is a print scan
and I think it comes closer to my way

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

a second neg. scan

wray · 05-08-2008

A-h-h, two more well done images! Prints do scan well don't they? Yes, I'm still using the stock film holders. Here's a scan I just did this morning of an old "Woodie" from an auto show this weekend.

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

that's a great shot,
negativ scan?
are your negativs flat?

do you know that:
http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/insert35.html

wray · 05-08-2008

It's Fuji Superia 400 shot a 200 ISO. Yes, I've seen those glass inserts and seriously considering purchasing.

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

number 3, and still wondering

martin-f5 · 05-08-2008

and the last for this night

Senmu · 05-09-2008

I use a Nikon Coolscan V ED for my 35mm scans, but recently picked up a V500 for medium format. I never used the stock, flimsy, floppy, 2-frame-only film holders. I had already ordered the variable height holders from betterscanning.com, and I love them. I also use VueScan exclusively on both 35mm & 120. Great results. I find I always scan at 3200dpi rather than the available 6400 though. I haven't needed the 180mb(!) files from 6400dpi. The 50mb files from 3200dpi suffice!

Oh, and I looked at the V750 before purchasing. As far as I can tell, the V750 would be mandatory if I wanted 4x5 or 8x10 scans (shudder.... haven't bitten that yet.... but...) with its second lens. But the V500 is better than okay for 6x6 (with the aftermarket holders) and I much much much prefer the LED backlight instead of fluorescent, for ease of use, immediate startup, evenness of lighting, and ecological friendliness.

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

and now, color dia scanns:

Pherdinand · 05-10-2008

the 35mm holders for the v700 are quite fine. The 120 holders are not so fine, if the film is curled, but i still manage with them. The scanners' DOF is quite large. Just have to make sure the film does not cur so much that it would touch the scanner glass!

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

6x4,5 Mamyia TriX in Rodinal 1+50 (grainy !)
and Denis is chocking :-)

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

second choice

P. Lynn Miller · 05-10-2008

Ray,

Didn't you used to use a 4490? As you know I am looking for a medium format scanner and have a chance to get a 4490 at a good price.

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

the mf filmholder is much better than the 35mm one,
some years ago I had a problem....

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

power yoga :-)
old film but still great to scan

martin-f5 · 05-10-2008

I know, I have to stop it,
but 6x7 neg. had to be tested
full and coped

PATB · 05-12-2008

Martin, thank you so much for the post. I am still looking for a MF (6x7) scanner and appreciate your V500 samples. Excellent photography.

P. Lynn Miller · 05-12-2008

Martin,

You do not need to stop on my part. I am enjoying your photos. Thanks posting these scans as I am looking for a medium format scanner at the moment.

Gilo25 · 05-13-2008

Is the V500 and/or the V750 adequate for 35 mm as well? The lab I am using claims that's what they have but the quality of the 35 mm scans they produced for me (from slides, bw, and color neg) is nowhere near as good as the images you posted above. Obviously it has to do with the way the scanner is set/handled, but I wonder if there is any way to find such settings reasonably easily or whether it is painful trial and error process which doesn't necessarily lead to good results, eventually. As a matter of fact, scanning represents such a bottleneck for me that it makes sometimes wonder if it is really worth shooting film. At least with a high end digital camera you consistently get the same results, while with scanning there are so many variables involved that more often than not you risk to throw away a beautiful shot just by scanning it.

martin-f5 · 05-14-2008

first of all, none of the photos are shown in that quality wich they realy have.
The rff server software kills half of the quality.
Second, I'm realy new to this scanner nad have no large experience to it,
so this are the very first results without doing anything special.
You may have a look at wray's photos, they are linked to an externel srever and they show the real quality.

Guys, it's fantastic what you get out of this "cheap" epson and the original software.
You nay have a look to my other thread :

v500 & xpan

there I've postet a screen shot.

Thanks to all

Gilo25 · 05-14-2008

At how many dpi did you scan those images?

martin-f5 · 05-14-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilo25

At how many dpi did you scan those images?

1200

shadowfox · 05-14-2008

Martin, I just want to comment on your pictures.

They are all great! you have an excellent eye for composition and light. I love especially the Xpan shots.

About the scanner, I think these results are adequate for web viewing, trying to get much better quality from any flatbed scanner IMHO is counter-productive.

BUT, if you want to print your pictures big digitally, then maybe find a drum-scanner.