v700 thinking swtiching it for a plustek 120
Old 11-10-2014   #1
tommyw
Registered User
 
tommyw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
v700 thinking swtiching it for a plustek 120

So I know scanning is an art form I know that every scan needs tweaks here and there but I find the v700 gives me murky looking results.

Is the Plustek any better when scanning in colour negatives, with no tweaks?
Is the tonal range any better?

I've tried the colorperfect workflow with the v700 but I find it makes my files look bland and brings at the highlights out in the wrong places not sure why?

My other option is to save the money and have a lab to scan in my files and just tweak them from there....

I currently shoot around 8 rolls a week.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #2
Shac
Registered User
 
Shac is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: White Rock, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,095
What format(s) are you scanning? From my experience the V700 doesn't scan 35mm well but for me it's fine for 120
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #3
tommyw
Registered User
 
tommyw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
Just switched from 120 to 35mm as I needed to shoot at a much quicker pace.
I've noticed the 35mm scans are really soft on the V700 too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #4
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,832
From my experience scanning color negative film, most of the trouble comes from how the film changes depending on exposure. You can't really just make a profile and then use it without making adjustments. A Plustek 120 will get you better resolution, but you will still have the software issue of converting from negative to positive. AFAIK, it won't really solve the issue for you.
Have you tried this method using Epson Scan?
http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1...my-method.html
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #5
tommyw
Registered User
 
tommyw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
Thanks not tried that method. I'll give it a twirl .
I mean silverfast + the v700 it scans in very magenta it's so far off spectrum not sure if it was my scanner playing up as did buy it second hand?
I normally use a light meter my shots everytime I move and only work indoors with flash.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #6
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyw View Post
Thanks not tried that method. I'll give it a twirl .
I mean silverfast + the v700 it scans in very magenta it's so far off spectrum not sure if it was my scanner playing up as did buy it second hand?
I normally use a light meter my shots everytime I move and only work indoors with flash.
What film are you normally scanning? Sounds like Fuji Pro 160.
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #7
tommyw
Registered User
 
tommyw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
Yep been using Fuji Pro 160s.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #8
Swift1
Registered User
 
Swift1's Avatar
 
Swift1 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Talent, Oregon.
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyw View Post
Yep been using Fuji Pro 160s.

I've found Fuji Pro 160 to be somewhat difficult to scan, and it often has a magenta cast that you need to adjust for. If you're shooting 8 rolls a week under controlled lighting, it would be worth shooting a color chart and then use that to set up a profile in Epson Scan.
__________________
Colton

If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk. The Ugly
My Flickr
My Website
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #9
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
profiling is always a good idea. And Swift1 is right, Color Negative film changes it its color depending on how accurate the exposure is for a given part of the image.

Thats not a problem just with scanning, in wet printing you have to adjust filtration for individual images too.

I switched from an Epson 4990 + Coolscan 4000 to the Plustek 120. The Plustek is fast, resultion is higher than what the Coolscan offered and heaps and bounds above the Epson. The only thing I miss is the option to scan full rolls a time.

I never get the "it is good enough for 120" thing. Thats a joke, right? it is just as bad with 120 as it is with 35mm, the negative is just bigger.
You shoot 120 to get more resolution for bigger enlargements or more room for cropping. And then you waste that by going with a flatbed.
Just shoot 35mm and get a decent scanner then.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #10
taemo
Registered User
 
taemo is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Age: 34
Posts: 1,061
if you're looking to scan 35mm only my advise is to get a pakon f135+
__________________
earldieta.com - flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-10-2014   #11
bence8810
Registered User
 
bence8810's Avatar
 
bence8810 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 39
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by taemo View Post
if you're looking to scan 35mm only my advise is to get a pakon f135+
+1 on the Pakon. I have gotten mine a month or so ago and never looked back. Scans really fast, which is what you need from what I hear!
Quality is decent too!

Ben
__________________
IG
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #12
tommyw
Registered User
 
tommyw is offline
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
For the money I will give it a test and just ordered one... I'm over in the UK so have to wait till earlier December before it comes.

Just seen some blog examples of it looks great!
Do you think you can get away with printing up to A3 at 150dpi?

kanzlr glad to see you have experience with both machines and it's not just me who's not a big fan of it. How did you find the tonal range any better? Or did you just really notice the sharpness?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #13
bence8810
Registered User
 
bence8810's Avatar
 
bence8810 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 39
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyw View Post
For the money I will give it a test and just ordered one... I'm over in the UK so have to wait till earlier December before it comes.

Just seen some blog examples of it looks great!
Do you think you can get away with printing up to A3 at 150dpi?
If you have a FB account, go and search for the Pakon group. Add it in, once the admin accepts you you'll have access to the best source of information on the Pakon. There are about 1000 of us there - all likeminded - all trying to make it work the best way it can.

The Pakon isn't without trouble, you'll need a Windows XP machine or a virtual machine at least but once all sorted, it works great.

Don't know the A3 printing stuff, the group will have better info.

Good luck,
Ben
__________________
IG
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #14
kanzlr
Hexaneur
 
kanzlr's Avatar
 
kanzlr is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vienna (Austria)
Age: 38
Posts: 1,002
I doubt you will be too happy with A3 prints if you examine them closely.
6MP Digicam files never printed that nicely on anything more than A4, if closely inspected.

Maybe somebody owning a Pakon can send you a file for you to print?
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #15
V-12
Registered User
 
V-12 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommyw View Post
Is the Plustek any better when scanning in colour negatives, with no tweaks?
Is the tonal range any better?

I've tried the colorperfect workflow with the v700 but I find it makes my files look bland and brings at the highlights out in the wrong places not sure why?
The Plustek 120 is vastly better than the V700 (which I also have), and especially for 35mm. The problems with the V700 and 35mm are because of the diffuse light source and even with better aftermarket holders you aren't going to get much better than 'average'. A Plustek 8000 series scanner would be ideal if you don't do medium format.

But fundamentally while it is true you need a new scanner for 35mm, you are also trying too hard to get a perfect scan straight out of the scanner. Ideally you want a low contrast scan with no clipping and colour balance that is in the ballpark, but use the much more controllable software of Lightroom or Photoshop to sort out colour balance and contrast etc. A good general guide is here

http://www.johnbcrane.com/blog/2014/...nning-workflow


V
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #16
thompsonks
Registered User
 
thompsonks is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 751
Agree with V. With my Imacon I just try to get the equivalent of a raw file, with low contrast and all data registering from all three channels.

LR, ACR, &/or PS can do a better job than scanning software on all subsequent refinements.

Kirk
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #17
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
I have a Pakon F135, Epson V700, and Nikon Coolscan V ed. The V700 is used for 120 and 4x5 only now.
For 35mm I use the Pakon to preview full rolls and then scan the keepers on the Nikon.
I like the look of the Pakon files on screen and for small prints.... better than the V700 for 35mm!
The Pakon files begin to look flat and dimensionless when printed larger.
They really are limited by their native small size (2000x3000).
A3 might look ok in B+W but for color I think you will be disappointed.
It's a handy tool for preview and saves tons of time not to mention life span of the now discontinued Nikon.
The nikon is a grain level scanner at a true 4000dpi. It's hard to beat for 35mm.

Cheers!
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #18
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,775
I use a V700 and I use a piece of Anti Newton Ring Glass in my stock carrier. It helps immensely with sharpness. Colorwise, I find scanning hard to get the color "just right" in 35mm. I prefer portra 400 and I use Silverfast SE for my scans.





  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #19
dugrant153
Registered User
 
dugrant153 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 106
I've used a few spacers (i.e. pieces of tape) to lift the negative carrier slightly to try to dial in the sharpness on the V700. When dialed in, you'll witness the true power of this battle station!!!!!... I mean, you'll get decent scans on the V700
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #20
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,169
I feel the colour with the Plustek 120 and 8100 is better than that of the V700. Somehow, I could never get decent reds with the Epson unless using EpsonScan.
Resolution is noticeably better.
Pete
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #21
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
The V700 is horrible for 35mm, okay with reservations for 120 and okay for 4x5.

If you do a lot of 35mm, get a Pakon 135+ and you will be amazed. Setup is a pain in the ass, but once running it is a dream. You do a roll in a little over 30 seconds at 3000x2000 with very high quality pixels. Doing 11x14 is no problem from these scans.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-11-2014   #22
bence8810
Registered User
 
bence8810's Avatar
 
bence8810 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 39
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by rolfe View Post
The V700 is horrible for 35mm, okay with reservations for 120 and okay for 4x5.

If you do a lot of 35mm, get a Pakon 135+ and you will be amazed. Setup is a pain in the ass, but once running it is a dream. You do a roll in a little over 30 seconds at 3000x2000 with very high quality pixels. Doing 11x14 is no problem from these scans.
I believe the OP has already ordered the Pakon, which is a good thing.
At the rate they are going now, I might have to buy another one before it's all gone so in case mine goes belly up, i'd have a spare.

Scanning 35mm with the V750 (which I have) was torture. Those flimsy plastic holders etc.

What was said above about the Nikon dedicated 135 scanner is also interesting. If you guys could post a Pakon and a Nikon dedicated scan for comparison, that'd be great!
Although the idea to have 3 scanners is just crazy.

Thanks,
Ben
__________________
IG

Last edited by bence8810 : 11-11-2014 at 16:44. Reason: Typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2014   #23
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
You're confusing DPI with PPI. Scanning 300DPI at the print size is roughly the same thing as scanning at the scanner's resolution (2400 or so) at the negative size.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2014   #24
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by aperture64 View Post
It is roughly the same thing if a negative is scanned at 2400 at 100% or 300dpi to the same output dimensions of the 2400dpi file. But the 2400dpi file is limited in how it can be resized to make a large print, which is not the case when scanning 300dpi to whatever size the print needs to be. You are only limited by the format and the quality of the lens used.
You are mistaken -- there is nothing limiting the 2400ppi file from being resized appropriately. Assuming we're talking the same scanner, the machine is going to be at its optical limit in either case.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2014   #25
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
Again, you are mistaking ppi for dpi. If you check your math, you will see why a 2400 ppi scan of 35mm isn't going to yield more than an 8x12 print at 300 dpi.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-13-2014   #26
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
PPI refers to the scanning resolution. It has to do with the optical resolution of the scanner. It has nothing to do with the ultimate output size. Think of it as the input resolution.

DPI refers to the output resolution, based on what output you want at the given display size. For clarity, screens require 72 DPI while quality prints require 300 DPI.

There is no point in scanning at 300 dpi. You want to scan at the highest scanner resolution at the size of the original. That will give you geatest number of options in making outputs at various sizes. Perhaps you need one for the web, one for print, one for small prints, etc. In essence, the original 16 bit scan becomes the negative, for various outputs depending on the usage.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2014   #27
Pete B
Registered User
 
Pete B's Avatar
 
Pete B is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,169
http://jbhildebrand.com/2012/tutoria...phy/#more-1218
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2014   #28
rolfe
Registered User
 
rolfe's Avatar
 
rolfe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Egremont, MA
Posts: 389
I guess you don't get that the high resolution scans are done at the original size -- 1" x 1 1/2" approximately in the case of 35mm.

I have made my points here and am finished as I have nothing more to add...
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2014   #29
bence8810
Registered User
 
bence8810's Avatar
 
bence8810 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Age: 39
Posts: 754
Did the OP receive the Pakon? Would be interesting to hear how it works out for those big prints.

Ben
__________________
IG
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-14-2014   #30
Fernando2
Registered User
 
Fernando2's Avatar
 
Fernando2 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Rome, Italy
Age: 50
Posts: 260
You obviously miss a lot of points about scanning, despite "scanning from 2000".
That's bad for you.
Just limiting the search to this forum, you can already find so many tests, you could read them for weeks.
So it's in your own interest, that Rolfe and others took the time to explain to you why "scanning at maximum scanner's resolution" is the right thing to do.
But of course you're free to accept the suggestion, or continue to do whatever you think it's the right thing.
Just, please, don't insist trying to persuade us you're right, because that's not the case.

Fernando
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2014   #31
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
Testing my V850 I scanned at lowish res. and had a file 479KB, at top res it was 59.9MB, took a while (from 6x4.5)

On screen and Flickr I can't split them, but zooming in is another matter entirely. I know if I wanted a print which file I would choose.
If I choose top res for all my shots to archive I would soon tire of waiting. I shall scan as appropriate for intended end use ( actually using 2400/3200 files around 2 to 5 MB) but am mindful of the "crud" that accumulates over even a short time in any manipulation of the physical material.
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2014   #32
rjstep3
Registered User
 
rjstep3 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 145
My twopenny worth!

I too did a lot of testing with my V700, scanning 35mm and 120 at everything from 300 to the maximum allowed.

For viewing on screen with something like irfanview, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. For most printing purposes, i.e. printing at postcard size, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference either.

It only becomes important when you start to print at A4 or A3 or when you pixel-peep. What I then discovered was surprising: scanning on the V700 at anything beyond 2400 became "fuzzier", less sharp. You'd think that you would get a better image at 3600, but in practice it didn't work out that way (at least for me). TBH, the difference was negligible, and in printing, invisible, but for pixel-peeping it was just about discernible.

To go back to the OP's question: I have both a V700 and an Opticfilm 120. The Plustek is obviously better - as many have said, it will do 35mm better than a flatbed. Having said which, it costs 4 times as much as a V700. Are the scans 4 times as good? I don't think so: they're better, but not that much better. Plus, the V700 has the advantage of handling batch scanning better if you have a lot to get through - just put 4 strips of 6 on the flatbed and let it cook.

I did go through the process of scanning in my entire collection - 000's of images. It has taken years, and I wouldn't have had the patience to do it with a Plustek 120 or a dedicated film scanner that did strips of 6 or 4 at a time, feeding them through one by one. I am now going through the collection again - scanning using the Plustek 120 for those images where I really need the extra quality, but it's marginal. Far more important IMHO is the photographer's basic skill of shooting a shot that is in focus and sharp, which I'm sad to say is something that obviously eluded me all those years ago when I was starting out using cameras!!!

rjstep3
__________________
The future looks dire, but try to be positive - it's not all black and white, so don't be so negative.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2014   #33
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjstep3 View Post
Plus, the V700 has the advantage of handling batch scanning better if you have a lot to get through - just put 4 strips of 6 on the flatbed and let it cook.
Just for clarity the new V850 holders take three strips of 6, but are more adjustable and rigid and have a clear plastic anti-newton ring insert. So slower on batches because the batch is smaller
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2014   #34
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 51
Posts: 6,258
I Apologize if this page is the mobile version.
http://99designs.com/designer-blog/2...he-difference/Ppi vs Dpi explained quite nicely.
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-15-2014   #35
marameo
Registered User
 
marameo's Avatar
 
marameo is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: The Eternal City
Age: 39
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by aperture64 View Post
This is the second time on this forum I have asked why scanning at max resolution is correct [...]
It is said that a CCD scanner will work at its best only at max (optical) resolution. True opt res is usually lower then max scan res. Tests has shown the only way to force true opt resolution (around 1600 PPI) is to scan at 2400 PPI or above; anything beyond 2400 become "fuzzier", less sharp, as noted in previus post.

I usually scan at 200 dpi for printing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #36
Frankd
Registered User
 
Frankd's Avatar
 
Frankd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 54
Maybe I'm missing something, but I tend to agree with Aperture64. If we need a 12x18 print from a 35mm negative then we can scan at 300 dpi to that 12x18 size, as has already been stated by Aperture64. This print will demand a size of 3600x4800 dpi to be done by the scanner. Our final scanned file will be 3600x4800 at 300dpi.--perfect for a good print.

I think at this size we are at the edges of capability of the v700. For instance a 20 x 30 print would demand a 6000x9000 dpi scan at 300 dpi--way beyond the v700. Here we need a drum scan.

For very large prints I usually have my negatives scanned by my printer and he does it on a drum scanner at 300 dpi to print size.
__________________
Leica M4-2, Rollieflex 3.5F, Panasonic
GX7.
http://www.frankdina.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-23-2014   #37
marameo
Registered User
 
marameo's Avatar
 
marameo is offline
Join Date: May 2014
Location: The Eternal City
Age: 39
Posts: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frankd View Post
[...]For instance a 20 x 30 print would demand a 6000x9000 dpi scan at 300 dpi--way beyond the v700.
It can also demand a 4000x6000 scan for a 200 dpi print. In that case the v700 might be capable of that (scanning 35mm film will leave something to be desired, though).

I'd guess the only way to get round it is to do some tests and comparisons.
  Reply With Quote

Old 11-24-2014   #38
ChrisLivsey
Registered User
 
ChrisLivsey's Avatar
 
ChrisLivsey is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLivsey View Post
Testing my V850 I scanned at lowish res. and had a file 479KB, at top res it was 59.9MB, took a while (from 6x4.5)

On screen and Flickr I can't split them
Quoting myself my findings agree, there is a "sweet" point beyond which the gain in quality, if at all, is academic and out of proportion to the file size and time to generate it.

I am finding the flatbed tends to emphasise the dust and muck on the negative in comparison to the Epson 8100 I have. The 8100 does struggle with a contact sheet though
__________________
Fishing for shadows in a pool.
Louis Macneice

http://www.flickr.com/photos/red_eyes_man/
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 00:36.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.