lf-photo.org.uk

I have the Epson V750, and have finally given up on achieving a scan that I find acceptable. I have tried the wet mount kit from Epson, and the ScanScience kit from the US. It really does seem pointless to shoot 4x5 with quality lenses, only to take 2 steps back on the next critical process on the way to achieving the end result.
So, a photographer friend on the Isle Of Wight has recommended a place in Brighton, but they want £30 for a scan to print up to A2 size.
If anyone here has the time to spare for the odd scan, any figure below the above would obviously be acceptable.

Stu.

I have been having good success with my V700. Do you fancy sending me a tranny to see if my standards meet your expectations ?

If the place in Brighton is Spectrum, they have an ICG369, which is a very nice scanner indeed. However, as you've discovered, you have to pay for that kind of quality

I also have the V750 and gave up, and bought a drum scanner of my own, as sending any numbers of trannies out wasn't cost effective. It's not the best one in the world, but it's pretty damned good and I'm chuffed to bits with it.

If you just have the odd scan or two you need for something critical coming up, I don't mind doing the odd couple for you, just bung me a couple of quid for materials ( tape, wipes, acetate, cleaner, mounting fluid etc ). Unfortunately I'm not in a position to commit to doing any numbers due to other commitments.

If you like, you can send me one you've tried with your V750 and I'll scan it so you can compare, I warn you tho, you'll want one.

A kind offer Joanna, but i'm pretty happy with my technique, and my friend on the Island has told me the same as the drum scanning fraternity here; once you see the comparisons for yourself, there simply is no comparison. I think DJ's results that he posted here say all there is to say. Thanks again,

Stu.

FWIW - I think the Epson high end flatbed scanners are very good for the level they're priced at. To think that they are comparable in quality to dedicated consumer level film scanners is quite an achievement, given that the dedicated scanners can focus and the flatbeds are fixed ( and do vary from unit to unit ).

Unfortunately us weirdos ( and I mean you ) who insist on shooting BIG film don't have many options on the film scanner front, as the dedicated ones are very expensive, and will usually only take 35mm or medium format if you really flex the credit card. For us a reasonably priced scanner means we only have flatbeds to choose from, and the very nature of a flatbed causes problems with film ( flare, plane of focus ).

I take my hat off to Epson for the wet-mounting kit for the V750, that's a pretty bold move when you think about it. To have come up with something like that, let alone put it into production is I think an indication that Epson are seeing a big demand for high quality (large) film scanning, and although it was bold, it was a bit rushed, and not really as effective as it could have been. Considering the effort Epson has put into the V700 and V750 for film scanning ( dual lens system, minimising reflection, wet mount kit ) I think the next generation of scanners from Epson could be pretty special.

chipper wrote:A kind offer Joanna, but i'm pretty happy with my technique, and my friend on the Island has told me the same as the drum scanning fraternity here; once you see the comparisons for yourself, there simply is no comparison. I think DJ's results that he posted here say all there is to say

I am curious as to why you feel you need more detail, or is it the lack of DMax that leaves blocked shadows ? I have experimented with using a gamma of 2.4 instead of 2.2 and this has significantly improved the detail in shadow areas and adjusting the height of the film holder has improved sharpness.

I would agree that a drum scanner can produce better results still but, for prints up to A2, I find the quality of the V700 scans to be more than satisfactory. Just how big do you plan on printing your pics

Not quite sure what you're saying here Joanna. All I have to do is to look at DJ's comparisons between the Howtek and the Epson to see a massive difference in every department. I recently heard someone describe a scan from the Epson as appearing to have a 'film' over it, and that for me sums it up.

I would be interested to know how DJ set up the Epson for that comparison because I have found ways to improve on the "default" setup, which might affect such a comparison

I agree that increasing the gamma setting can 'bring out' more detail, especially in the shadows, but the overall sharpness, contrast and clarity is surely another matter.

I think we've been through this before...

At the risk of being labelled as terribly sad (again) for the lengths I go to to get the best from these scanners ( I'm not one for doing things by halves... and I'm certainly not one for relying on "defaults" )....

In setting up the Epson for my comparison, I went above and beyond what most people would bother trying. First the obvious things like flipping the risers around was easy, yes it does help, but not by much, and will vary from scanner to scanner.

Second was the wet-mount system. When the transparencies are mounted in fluid their transmissive quality increases noticeably, it also fills in scratches and reduces visible grain, this along with the fact it eliminates Newton rings is why wet-mounting is done for most high end scanning. Wet mounting to glass for flatbeds also ensures that the film is totally flat, which is very hard to achieve in the supplied holder. I used the Epson wet-mount adaptor, and wasn't that impressed by the results, so I then fluid mounted the transparency to the underside of the adaptor, therefore removing the extra glass from the path between film and sensor. I then used a series of shims from 0.5mm to 2.0mm to work out the optimum focus point on the Epson ( mine was 1.75mm ) and tried again. Basically, the Epson was given every opportunity to shine, to perform to the optimum of it's ability, I can't think of any other advantage I could have given, if anyone else can think of something which would have improved the sharpness of the scans, I'd be glad to hear of it.

Remember also that the V750 has better optics than the V700, which aside from bundled software is pretty much the only difference between them and supposedly where the extra 200 quid goes.

What I discovered was that ( unlike the 4990 ) there wasn't such a huge difference between the dry scan in the holder, and the wet-mounted scan ( even with the enhanced method ). Yes it was slightly sharper and clearer, but there wasn't a huge amount in it, which means the improved holders for the V700/750 are much better than the 4990 ones I tested before.

The scan in my comparison that I posted here was done dry in the holder. I do have others using the wet mount methods described above, but the difference is just as apparent.

Adjusting the Gamma in the scanner software will just apply a different software translation curve to the data that's received from the hardware, it's identical to opening the scan in Photoshop and moving the middle (gamma) point in the Levels tool. You're effectively just altering the data, it won't make the hardware see any more shadow detail, just make the shadow detail it did pick up appear lighter.

In light of Joanna's generous offer to do a scan for Chipper, I'll reciprocate. Joanna if you would like to scan a chrome of your choice with your V700 and post it to me, I'll do you a drum scan and send it back with disc, then you can compare for yourself. If nothing else it will be an interesting comparison for you, and will also give you the opportunity to print the drum scan with your system and decide if you can see the extra detail, I know on mine the fine detail is incredible with the drum scans.

This is all very interesting. My drum scanner is still siting on the bench not being used because I am waiting for a replacement apple. I have decided to take up an offer from Steve Bell for a re-conditioned G4. This means that I can keep the existing software. I will let you know what I think about the scan quality in due course.