Now that I give another thought, it recalls to mind that ancient artist, who had never seen rhinoceros, however, he painted a description, and it was uncanny! Who was it, Dur something? I'll oogle it...brb
a.RodriguezPix wrote:
Now that I give another thought, it recalls to mind that ancient artist, who had never seen rhinoceros, however, he painted a description, and it was uncanny! Who was it, Dur something? I'll oogle it...brb
Dürer's Rhinoceros!
Jon Buffington wrote:
someone on here turned me onto the kodak pakon f135+. I am finally getting 35mm scans that I am happy with. Add to that I can scan a roll in less than 3 minutes. You can find them used for 250 from AAA imaging (over 10k when they were new). I highly recommend for those on here shooting 35mm negative and B&W to go this route. I am finding I am shooting primarily film now with very little digital. The scans are 6mp scans which are giving me much more useable resolution than I was getting on a 4800dpi flatbed scan. Scans are clean too. Great facebook group to answer all questions needed (the software is finicky and only runs on XP or vmware with XP)....Show more →
GoranPhoto wrote:
Anyone try digitizing their film using a DSLR? I've seen a few "how-to" articles around the web, but would like to hear what the results are like from someone who has actually done it.
I have done it but for me its a lot of work to set up each time just to do it, and I get about the same quality. As I would scan with my V600 minus some slight sharpness but some sharpening does the trick. Again I think it might be better with 35mm with the same aspect ratio. This is with 120 at the 67 aspect ratio so it is even harder, in someways for me.
Another thing for me was trying to get the colors correct, which was hard not sure if I was using a wrong light or something but too much work. As been noted before the V600 doesn't do 35mm well at all, I have a lot of degrading in IQ. If you just have that format I would get one that works just for 35mm.
are there any dedicated film scanners available nowadays that don't cost an arm and a leg?
someone mentioned that kodak one, but it's so old you apparently have to run XP, which isn't going to be happening for me any time soon. all the nikon coolscan ones cost like 2 g's used, it's insane.
so these are better than flatbeds? i've seen them on amazon but i'd never heard of the name and there aren't a lot of reviews, so i'd just kind of written them off.
if they're really that much better than a flatbed i could definitely swing $350
I personally have a minolta scan dual III and an Epson 4490, and the scan dual 3 is far better for 35. the plusteks are better than the minolta in iq but not convenience.
Yes, they are but I believe they are only for 35mm, so if you shoot medium format or larger then a flatbed would be preferable. Until you go into the super expensive range...
nWmR12 wrote:
Yes, they are but I believe they are only for 35mm, so if you shoot medium format or larger then a flatbed would be preferable. Until you go into the super expensive range...
Plustek makes a 120 film scanner as well. They are pricey though at $2000.
You can run win7 or mac os running vmware for the kodak pakon. Little tricky initially setting up but once it is running it is rock solid. Feed it whole uncut film strips and let it rip! Flies through, files look great on their own. This was a mini lab scanner in it's previous life. My flatbed is now in the attic and I haven't touched MF film since last year.
From a day long road trip last month, cheap gold200, canon ae-1 with 50/1.8 and a vivitar 135/2.5. Walgreens processed, kodak pakon f-135+ scanned.
clay23 wrote:
What are you guys using to scan? I find that i only get an acceptable scan every once in a while. Im using an epson v500 without the film holders, and scanning at the hightest dpi possible. Sometimes i just cannot get a sharp scan, even when using the film holders. and yes, thats on film i know is in focus haha
There's absolutely no reason to scan at the highest DPI possible. The actual maximal DPI density on a V500 is close to 2400, and I just use 1600 for speed and space purposes. I have printed 16x16 prints from those scans, and if I ever needed anything bigger, I'd send the negs out to be drum scanned.
Here is a sample, and a 100%
That being said, some V500's are better than others- I had a friend who had one that was incapable of giving him sharp scans, and he ended up returning it. It also depends on the film size you use- 1600 works for 6x6, but probably not for 35mm.
Lovesong wrote:
That being said, some V500's are better than others- I had a friend who had one that was incapable of giving him sharp scans, and he ended up returning it. It also depends on the film size you use- 1600 works for 6x6, but probably not for 35mm.
Are you using the epson scan or vuescan? You got a nice scan there, the detail is fantastic.
Jon Buffington wrote:
Are you using the epson scan or vuescan? You got a nice scan there, the detail is fantastic.
I've used Vuescan for almost a decade, and it's always been a love/hate relationship. I like the manual controls you have, but just never was quite happy with the final results.
When I had Coolscans I used SilverFast, which was great.
With the v500, I find I get the most out of my negs with Epson Scan. I just try to capture as much of my histogram as I can, and do all my dust removal/sharpening/color corrections in PS.
For what it's worth, I use Vue Scan for my color work.
For color negs, I scan to RAW as a positive, process w/Color Neg as a plugin in P/S.
Gives me the most lattitude in getting the WB, color right.
