dswiger wrote:
Tom,
I've considered a DSLR approach but settled on a good flatbed.
I use an Epson 4990, the predecessor to the v700 series.
They are maybe $300 max on Ebay & there are a few much less.
Now that the v800 series is out, the v700 series have dropped significantly
I have friends that get good results with v600 models too.
Used with BetterScanning holders, they are pretty easy to use.
I think you've seen my postings, the results are more than acceptable.
I do 35mm up to 4x5.
Not meant as a counter argument as I just consider these things just tools.
Dan
The V800 is same as V700 in the hardware spec. FYI, Espon screwed up the measurement of their film holder on the V800. They make it too small to fit a standard 120 film. hehehehehe.....
Yea, whatever works for you depending on your budget and preference. V600 is OK but don't expect to get good results with 35mm. I used to own a Canon 9000f, equivalent to the V600. Is meh...with 35mm. 800 pixel resolution is ok but anything larger than that, you can clearly see the poor resolution and detail quality.
Shooting a 120 negative with a DSLR is way faster than a scanner. I have an Epson 750 and using my D800E with a macro lens is a lot faster. I shoot a roll at a time without cutting it and use a soft box behind the negative. For a holder I use a 120 film holder from an old scanner and pull the film through the holder. Also the Epson scans streaks in backgrounds that have no contrast, I am not happy with the Epson.
I figure if the pic is great I'll send it out and get it professionally scanned, so far I have not had to worry about this.
If you are going to go the DSLR Scanner route I would get in order of DR Sony A7R2, Nikon D810 or D800E
Steve464 wrote:
Shooting a 120 negative with a DSLR is way faster than a scanner. I have an Epson 750 and using my D800E with a macro lens is a lot faster. I shoot a roll at a time without cutting it and use a soft box behind the negative. For a holder I use a 120 film holder from an old scanner and pull the film through the holder. Also the Epson scans streaks in backgrounds that have no contrast, I am not happy with the Epson.
I figure if the pic is great I'll send it out and get it professionally scanned, so far I have not had to worry about this.
If you are going to go the DSLR Scanner route I would get in order of DR Sony A7R2, Nikon D810 or D800E ...Show more →
Steve, I have accumulated a few pieces for a DSLR setup & may put it together with my A7R. Unfortunately dont have a macro lens at this time..
My old 4990 seems to do a clean job at scans, but it is slow
Thank you kwoodard and TooManyShots for your PM's and replies in this forum! I just bought VueScan no more than 10 minutes ago and am about to search for the ColorPerfect plugin.
Alright! I used VueScan and ColorPerfect to scan and PP the previously posted image myself. My previous post was from the local camera shop scan. The colors look more natural and real to my eye when I was there. I'm liking the ease of scanning with VueScan and I'm equally impressed with ColorPerfect. I'll experiment more with another roll soon. This time, I'll shoot the ASA 400 rated film at 400 and not 200 (which I did on purpose previously, which would explain the increase in noise/grain).
A few from a flying air museum visit. Toyo 4x5, Fuji Acros in Rodinal
A little disappointed how these came out. The skies were a little blotchy & required P/S work
On closer examination, it appears to be light leaks when using the quickload back.
At least that's what it appears to be on all the QL shots.
Also the Fuji QL shots had what looked like water spots but I used Photoflo as usual.
I'm suspecting that some condensation formed when the film fridge got too much moisture.
This shot I did w/Ilford Delta didn't have any such issues.
Dave, you do realize in the 1st shot, it looks like a mushroom cloud in the distance!
I like the way the color turned out. I really need to get a C-41 chem/kit
dswiger wrote:
Dave, you do realize in the 1st shot, it looks like a mushroom cloud in the distance!
I like the way the color turned out. I really need to get a C-41 chem/kit
Dan
Yep! I saw that storm developing and jumped out of the car to take the picture with the anvil cloud in the background...too perfect to pass up. Later that day, that storm dumped rain and 1" hail on us.
This is a display in Boise City, Oklahoma at the site where US forces accidentally dropped a bomb on the city in 1943 during a training mission. Fortunately, it was a training weapon and no one was injured.
I'm glad you like the color, I had to a bit more post-processing to get things right this time. I think I got the developer a little too hot for this roll.
Andrew Welsh wrote:
Astrodave rockin' the large dob I like your portrait too.
Thanks! Not my scopes, but I thought the crazy-feathered-custom-wood dob was pretty cool outside that retro trailer. Taken at the Okie-Tex star party near Kenton, OK.
Right here, just now catching up on posts. Been super busy the last month. Long hours of work, trying to finish up a masters program at night coupled with several family crisis/emergencies and trying to finish up images from my step daughters wedding (I gave them my services and used the opportunity to shoot lots of film since I usually shoot weddings in digital). But don't worry, I have tons and tons of film to go through and share on here. Plus, headed for a 4th trip to Big Bend National Park in 2 weeks and plan on burning through lots of ektar, velvia, tmax and delta. I will try and post some stuff tonight. I have been avoiding this thread because I enjoy it so much and have not been able to satisfy my photographic outlets like I would like to.
To follow up on scanner discussion. I am now convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that for 35mm scanning to be worthwhile, a dedicated minilab scanner (Pakon, noritsu, frontier, etc) is the only way. Too many reasons to list not least of which is speed and baked in color profiles for (most) negative films. For medium format, flatbed is passible but flatbed scanning is so damn tedious. If I go back to MF, it will be with minilab scanner that scans both 35mm and MF (my pakon only scans 35mm). Anyone want to sell me one?
TooManyShots wrote:
The V800 is same as V700 in the hardware spec. FYI, Espon screwed up the measurement of their film holder on the V800. They make it too small to fit a standard 120 film. hehehehehe.....
Yea, whatever works for you depending on your budget and preference. V600 is OK but don't expect to get good results with 35mm. I used to own a Canon 9000f, equivalent to the V600. Is meh...with 35mm. 800 pixel resolution is ok but anything larger than that, you can clearly see the poor resolution and detail quality.
If you like 120 film and enjoy the epson scanner line, lomography makes a "digitaliza", its a film holder specifically designed for those models and vastly superior to Epsons own. It also uses magnets to keep the film flat.
Epson makes the worst film holders on the planet, its almost a joke trying to get a scan from one.
taran wrote:
If you like 120 film and enjoy the epson scanner line, lomography makes a "digitaliza", its a film holder specifically designed for those models and vastly superior to Epsons own. It also uses magnets to keep the film flat.
Epson makes the worst film holders on the planet, its almost a joke trying to get a scan from one.
When I was still scanning with a flatbed scanner. this is how I did it. No film holder. Just sandwich the negative in between two pieces of glass, the scanner glass and a anti reflective glass or ANR glass...
It works great. Emulsion facing down and the shinny side facing up. No newton rings because of the anti reflective glass. This works because the sharpest point of my Canon 9000f is at the scanner glass. Many of the Epson scanners are at about 1mm above the scanner glass. So, you need a variable height adjust holder for it. I think Betterscanning.com film holder are the best..and is not cheap either. http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/models/vseries.html
A shot from few years go and taken with a Mamiya c330, scanned with the Canon 9000f.
Shot this few years ago with the Mamiya RZ67 Portra 400. The larger the format==negative, the better the scan quality on the flatbed scanner. This was scanned with the Canon 9000f.
Now, I remember why I sold my Canon 9000f. The scanner eventually developed the banding effect and it became very noticeable anywhere on the negative with an uniform color, like the sky. It got so bad that I had to create a separate mask in CS5 in order to even out the texture. Before, the scanner could never render the sky or anywhere with an uniform tone smoothly and clearly. You would see lines. I guess at certain points, the sensor was giving out and the lines got so bad. I sold the scanner later. And to fix these lines, I had to mask the section in CS5 and to apply some smoothening.
I'll experiment more with another roll soon. This time, I'll shoot the ASA 400 rated film at 400 and not 200 (which I did on purpose previously, which would explain the increase in noise/grain).
I like your portrait too.
