• Film! Who still uses it?
    2,511 replies, posted
Anyone willing to share their workflow using a Epson v500? I'm planning on getting one and planning on starting to be less dependent on labs to do development and scanning.
[QUOTE=Highwind;33302843]Anyone willing to share their workflow using a Epson v500? I'm planning on getting one and planning on starting to be less dependent on labs to do development and scanning.[/QUOTE] I'll write mine up tomorrow for you (and my OP); I explained it to pickwickian earlier this evening.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;33302931]I'll write mine up tomorrow for you (and my OP); I explained it to pickwickian earlier this evening.[/QUOTE] Super! I've tried to scan my negs with a Canon scanner we have here and a big unknown brand trey scanner in University and they always come out extremely shitty. Not sure if it's me or the scanners. The drivers/software is pretty bad. One thirds of the app is in english, another third in french and the rest in spanish. I have no idea how that can happen. I've had all three languages in one window.
This is probably a dumb habit of mine, but I keep hoping I will come across a nice medium format camera on ebay that some guy got from his granddad and doesn't know the value of and just wants to get rid of it. Meh, one can hope
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;33304778]This is probably a dumb habit of mine, but I keep hoping I will come across a nice medium format camera on ebay that some guy got from his granddad and doesn't know the value of and just wants to get rid of it. Meh, one can hope[/QUOTE] You're better of finding one in a shop, yard sale, estate sale, etc...
[QUOTE=FalseLogic;33305439]You're better of finding one in a shop, yard sale, estate sale, etc...[/QUOTE] Yeah, on ebay it's gonna get sniped by like a million people with scripts at the same time.
My birthday's comin' up and I'm looking for a good but not costly film scanner (that can hopefully handle 120 film) to recommend to my dad, any suggestions?
v500. everyone has one.
looked into it and compared with dedicated negative scanners, holy hell why is this so awesome for so cheap
is £140.00 or $200 AUS or £220 US a good price for the v500?
I paid $200 USD at STAPLES for mine, though you can find them hovering around $150 USD at places like BH. Not sure if you can get that same price with UK retailers.
amazon.com has it on sale for $144 new, or $135 refurbished. :dance:
How different does film look scanned than on the actual film?
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33321792]amazon.com has it on sale for $144 new, or $135 refurbished. :dance:[/QUOTE] Thats so much cheaper! Why is it more expensive here in the UK!
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;33322372]Thats so much cheaper! Why is it more expensive here in the UK![/QUOTE] it's like someone goofed up the pricing and just changed the $ to a £ can you order via .com instead of .uk and get the price difference, or maybe contact support and ask about it. If it's a mistake and no one's bothered to call in about it, it could just keep sucking people's money.
[QUOTE=daijitsu;33322423]it's like someone goofed up the pricing and just changed the $ to a £ can you order via .com instead of .uk and get the price difference, or maybe contact support and ask about it. If it's a mistake and no one's bothered to call in about it, it could just keep sucking people's money.[/QUOTE] Well they'll charge me the difference in shipping, and its not a matter of a mistake. The price for a v500 in the UK is anywhere from £140 to £200 no matter where you search
could be an issue of import costs then, not sure what to tell ya
so is the v500 for scanning negatives or like 4x6s? because the main thing holding me back from doing film photography (other than 1/1000 shutter speed on my camera) is the price it costs to get film processed. developing it is cheap, but getting the 4x6's or the image CD (which are god awful) costs at least $12-15
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33321880]How different does film look scanned than on the actual film?[/QUOTE] that's a horridly worded question, but I assume you're comparing the prints to the negatives. In that case the difference is huge, it's as if you're working with RAW files, but even better. [editline]18th November 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Trogdon;33323764]so is the v500 for scanning negatives or like 4x6s? because the main thing holding me back from doing film photography (other than 1/1000 shutter speed on my camera) is the price it costs to get film processed. developing it is cheap, but getting the 4x6's or the image CD (which are god awful) costs at least $12-15[/QUOTE] yes, negatives.
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;33323924]that's a horridly worded question, but I assume you're comparing the prints to the negatives. In that case the difference is huge, it's as if you're working with RAW files, but even better. [editline]18th November 2011[/editline] yes, negatives.[/QUOTE] That's what I meant, it was badly worded. I meant in terms of the colour, dynamic range, etc.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;33323946]That's what I meant, it was badly worded. I meant in terms of the colour, dynamic range, etc.[/QUOTE] you control the colours, only limited by the type of film, and you get the 6~9 stops of tonal range that film produces.
it seems that california's prop 65 forces amazon to warn about the dangers of the v500: [release]California Proposition 65 Attention California Residents: California's Proposition 65 entitles California consumers to special warnings for products that contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm if those products expose consumers to such chemicals above certain threshold levels. We care about our customers' safety and hope that the information below helps with your buying decisions. The general Proposition 65 notice is as follows: WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.[/release] wow, the warning that you're about to be warned is not only bigger than the warning, but details it word for word already
[i]Late, and slightly straying from the question at hand.[/i] Generally, one should try to only make reproductions directly from the negatives, and not reproduce reproductions. + Making prints from negatives projected on to photographic paper will produce great results. + Making digital scans from negatives to share on the internet, and stay digital, is great. - Making prints from digital scans is not as good as printing straight from the negs. - Making digital scans from photographic prints is not as good as scanning the negs.
Please forgive for expressing my opinion, but i don't get what is so good about the Epson V500. I had a Canon 9000F that should be almost the same, but was heavily dissapointed about the image quality from it. Okay, maybe for scanning 120 film it's better ( i still doubt about that too, but yeah, it's way cheaper than going dedicated), but as far my experience with 35mm goes (and i scanned with a Epson V750, Canon 4400F, 9000F and the Coolscan III), you are way better of with a dedicated negative scanner. Even a Nikon Coolscan III is better than any recent flatbed scanner (ok, it has some more noise in the dark areas of the image, but the image quality is way better or it at least matches the V750 Pro). Just for comparison, here is a 1:1 comparison with the 9000F on the left side and the Coolscan III on the left side. Settings for the scanners were 4800DPI on the 9000F and 2700DPI on the Coolscan III. For the coolscan it's a 1:1 crop; for the 9000F a 2:1 crop to make the image look the same. I didn't turn on ICE on the coolscan, that's why it's somewhat dustier. Also please click on it and watch the original version for best comparison. Film used is AGFA Vista 200. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/6344922284/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6100/6344922284_3b53f82116_b.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/leevmeister/6344922284/]Detail comparison 9000F vs CoolscanIII[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/leevmeister/]Leevmeister[/url], on Flickr And the price of the Coolscan III is about 100 usd or 100 euro for a set with the scsi card and cable it needs, and you can use it even under Win 7 64 bit with Vuescan (which i consider is better than the crappy Epson Scan utility or Canon Scangear toolbox, and i have also used those). I'm not mentioning Silverfast, but everyone knows that that software is awesome, but i don't really like the license model that i have to buy a license for every individual scanner plus that it is damn expensive.. Price-quality wise, there is no better deal than this old beast from 1999. I know some people might disagree with me, but this is just my point of view on this case :) EDIT: I didn't know my own experience is dumb? Disagree i can understand, but what is dumb about this post? At least try to compose a reaction before rating this dumb. Yes Un-Men, please do explain.
you need to put a fair bit of effort into scanning with a flatbed, the negs have to be totally flat as the sensor has no auto focus, I think that's 70%+ the difference you can see there.
I storage my negatives flat in a book, and took it out to scan it, as i have scanned this particular roll of film more than 1 times with the scanner. (in fact, i have used all the scanners i named before to scan this roll). So in this case you are wrong, because i know i need to have flat negatives to get the best results. (and the 9000F filmholder does a good job keeping the negatives flat) Maybe putting the film on the glass itself could have improved the image quality, but not considerable. I believe you buy a scanner that it scans the way they sell it to you (with the filmholders and such), and you don't need to do tricks like putting your negatives on the glass of the scanner, that's no what i paid for! (imho) Ok flat negatives are fair enough, but i DID THAT with my 9000F, and couldn't get ANY tacksharp result from it... Maybe this is a production fault of the canon 9000F, and maybe that's the point the V500 could be better, but that thing could sure also would have problems in terms of image sharpness. I would love to test out a V500 to see if i can get something sharp from it (it's cheaper than the Canon 9000F at the moment, costing 150 euros), and i'm sure it could do that very thing But still it won't be possible to beat the good old Nikon Coolscan III that even is cheaper (okay it's second hand vs new, but the thing that matters to me is image quality). Please do tell me what is so good about the V500 again, because i would really like to know a answer to that because that was my statement in the first place?
Un-Men, since when is sharing experience considered dumb? I know you might not agree on my opinion on this, but then you could rate it with a disagree. Please do explain. Sorry for the off-topic to everyone else.
read this [url]http://betterscanning.com/[/url]
Just bought 2 rolls of Velvia 50 for Hawaii, mmmmmmmmmm.
~big spender~
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.