 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2006Medium format slides and the Epson V750
I just got an Epson V750 and it's a great thing to finally be able to bring my slides and negatives into the digital world. I was able to play with the scanner last night for a little bit. The online reviews and opinions about setting the negative and slide carriers to a height of 3.5mm was really on the money. It made a WORLD OF DIFFERENCE when it came to sharpness. That said, I did the usual unsharpening of an image once I scanned it in. I adjusted the contrast and such and everything looked great. When it was time to print I reduced my print down to 600dpi (my dye-sub printer's resolution) and printed it. The print looked fantastic, but for some reason it was missing something. I looked at the print, then the slide and I noticed what was missing was the usual "punch" that I was used to seeing with medium format prints. The color and contrast was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. However, all that got me thinking. I took all this trouble to shoot medium format, expecting a very, very sharp image with exceptional tonality yet here I am scanning and printing it on my computer only to get images that are equal to a digital picture that could have been taken with a 6mp P/S camera. I'm wondering if it's even worth shooting medium anymore if digital scanning and printing will just drop it down to mere "mortal" levels? I know my optical printing will yield an exceptional photo, but that's cumbersome at times when my darkroom isn't set up. What do you guys think? Nathan >was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess >it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the >print looked sharp, but compared to the slide it was lacking. I'm >assuming it might be the flatbed limitations I'm looking at. No print is ever going to compare to a transparency. Ever. Transparencies on a light table are viewed by transmitted light. Prints are viewed from reflected light. What's captured on the slide, what your eye sees, what the scanner captures, and what the printer produces are all different color spaces. It's impossible for one to look exactly like the other. Transparencies are the pure image - right from the film to your eye. Prints are influenced by the enlarging method (whether optical or scanned), printing method (printer vs. photochemical, halftoning vs. continuous tone, dye ink vs. pigment ink), and the paper (glossy, matte, paper color and reflectivity). A slide through a loupe fills the ocular viewfield, yet is a relatively low magnification factor. A print is several times that, at least. The experiences are totally different. And, honestly, at 8x10 sizes, you're not going to see a lot of difference between a good digital capture and a scanned piece of film. What medium format gives you is a tremendous freedom to crop and still produce excellent enlargements, and to produce sharp enlargements well beyond where 35mm and standard digital capture start to fall apart.  SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net Thanks for the great reply. Of course it all makes sense. I think what I'm used to seeing is something that just tosses me back and say "wow, that's definitely medium format." Instead the reaction I got was "huh, it looks like another picture." I might be expecting too much, but I just have this feeling that the Nikon 9000ED would give me a sharper image. The V750 gave a lot of sharpness and detail, even with 35mm, but as with a lot of things I'm not sure how it compares with the 9000ED. It's the ol' "the grass is always greener" syndrome. > >was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess > >it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org > Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net SNIP > I might be expecting too much, but I just have this feeling that the > Nikon 9000ED would give me a sharper image. The V750 gave a > lot of sharpness and detail, even with 35mm, but as with a lot of > things I'm not sure how it compares with the 9000ED. It's the ol' > "the grass is> always greener" syndrome. You can compare your output with some other scanners at: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> SignatureBart I just printed a larger print of one negative I scanned and you know, I must have been on drugs or something (more like lack of sleep). I wish I could post the full size file so you can see the details in the photo of the Alaskan glaciers. The print I made is as sharp as I could expect. The detail in the dark rock, the bright snow, and inbetween are nothing less than outstanding. I can see the individual tiny bits of ice as it falls off the cliff. I guess my original post was wrong in that the tonality and sharpness is definitely there. So, medium format and this scanner is great. I did scan a 35mm slide that I took at night and the scan came out really sharp. The completely black areas didn't have any digital noise which makes me happy. So overall this scanner gets a thumbs up. >>was right on target. The brightness and dynamic range was fine. I guess >>it was the sharpness and tonality that wasn't quite there. Granted the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > enlargements, and to produce sharp enlargements well beyond where 35mm > and standard digital capture start to fall apart. > I just printed a larger print of one negative I scanned and you know, I must > have been on drugs or something (more like lack of sleep). I wish I could > post the full size file so you can see the details in the photo of the > Alaskan glaciers. You can post it like this, first the full view scaled way down in size http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799816/original There is a bird in the black square, can you make him out? Then we zoom in some more. http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799852/original Now you can see the bird, but not make out that it is a bird, the white speck in the black square. Now we zoom in 100% http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799859/original Now we can at last make out that there is a brid there. Scott Here are examples of what I've been talking about. The original slide was on Kodak E100, scanned on an Epson V750M at 4800dpi. Here's an image of the photo I was talking about. Check out all the bare rocks. 20 years ago it was covered in ice and snow. Thanks to global warming and other factors we can now go rock climbing: http://aycu07.webshots.com/image/566/2004815967261734301_rs.jpg Getting closer to the main ice-falls: http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/1360/2004818640585618764_rs.jpg Finally, up close and personal: http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/3113/2004887413056919432_rs.jpg > Here are examples of what I've been talking about. The original slide was on > Kodak E100, scanned on an Epson V750M at 4800dpi. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Finally, up close and personal: > http://aycu34.webshots.com/image/3113/2004887413056919432_rs.jpg They look good to my eye, I would be interested in seeing a snip from a 35mm scan. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > They look good to my eye, I would be interested in seeing a snip from a > 35mm scan. Here you go. Scanned at 6400dpi, but reduced way down to 300: http://aycu27.webshots.com/image/186/2001391157363601259_rs.jpg A little closer shot. Notice the details within the structure. http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/3242/2001357196596724085_rs.jpg > A little closer shot. Notice the details within the structure. > > http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/3242/2001357196596724085_rs.jpg Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native 6400 resolution. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > > A little closer shot. Notice the details within the structure. > > > > http://aycu03.webshots.com/image/3242/2001357196596724085_rs.jpg > > Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native > 6400 resolution. Unfortunately I saved it after converting it to 600dpi. I don't have the 6400dpi version anymore and the slide was thrown back into the pile. I'll try another slide later this weekend. > > > A little closer shot. Notice the details within the structure. > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the 6400dpi version anymore and the slide was thrown back into the > pile. I'll try another slide later this weekend. That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm compared to my older 2450. Thanks SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to > it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm > compared to my older 2450. Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may have it. > > That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to > > it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm > > compared to my older 2450. > > Is there a certain type of subject matter you'd like me to scan? I may > have it. I think Architecture is best, will show a sharp edge if it can begotten with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything like that on 100 speed film all the better. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008 with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E. The scan was done at 6400dpi with a USM of 170% at 1.9 radius. I didn't get rid of the dust or anything. I dropped the resolution to 300dpi. 2400dpi is just too big of a file to upload to the free upload website. full building http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/3855/2001420453669765625_rs.jpg zoomed 100% http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/2001470292031539155_rs.jpg >> > That would be cool too...just give an overall low res reference next to >> > it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything > like that on 100 speed film all the better. Noise Ninja would help your scans. regards, > The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008 > with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>with the scanner. Just let us know the film type. If you have anything >>like that on 100 speed film all the better. > Noise Ninja would help your scans. 'Noise Ninja' or 'Neat Image' should be in everybody's toolkit, especially when scanning film. Here is an example from an earlier version of Neat Image: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5400-2.htm> Current versions are even better and much faster. Noise reduction even makes a lot of sense when down-sampling, because it will avoid noise- and grain-aliasing. For the best quality scans, scan at the scanner's native resolution, reduce noise/graininess, and use proper (!) down-sampling (if the resolution isn't there or you need a smaller version). SignatureBart > For the best quality scans, scan at the scanner's native resolution, > reduce noise/graininess, and use proper (!) down-sampling (if the > resolution isn't there or you need a smaller version). > > -- > Bart Bart, can you elaborate on "proper" down-sampling? Thanks, Roger SNIP > Bart, can you elaborate on "proper" down-sampling? Most applications use improper down-sampling, in the sense that they do not apply a low-pass filter which removes the fine detail that cannot be represented in the smaller image size. That omission will therefore in most cases lead to aliasing artifacts. This is a test done with an artificial image to demonstrate the effects: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm> and this is how it can manifest itself on a film scan: <http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/down_sample/example1.htm> . SignatureBart > The film type is Kodachrome 64. The camera was probably a Nikon FE or N8008 > with either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 75-150 Series E. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > zoomed 100% > http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/80/2001470292031539155_rs.jpg Thanks for the effort. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> > Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native >> > 6400 resolution. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it,...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm > compared to my older 2450. What I'd also like to see is 6400 downsampled to 2400 ppi. If you downsample Nikon 8000 scans to 2400 ppi, the look _gorgeous_ and support an 8x enlargement quite reasonably. The nice thing about 6400 is that you can noise reduce at that resolution without losing the detail at 2400 ppi. Of course, the last time I hit a 4000 ppi scan of 645 with NeatImage, it took half an hour. Since then, NeatImage claims to have gotten twice as fast, and my PC has gotten twice as fast as well. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > >> > Can you take a snip 1x1" from the middle column, post it at the native > >> > 6400 resolution. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to replace the 9000. What do you think? SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com > I have heard murmurs that Nikon may be coming out with a new scanner to > replace the 9000. What do you think? I think it's unlikely. But then I think the 8000 and 9000 themselves are unlikely (since Nikon doesn't make any MF cameras). If they do, I'd like it to be 4800 ppi with an anti-aliasing filter on the CCD (so negative scans don't look so ugly), a light source three times as bright and a lens one f stop slower (for better DOF). Now that would be one nice scanner; you'd scan at 4800 ppi, noise reduce, and downsample to 2400 ppi and make _killer_ 8x enlargements. Maybe even downsampling to 2700 ppi for 9x enlargements with TMX100 or Pro160S. I don't think we'll get any of the above, though. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >...I am interested in the scanner but am curious how it does for 35mm > compared to my older 2450. There is a significant improvement compared to the 2450. Still not quite as sharp as a dedicated 35 mm film scanner, but much closer. Doug Signaturewww.BetterScanning.com - Custom Film Holders and Accessories for Agfa, Microtek and Epson Scanners > You can post it like this, first the full view scaled way down in size > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799816/original Scott, What did you use to scan your photos? They look a lot sharper than mine. > > You can post it like this, first the full view scaled way down in size > > http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/64799816/original > > Scott, > What did you use to scan your photos? They look a lot sharper than > mine. Sorry I should have said, mine is digital. Stitched for a rather larger number of photos I figured it would be about the same size are yours give or take some. I think showing the whole photo and then crops is is great way to give a feel for the detail in a photo. Scott > I just got an Epson V750 and it's a great thing to finally be able to > bring my slides and negatives into the digital world. I was able to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Nathan Skill related issues aside- and format limitations aside: I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something new. I just output a 6x8 image grey scale on my new R1800 and it holds much of what was intended. That is: I was scanned a 4x5 on a much older 2450 Epson. I would be interested in this comparision if your up for it,....I'll scan and print a 6x6 then send to you the slide and you send a print back from your printer and the file on a Cd and original slide, back. SignatureReality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com See my most recent post in that I now agree that it's sharper. I agree that my printer may be a bit long in the tooth, but it's still a dye-sub printer and is really sharp, though I wouldn't mind getting a newer printer that prints larger sizes. I think what my plan, though, is to just put the files onto a memory card and bring it to photo lab to get a Lightjet or even Costco and have them print them out. That way I can use my dye-sub for "proofing." > I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something > new. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a print back from your printer and the file on a Cd and original slide, > back. I might be up for your idea. Send me an email to the address listed on my posts and we'll make arrangements. Nathan Nathan: Regarding using Costco: Costco online allows you to see which printers they use at various locations and also to download free profiles from drycreekphoto.com. I don't enjoy at all the time on my computer...I would MUCH rather be out pestering folks with my camera, but even I can see the advantage to this process. One of the adjustments is to simulate the finished print on the type of paper chosen. This lets me re adjust (often contrast) to get closer my desired results...and at $3.00 a print for 12 x 18 I wish I had this last year when I was spending thousands on my printers. > See my most recent post in that I now agree that it's sharper. I agree that > my printer may be a bit long in the tooth, but it's still a dye-sub printer [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Nathan > I think it could be your dye sub printer-maybe time to buy something > new. I was looking over the glacier picture I printed to 4"x4" with my printer. There's one blue ice-rock that's falling in the photo that couldn't have been more than a couple pinheads in size. If you look closely enough you can see the bottom part of the rock was blue (the correct shade too) and the top was white. Now that's what I call sharp resolution. I remember printing stickers that were 1.25"x.75" and even though it was so small I could see every single detail that's normally in a larger print. A dye-sub printer doesn't need a LOT of dpi like ink-jet printers which is why they're mainly 300-600dpi. The pictures are continuous tone and not made up of ink dots therefore they don't need 5700dpi. So, my printer may be old, but it's still capable. Unfortunately it also displays band-lines and sometimes there's staining. For example, If a large area is a consistent color, such as the sky, then the banding and "staining" get really bad. Overall, though, 600dpi for a dye-sub is really awesome. >However, all that got me thinking. I took all this trouble to shoot >medium format, expecting a very, very sharp image with exceptional [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >What do you guys think? With the Epson 750 on MF film, it's a hard choice. With a Nikon scanner on MF, film gets an edge. You should be able to beat a 6-8 Mpixel capture (from an APS- sized sensor or smaller) with MF film, even with the Epson 750. Whether the quality difference matters to you or is worth the effort -- only you can decide. There's no question a shiny new Nikon LS-9000 would impress you in terms of the extra detail you'd see. Whether it's worth the extra cost is another matter. It's not "4x" sharper but the Nikon scanner will be 30-50% sharper. The Epsons give a good bang for the buck, but the Nikons are pretty much as good as it gets for a CCD scanner. (Imacon can't really match it on MF, and Scitex is > $15K new, or ~$5K used.) I've yet to see anyone measure MTF of the 700, 750 or even the Epson 4990. In 2004, in this scanner "bake-off" <http://www.jamesphotography.ca/bakeoff2004/scanner_test_results.html> the best Epson was the Epson 4870, and it came in with an MTF-50 of 15.4. The "winning" scanner's MTF-50 was 27.85. The best MF-capable scanner (a Nikon LS-8000) measured 26.92. There is a direct V700 to LS-8000 comparison here: <http://www.terrapinphoto.com/jmdavis/> about 2/3 of the way down the page. One thing the Epson lacks (that a real filmscanner has) is a true focus control. So Epsons are finicky about focus. Any time you're trying to get 4000 dpi resolution out of film, focus is critical. If you go with film scanning, you will be dealing with that... a lot. Regardless of which scanner. Film scanning is a lot of work, though it's probably no harder than properly using an enlarger. No bout adoubt it, digital capture saves a lot of work.. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > I've yet to see anyone measure MTF of the 700, 750 or even > the Epson 4990. In 2004, in this scanner "bake-off" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The best MF-capable scanner (a Nikon LS-8000) measured 26.92. Thank you for your great reply. I never saw that scan test before and it's really eye opening. Looking at the larger photo I printed I could see individual ice particles falling so I know my scan was relatively sharp. I just look at the slide and KNOW that it could be sharper though. I'm going to try wet mounting a different slide where a tripod was used to take the picture and see how sharp it is. > Film scanning is a lot of work, though it's probably no harder > than properly using an enlarger. No bout adoubt it, digital > capture saves a lot of work.. It really is a lot of work to scan slides and make it look good. However, the results can be much better than even Ilfochrome with a contrast mask. What I think I got obsessed about before printing was enlarging the image so much that I saw individual ice rocks falling and how sharp they were. In the big scheme of things, though, those objects were so tiny that they were insignificant. I lost sight of the big picture, so to speak. I'll see what I can post so everyone will know what I'm talking about. I'd like to suggest an experiment. Post a full sized, unprocessed scan of the image and let us all play around with it. Tell us what size you want to print it and what printer you're using. The group might be able to give you some scanning pointers and/or processing/printing pointers, or post processed images ready to print. Peace, -chasfs http://chasfs.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.