It is consumer level, it utilizes plastic lenses. However, it is not going to compete with a drum scanner. I'd say getting there is harder than getting there with a drum scanner. The 750 can yield results under the right conditions, and in the right hands. I have experience in all these types of scanning. For some reason I want to protect the newbies out there, as I used to be one myself. If someone says this, I feel duty bound to correct them. It was a developer made by Kodak that was made so that labs could developer film faster, and make more money. I used to teach college and for me this is like someone saying that DK-50 is a better developer for nice tight grain more than D-23, D-76, DDX, Microphen, Xtol or Pyro. I actually like talking to photographers altho' this subject is somewhat tiresome. I have gotten a few from the Large Format forum but none from here. I have been posting here since the beginning and I can honestly say that I have not gotten one client from DPUG. Like sharpness, smooth tonal transitions are part of what separate good prints from bad ones. The point is that the tonal trasistions from the 3/4 tones to the deep shadows are smoother and retain more detail in a good scan, making it easier to control those transitions in the editing stage. I understand that the Howteks can control the aperature separately from the resolution and can resolve even finer detail. Take a look at the Dead Link Removed for a couple of comparisons between the Epson 750 and a Screen 1045 Drum scanner. Epson scans from a 4x5 or 8x10 can be ok with a lot of additional Photoshop work, with the 4x5 films being ok to make prints up to 8x10 to 11x14 and up to 16x20 for the 8x10 films. But one person's fine print might be another's reject. The scanner is not defective, but it is not suitable for making fine prints from 35mm or 120 films. The point that is the real issue/problem is, as you said, most people can not recognize quality or be sufficiently motivated to seek it out. I see people come to workshops all the time with photographs they are proud of because they were told "this is good enough" only to then learn how much better their photographs can be-they either leave deflated or motivated. The point is that you can't buy consumer electronics and expect to get exceptional results from them. This comes up every time someone posts about Epson scanners for film scans. I am strictly concerned with the sharpness and resolution of the scans and not the color representation (a separate issue).ĪLSO, you may note the highlight clipping in the V600 photo. So basically I'm wondering out of the people that use epsons on this board, what is the 'best' technique to render sharp results, and do the betterscanning accessories actually provide a significant improvement when scanning 120 or is it not worth it? $80 for the mount and $30 for the glass seems pricey to me, and I haven't found many example photos of 120 scans with and without, so that's why I'm posting here.
SILVERFAST EPSON V600 35 MM DRIVERS
I do want to like the Epson though, since drivers and software are available for it.
I am aware that there are very limited options when it comes to medium format scanning, but since my minolta seems to be doing a great job with 35, I'm thinking of just getting a dimage multi to scan my 120, regardless of the lack or support. So now I am wondering if I should invest in the betterscanning glass and mount (which I've read mixed reviews about) although I think these accessories may just be a pricey addition to a device unable to produce good results. Having said that though, the IV is pretty cut and dry when it comes to scanning, and the v600 seems to require some trickery to get sharp scans.Īt first I was putting the 120 in emulsion side up, which resulted in blurry scans (perhaps because the film won't stay flat), but then flipping the film over and scanning emulsion down, so that the film curled towards the glass, resulted in slightly sharper scans. I have been using the minolta dimage IV for my 35mm and I'm generally very happy with the results, but as it stands the IV is able to resolve more information from my 35mm negatives than the v600 can from 120. I went with the v600 because it's cheaper than the 700s but I am having trouble getting sharp scans, and I'm not certain if it's my technique or if I'm just unimpressed with the v600's capabilities. I just purchased the v600 to scan my 120 film and I want to try to make sure it's going to meet my standards before the return policy period lapses. First off, apologies if this is a redundant topic, I am having trouble finding 'clear' answers to my questions regarding this scanner.
0 kommentar(er)
