Your post, based on actual experience, is extremely helpful.Originally Posted by Pali K
Epson V series is a fantastic scanners for it's price. It's also the best unless you use pro scanners regularly and realize that it's not the best
Your post, based on actual experience, is extremely helpful.Epson V series is a fantastic scanners for it's price. It's also the best unless you use pro scanners regularly and realize that it's not the best
And no amount of test scans will convince any of the True Believers on either side. As long as you're happy with what you get, why worry that someone else might think it's sub-optimal?
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
I've answered you in post #47, regards
My apologies. It appears that your drum scan experience is limited to 35mm for which the Epson is wholly inadequate for prints of any but the smallest size.
This is, my posts #19 and #31 explains why (for me) the V750/850 is more than I need for 120 and for LF.
For 35mm I understand that V850 is also more than enough, as handheld shots (if not 1/30000 flash) normally have more than 0.02mm camera shake on film, so the V850 is not the limiting factor, but the shot itself.
If on film blur (because lens, shake) is more than 0.02mm then a better scanner only scans more blur, so not advantage over V850.
Also I'm pretty sure that another scanner won't deliver better BW tonality.
A 35mm Adox CMS 20 shot, with 50mm stopped to f/6.5 on a tripod or VR lens would benefit from a drum scan. A TMX 35mm film with 50mm stopped to f/2, or handheld, won't benefit from better than 2500 dpi optical resolving power. The point is having more than 0.02mm on film blur or less.
Do your shots have much less than 0.02mm on film blur ??? Then a drum may be better for big enlargements.
Feeling conflicted?
No conflict, a Nikon Coolscan if a better scanner for 35mm than the V850, by a large margin, no doubt, 3x "more optical pixels". But if you shot handheld with a Nikon F5 like me there is no advantage, because if you shot handheld it is very difficult that a shot has less than 0.02mm shake blur, so better scanner performance won't deliver a better image for PS edition.
One reason to use the coolscan is to depict film grain, but you also may prefer to decrease grain, like when using diffusion enlarger instead condenser. PS edition also can make grain more or less sharp.
PD: Let me add that at one point negative color films (Portra, Ektar, 160NS, and all consumer) were reengineered to have larger color clouds to scan optimally well in digital minilabs (frontiers, noritsus), so prefect for the V series. It is not the case of Velvia/Provia.
If you are happy with your Epson scans of 35mm, more power to you.
My 35mm shots are handheld and dynamic, usually I shot totally wide open. A better 35mm scanner simply won't make a difference at all. And I prefer investing in DIY emulsion making than in "pixel peeping".
What's for LF with the V850 I obtain way more resolving power than I need.
Rather than spending in an expensive Flatbed I prefer to spare some money for drum service for the case a Velvia shot deserves it, as no Flatbed will do it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks