JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I have an Epson V500 and I feel unhappy with my results. When I compare my scans to my Walmart "scan to a cd" JPEGs, I cannot match the quality, better colors in my opinion, or sharpness that Walmart gives me. I was thinking that I should get a Nikon or some other nice dedicated film scanner for Christmas this year, but then I read that the Coolscan V was discontinued and I started to worry.
I think I should probably go to my local Walmart and see what scanner they use and also ask what they do to the colors, contrast etc. Their colors always seem less bland and give me better options in Photoshop for getting an end result with colors that I like. With the Walmart scans I can increase contrast without getting too much grain (The Epson V500 seems very grainy sometimes). I can also apply a USM and get the final result extremely sharp. I am only scanning my negatives for web use because I intend to make a website as soon as I can get scans that I like.
What do you guys think. Is it too late in the game to get a nice film scanner? Has anyone had the same experiences as me? I would just keep using Walmart to scan my negatives but they always crop out huge chunks of my pictures on accident.
I think I should probably go to my local Walmart and see what scanner they use and also ask what they do to the colors, contrast etc. Their colors always seem less bland and give me better options in Photoshop for getting an end result with colors that I like. With the Walmart scans I can increase contrast without getting too much grain (The Epson V500 seems very grainy sometimes). I can also apply a USM and get the final result extremely sharp. I am only scanning my negatives for web use because I intend to make a website as soon as I can get scans that I like.
What do you guys think. Is it too late in the game to get a nice film scanner? Has anyone had the same experiences as me? I would just keep using Walmart to scan my negatives but they always crop out huge chunks of my pictures on accident.
mh2000
Well-known
I think you don't know what you are doing with your scanner yet.
I haven't used the V500, but use the previous Epson 4990 and it is capable of very decent results, certainly up to web images from 35mm even. I'm using Vuescan currently with this scanner, but with the Epson I was able to get just as good results (the Epson software looks for dedicated film holders and doesn't work with my home made 127 holders so I use Vuescan).
If you haven't done much scanning I would look for one of the comprehensive scanner tutorial pages.
I haven't used the V500, but use the previous Epson 4990 and it is capable of very decent results, certainly up to web images from 35mm even. I'm using Vuescan currently with this scanner, but with the Epson I was able to get just as good results (the Epson software looks for dedicated film holders and doesn't work with my home made 127 holders so I use Vuescan).
If you haven't done much scanning I would look for one of the comprehensive scanner tutorial pages.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Most Wally World shops use a Fuji Frontier series minilab, a huge thing with the scanner and printer in one unit and the film processor in another.
This is the exact same set-up which about 1/2 of the Walgreens around here have, which I use for most of my processing. The Walgreens I go to most has a fairly new Frontier 450.
If you've ever watched them scan a roll, the whole thing goes in about 15 seconds or so. MUCH faster than the typical dedicated negative scanners!
My guess is that they use a company-wide default setting, with heavy use of auto-levels and ICE type dust/scratch removal.
They will typically give you a 1-2 megabyte .jpg from each frame.
They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that the Frontier is capable of much higher resolution scans if set up properly.
Finding somebody at Wally World who knows that this is possible, how to do it, and is willing to go out of procedure to make it happen, will be an exercise for the student.
If you want to know some specific details about how Wally World does it, I have a FOAF who runs the photo department at a somewhat-nearby Wally World. I don't shop there, but I know I can ask him about how they do something.
I have the lab scans done almost always, to save time, for quickie prints, but for good presentation-quality prints, the film scanner (K-M SD IV) beats the lab scans always!
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I have been scanning a very long time now and have read through just about everything I could on "scantips.com". I know that people say that they are happy with their Epson flatbeds and I can understand that. However, I went from getting Walmart scans, and then getting an Epson V500. I can see a difference. Its definite. Sometimes you can't see it until you start post-processing in photoshop.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I would love to know more about the Walmart process. One thing that I think they do a good job on is colors. They're colors are always better then mine on the Epson. Im sure they just do an auto-adjustment to every picture but I wish I knew what the adjustment was doing somewhat. There is also no denying that their scans are always very sharp and high-res. If you could figure out anything for me then that would be great.
Most Wally World shops use a Fuji Frontier series minilab, a huge thing with the scanner and printer in one unit and the film processor in another.
This is the exact same set-up which about 1/2 of the Walgreens around here have, which I use for most of my processing. The Walgreens I go to most has a fairly new Frontier 450.
If you've ever watched them scan a roll, the whole thing goes in about 15 seconds or so. MUCH faster than the typical dedicated negative scanners!
My guess is that they use a company-wide default setting, with heavy use of auto-levels and ICE type dust/scratch removal.
They will typically give you a 1-2 megabyte .jpg from each frame.
They tell me (the ubiquitous "they") that the Frontier is capable of much higher resolution scans if set up properly.
Finding somebody at Wally World who knows that this is possible, how to do it, and is willing to go out of procedure to make it happen, will be an exercise for the student.
If you want to know some specific details about how Wally World does it, I have a FOAF who runs the photo department at a somewhat-nearby Wally World. I don't shop there, but I know I can ask him about how they do something.
I have the lab scans done almost always, to save time, for quickie prints, but for good presentation-quality prints, the film scanner (K-M SD IV) beats the lab scans always!
PATB
Established
Jeremy, it is hard to get the same quality as these commercial machines if they are run properly. I thought I was getting great scans out of my Coolscan V until I saw scans from a Noritsu (Costco and a nearby "pro lab"). The Noritsu has much nicer colors than what I was getting from my Coolscan. Problem with Costco and the "pro lab" is inconsistent quality -- everything depends on who handles your film.
The best scans I ever got were from a Hasselblad X5 in a community college. However, since the Hasselblad is in a room next to the darkroom, I now seldom shoot color film and just use the darkroom to print BW
oscroft
Mentor
Hmm, interesting - I can only really echo the suggestion that you read some scanning tutorials, try different resolutions etc with your V500, and get some more general experience.
I have a V700, and the scans I get are far superior to any I've had from the run-of-the-mill labs (I don't use Walmart, cos I'm not in the USA, but most of them use pretty similar machinery).
One thing I would suggest is that you minimise the fancy settings on EpsonScan (USM, colour balance, etc) and make any changes you need afterwards, because the EpsonScan versions of those things really aren't very good.
Oh, and even if you're only scanning for web resolution, I'd scan at high res then rescale (and sharpen) afterwards - I do it that way for web images, and I think the result are better than scanning directly at web resolution. (Erm, so that's two things).
I have a V700, and the scans I get are far superior to any I've had from the run-of-the-mill labs (I don't use Walmart, cos I'm not in the USA, but most of them use pretty similar machinery).
One thing I would suggest is that you minimise the fancy settings on EpsonScan (USM, colour balance, etc) and make any changes you need afterwards, because the EpsonScan versions of those things really aren't very good.
Oh, and even if you're only scanning for web resolution, I'd scan at high res then rescale (and sharpen) afterwards - I do it that way for web images, and I think the result are better than scanning directly at web resolution. (Erm, so that's two things).
RObert Budding
D'oh!
The Nikon Coolscan V is superior to consumer flatbed scanners for 35mm. You should buy one while you still can. Problems with colors when scanning negatives? You might want to try this:
http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html
More info here:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ
http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html
More info here:
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MRuZ
dmr
Registered Abuser
I've watched the guy do a DO/CD on a Frontier a couple of times. This was at Walgreens, but Wally World uses the same equipment.
It's all automated. When the negative strip came out of the developer unit, he put it in the scanner, and I swear it took only 15 seconds or so to scan the whole roll. He did not look at each photo or make any adjustments, just hit the selection to send it to the CD burner, and maybe a minute later the CD was ready. Walgreens does not have the contact sheet on the CD as Wally World does, but the format of the CD always looks identical for both.
The most time-consuming part was the negative development. He first pulled out the leader, cut it off and taped it to some kind of a thingy that pulled it into the developing unit.
I think they boost the saturation a bit in the auto settings. The reds seem a bit purer on my own scans, but redder on the lab scans, if that makes any sense.
Coincidentally, I have a Wally World CD here with me! I just looked. The scans are 96 dpi (that number is always a "suggestion") and 1800x1216 pixels, between 1.5 and 2 megabytes each. I would not call this high-res, but I have made some acceptable 8x10 prints from these scans. For a nice print, I always re-scan myself, and I want to have 300 pixels per inch if possible.
I've been noticing the nuances between the DO/CD on the Fuji Frontier equipment and the DO/CD on the Noritsu. The Fuji scans seem to have more background noise but what I would call a "cleaner" scan overall. These are the ones you are getting.
The Noritsu seems to have more digital sharpening and a certain degree of noise suppression which DOES subordinate the texture of some surfaces, such as a stone or brick building.
In any case, you should be able to get an equal or better scan on your own scanner than with a lab scan. Maybe you're perceiving the sharpening and saturation and such as a "better" scan than you are getting with no augmentation.
(As an aside, I'm kind of surprised that nobody has chimed in and suggested a certain replacement scanning software which is mentioned on occasion as a one-size-fits-all solution for just about every scanning problem.)
Last edited:
amateriat
We're all light!
I would agree that, for 35mm in particular, a dedicated film scanner will be superior to a flatbed. But it sounds like the problems you're having go a bit beyond scanner type.
I know I'm repeating myself here (as I do in all threads on this subject), but a few things need to be checked out:
- The Monitor: has there been any attempt, simple or elaborate, to properly calibrate it? There's more to it than a mouse-click or two.
- The Film: there really isn't a one-size-fits-all solution in terms of film profiles. VueScan's "Generic" setting for color-neg film comes close, but some films require trying out different profiles. If you're using the software driver that came with your Epson, take a closer look at the available film settings it offers. If you haven't tried VueScan, download a copy and play around with it a bit. Not promising a miracle here, but you never know.
- The Printer: Getting the printer profile right is something that can blindside even experts. Mechanical screw-ups like ink clogs and the like can alter results as well. (Which reminds me: you haven't mentioned a printer here, so I'll presume you're comparing results on-screen.)
The devil, as always, lies in the details.
- Barrett
I know I'm repeating myself here (as I do in all threads on this subject), but a few things need to be checked out:
- The Monitor: has there been any attempt, simple or elaborate, to properly calibrate it? There's more to it than a mouse-click or two.
- The Film: there really isn't a one-size-fits-all solution in terms of film profiles. VueScan's "Generic" setting for color-neg film comes close, but some films require trying out different profiles. If you're using the software driver that came with your Epson, take a closer look at the available film settings it offers. If you haven't tried VueScan, download a copy and play around with it a bit. Not promising a miracle here, but you never know.
- The Printer: Getting the printer profile right is something that can blindside even experts. Mechanical screw-ups like ink clogs and the like can alter results as well. (Which reminds me: you haven't mentioned a printer here, so I'll presume you're comparing results on-screen.)
The devil, as always, lies in the details.
- Barrett
willwright
Member
having tried many times to "match" Walmart scans with my Coolscan, I discovered the automated scan uses huge amounts of sharpening and saturation. Whether that looks "good" or "better" is highly subjective. You can try it with your PS controls and see just what the differences are and deicde yourself.
mh2000
Well-known
how about posting some examples? same magnification (not 100% from two different resoltution scans).
Are you sure that once you downsample and sharpen your Epson scans that they are really worse than the same resolution Walmart scans? Epson film scans do not look great at 100%, but for any reasonable print they look very good. The brittle, over-sharpened and highly compressed jpegs from Walmart are at best ok for 6x9" prints from my experience.
Are you sure that once you downsample and sharpen your Epson scans that they are really worse than the same resolution Walmart scans? Epson film scans do not look great at 100%, but for any reasonable print they look very good. The brittle, over-sharpened and highly compressed jpegs from Walmart are at best ok for 6x9" prints from my experience.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Jeremy, I haven't any commercially done scans with which to compare, but my V100 -- a cheaper sibling of your scanner -- gives decent enough results. I have had quite satisfactory prints up to 8" by 12" made from scans.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
Ok.
Heres my Walmart scan that I love so much. With the sharpness and colors that Walmart gave me, I can get an end result that I really love.
And heres the Epson V500 scan. I cannot get this scan sharp enough for internet use and I can't get the colors to stop looking so boring and bland. I scanned at 1200 dpi, with no settings except Digital Ice.
Heres my Walmart scan that I love so much. With the sharpness and colors that Walmart gave me, I can get an end result that I really love.
And heres the Epson V500 scan. I cannot get this scan sharp enough for internet use and I can't get the colors to stop looking so boring and bland. I scanned at 1200 dpi, with no settings except Digital Ice.
dmr
Registered Abuser
In my not so humble opinion, at least on this uncalibrated flat screen monitor at work, the second shot, the one with your Epson, has far more natural colors. The lab scan definitely shows the greenish bias of the fluorescent lights.
Look at the highlight detail, example with the lights on the left. Your scan shows less blow-out of highlights. I think on the lab scan it was due to the auto levels. Same with the color saturation. It also looks, to me, like the lab scan is digitally sharpened to some degree.
My hunch is that if you play around in Photoshop, goose the saturation, shift the color balance a bit, and use the unsharp mask, you can duplicate the look of the lab scan quite easily, if that's what you want.
Look at the highlight detail, example with the lights on the left. Your scan shows less blow-out of highlights. I think on the lab scan it was due to the auto levels. Same with the color saturation. It also looks, to me, like the lab scan is digitally sharpened to some degree.
My hunch is that if you play around in Photoshop, goose the saturation, shift the color balance a bit, and use the unsharp mask, you can duplicate the look of the lab scan quite easily, if that's what you want.
ZeissFan
Mentor
Getting the color right in scans can be very difficult and requires some time and plenty of patience.
As far as sharpness, much has to do with keeping the negative as flat as possible. And that goes back to the negative holder.
I don't know what the current Epson holder looks like, but many people have criticized the Epson holders as somewhat flimsy. I have an older Expression 1600, and the negative holders are OK but could be better.
I know that aftermarket holders are available, and users say they do a noticeably better job at keeping the negative flat.
I think the problem with your scan might be more about keeping the negative flat than color correction issues. As I said, color correction is a learned skill. Epson scanners will get you close most of the time, but then you have to have the ability to get it to the next level, and that will take some time as you experiment with it.
Best of luck!
As far as sharpness, much has to do with keeping the negative as flat as possible. And that goes back to the negative holder.
I don't know what the current Epson holder looks like, but many people have criticized the Epson holders as somewhat flimsy. I have an older Expression 1600, and the negative holders are OK but could be better.
I know that aftermarket holders are available, and users say they do a noticeably better job at keeping the negative flat.
I think the problem with your scan might be more about keeping the negative flat than color correction issues. As I said, color correction is a learned skill. Epson scanners will get you close most of the time, but then you have to have the ability to get it to the next level, and that will take some time as you experiment with it.
Best of luck!
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
What dmr said.
Bob
Bob
amateriat
We're all light!
I'll "third" this. You can always tweak the Epson scan if you feel the image is too muted in color and/or contrast, but that lab scan would be tougher to tone down, never mind dealing with the blown highlights.
- Barrett
- Barrett
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Jeremy, your scans are fine. What you are looking at is a post processed scan from your lab at the top and an un processed one on the bottom from your scanner right? There is also more contrast in the top image than the lower image, this imparts a look of sharper focus. I think that's what you are keying in upon
It looks like the bottom colours are closer than the top image's. I think dmr is right and it's taken under fluorescent light which adds that green hue. There is a software correction / emulation for "tungsten style film" that would give a closer 'real' colour rendition. Similar to the bottom image.
I'd suggest you continue to use the scanner. Check the pixels/dpi and then scan with all settings at default. I scan to a TIFF. Then import that into PSE2. From there it's a matter of adjusting contrast and levels.
Finally, I'd suggest you go online to some place like flickr and join one of the PS groups there. Read all the posts. I think it would be worth while.
It looks like the bottom colours are closer than the top image's. I think dmr is right and it's taken under fluorescent light which adds that green hue. There is a software correction / emulation for "tungsten style film" that would give a closer 'real' colour rendition. Similar to the bottom image.
I'd suggest you continue to use the scanner. Check the pixels/dpi and then scan with all settings at default. I scan to a TIFF. Then import that into PSE2. From there it's a matter of adjusting contrast and levels.
Finally, I'd suggest you go online to some place like flickr and join one of the PS groups there. Read all the posts. I think it would be worth while.
JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
One thing I think I need to point out is that I rarely ever shoot B&W film. I mainly shoot color C41 negative film. Another thing is that the results of my Epson V500 don't look bad right after I scan them. They only start to look bad after I try to edit things like brightness/contrast, levels, sharpness and color. As you can see from the Epson scan I posted above, the Epson scan doesn't look that bad compared to the Walmart scan. This is mainly because I didn't try to edit anything in Photoshop yet. And to be honest, I always do a quite a bit of photoshop work to any image. This is the only way to get results that I am pleased with.
I understand that the Walmart scan has had some automatic adjustments done to its contrast, colors, and sharpness. Because of this, I have tried over and over in Photoshop to get my Epson scan to look like the Walmart scan by adjusting the same things. I don't think it is possible. The colors are so bland and there is so much color noise that if I try to get the colors to resemble the Walmart scan colors I just can't. As soon as I mess with the levels and try to increase the blacks, a ton of grain pops out. Last I always apply an Unsharp Mask to make sure my final image is as sharp as possible. With the Walmart scan, I can sharpen the crap out of the final image and really get some good detail. With the Epson scan, I can't sharpen because it brings out so much bad looking grain and noise.
Am I doing anything wrong? Is there something I should be doing in the Epson Scan software? Right now I am just selecting the picture manually, clicking the exposure button, and scanning at 1300 dpi (this gets me right at the size of the Walmart scan) with no adjustments except Digital Ice, to a 48-bit TIFF. I am not changing the colors or levels at all with the Epson software because it seems like I could do that sort of thing better an Photoshop after the scan.
I truly think that I am just seeing the limits and drawbacks of using a flatbed as a film scanner. I'm not saying the differences are huge, but I think they are noticable even when the final images are downsized for web use. I think that If I got a higher end dedicated film scanner, I could get the results I wanted. But I need some more feedback because I am talking about some pretty expensive desicion making.
I understand that the Walmart scan has had some automatic adjustments done to its contrast, colors, and sharpness. Because of this, I have tried over and over in Photoshop to get my Epson scan to look like the Walmart scan by adjusting the same things. I don't think it is possible. The colors are so bland and there is so much color noise that if I try to get the colors to resemble the Walmart scan colors I just can't. As soon as I mess with the levels and try to increase the blacks, a ton of grain pops out. Last I always apply an Unsharp Mask to make sure my final image is as sharp as possible. With the Walmart scan, I can sharpen the crap out of the final image and really get some good detail. With the Epson scan, I can't sharpen because it brings out so much bad looking grain and noise.
Am I doing anything wrong? Is there something I should be doing in the Epson Scan software? Right now I am just selecting the picture manually, clicking the exposure button, and scanning at 1300 dpi (this gets me right at the size of the Walmart scan) with no adjustments except Digital Ice, to a 48-bit TIFF. I am not changing the colors or levels at all with the Epson software because it seems like I could do that sort of thing better an Photoshop after the scan.
I truly think that I am just seeing the limits and drawbacks of using a flatbed as a film scanner. I'm not saying the differences are huge, but I think they are noticable even when the final images are downsized for web use. I think that If I got a higher end dedicated film scanner, I could get the results I wanted. But I need some more feedback because I am talking about some pretty expensive desicion making.
Last edited: