Cross-processed

Here's the link. Only one of them is public, so if anyone is having trouble seeing the set (5 pics in total) let me know.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/aarmstrong/sets/72157605269385590/

Anyway, I know they look junky as-is, but I'm unable to get a good scan at work (obviously they aren't equipped to scan film like this, and I think the teal negatives (instead of the normal orange-looking ones) really give the scanner a hard time, and therefore it attempts to over-correct and I ended up with completely whacky looking scans. Couldn't TOTALLY turn off the auto-correct functions, so I wasn't able to get around it--hence the crappy versions I have posted now taken with my 30D and converted in Photoshop. When the scanner at work DIDN'T decide to apply an insane amount of over-color corrections, I ended up with a few REALLY NICE looking scans, but since the machine was unable to properly read and line up the frames, I ended up with frames cut in half, etc.

Basically, I need your scanner Ken.

I'm assuming E6 in regular C41?

I don't know if your scanner at work is tied to a processing machine but if its just a regular scanner, you might want to try using some 3rd party software. (If you're allowed.) The better 3rd party scanning software, like Vuescan or Silverfast, offer Raw capture similar to that of a digital camera. When I scan, I capture capture the scan in a 16-bit Raw DNG file and then do all my adjustments in photoshop.

Just ordered a Microtek M1 about a week ago. I did notice that the Epson V500 has come down in price considerably. The V500 is considered very close to the top V7xx models and its going for less than $200USD now. If I remember correctly, this scanner used to be around $500 just a little while back. Add $40 for Vuescan software and you'll have a really top-notch setup. Almost had some second thoughts about the M1 when I saw the V500 so cheap.

Yup, E6 in C41.

The scanner definitely is tied directly into the printer/everything else. I'm sure there's a way around it but I'm thinking it'll be easier to just leave it be.

Would it be disgraceful to just scan them with a regular 3 in 1 scanner? Probably eh?

If you are just do some quick scanning for posting photos on the web, most scanners will do an ok job. If you want to do some extensive post-processing in photoshop or make a print from the scan, you need a good scanner.

I'm looking at the V500, and indeed it is under $200. I like that.

Do you have an opinion on the Canoscans? I'm assuming at the price I'm seeing, they aren't up to par with these other scanners you are talking about, but I'm just curious. I'm not a fan of intentionally buying something that is going to be low quality, but I'm just really not looking to spend more than a couple hundred here.

Regarding the V500 again though, I'm looking at it on the Epson site and it talks about handling negatives and slides, but it doesn't speak of any holders or guides...are those included or even are they necessary?

I'm not too familiar with the Canoscans unfortunately. When I first got a scanner 2.5 years ago, I only considered the Epson v7xx and the Nikon Coolscan V. Canon wasn't in the game back then. I went with the Nikon as it was a dedicated film scanner. At the time, I thought I would only do 35mm. But I've recently started using medium format so I ordered the Microtek M1 recently for scanning 120 film and what attracted me most to it was the autofocus feature. To my knowledge, the M1 is the only flatbed that offers this.

The Epson V500 does come with 35mm holders and 120 holders. They may be the same holders as those of the V7xx scanners but I'm not too sure.

The difference I'm seeing in the Canoscans is that they don't have the resolution of the ones you've listed. Important? Like 4800 x 9600 dpi vs. 6400 x 9600 dpi. That being the only major difference after a quick glance over specs.

Bah, choices

Epsons make very good scanners but their optical resolution numbers are notoriously misleading. Canon is the same way. You cannot go by dpi numbers when comparing scanners. It is much worse than comparing cameras by megapixel counts. Don't pay too much attention to them.

There are many factors that affect the actual amount of resolution that can be captured from a negative by a scanner. For example, the glass (or plastic) plate, the type of film used, the positioning of the film holders, the flatness of the film, how the film was exposed, the precision of the motors in the scanner, the quality of the scanner lens, etc. Some scanners claim that they can do 9600x6800 dpi optically but because of other factors, it may very well be the case that you cannot squeeze more information from the film by scanning at max resolution than at, say 2800dpi, for example. At this point, scanning at max dpi won't give you more detail - just a bigger filesize. What types of scans you get also depends on the software and the techniques used. With my Nikon, for example, the scanner generates a lot of digital noise. This is often confused for grain but its noise made by the scanner. To correct it, the software has to be set to make multiple scans (4-6) and then use the multiple scans to figure out the most likely colour of each pixel and outputs a single corrected scan. This eliminates the noise but it may lead to other problems sometimes - like the scanner software not lining up the multiple scans perfectly due to a lack of mechanical precision the scanner's motors for example. Ok, that was a crazy example for the extremely nit-picky.

In my opinion, the only way to truly compare scanners is to look at 100% crops of the same photo recorded at the same dpi settings. These types of comparisons are hard to find even on the web. You somewhat have to look at all sorts photos and try to figure out which one is best and which one is 'good enough' for your needs and budget.

Here's a link to such a comparison. Epson v750 (advertised 9600x6400dpi) vs Nikon Coolscan 9000ED (advertised 4000dpi) compared at 3200dpi. Despite the much lower max dpi of the Nikon, anybody can see that it soundly beats the Epson. (Yet for most people the difference is not that significant.) It's apparent that the Epson maxed out in terms of resolution on this particular piece of film at a much lower setting than its advertised maximum.
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_6.htm

The Microtek M1 that I ordered advertises a max of 4800dpi, which is much lower than what is advertised by Epson for their v7xx models. Yet, most reviews and consumer feedback indicate that the M1 yields noticeably better scans than the Epson v7xx.

With my Nikon, at 3800dpi I start seeing grain (not noise) with "low-grain" 100ISO films. If I scan at a higher dpi, it would accentuate the grain. Many people choose to scan at the highest resolution before grain is noticeable. Some people do this because they don't like grain. Others claim that doing this can allow them to upsample for larger print sizes more effectively than using software because of the lack grain. I scan 35mm at the max 4000dpi because I think the grain actually helps bring out more details in the shadows and highlights. I admit that this can very well be attributed to a placebo effect. I do like how grain looks too. With a 400ISO film, I can start seeing grain at 2800dpi sometimes. But newer 400ISO films are getting much better now and are getting closer to 100ISO films in terms of grain. Now with extremely fine grained film like Adox20 combined with very high resolving lenses from likes of Zeiss and Leica (Zeiss 25mm Biogon ZM can resolve 400 lines pairs per mm!!), there's no consumer scanner that can resolve detail that fine. I doubt that even the professional drum scanners can do it.

MATH TIME!!!!

Scanning 35mm (1.42" by 0.95") film at 4000dpi I get a:
1.42" x 4000dpi = 5680pixels and 0.95" x 4000dpi =3800pixels

So a 5680pixel by 3800pixel digital image. That's 21.6MP and at 16-bit, it would be approximately a 130mB RAW file.

On my Epson 3800 printer, I can print at 360dp (ie pixels per inch)i max. So...
5680pixels / 360dpi = 15.8" and 3800pixels / 360dpi = 10.6"

So I can do a 15.8x10.6" print from a 35mm negative 4000dpi-scan without any upsampling in Photoshop.

Now this assumes a lower-grained film. With 400ISO film like Tri-X, there is more grain and it will be really apparent in a 15x10" (though sometimes its really nice). With 400ISO films, I usually do 12x8" but could go just slightly bigger if I wanted to. Most dSLR's can do 12x8 just fine now but it still doesn't look as good IMHO due to other things like dynamic range, tonality, crap rendering from el-cheapo lenses, etc.

With medium format 120 film, you won't need to scan at 4000dpi to get a big print. 6x6 square format is 2.2 by 2.2 inches. Using the same math as above, scanning at a lower 2800dpi, I get a 6160x6160 pixel image which is good for a 17.1x17.1 inch print without upsampling. (My printer's max is 17inches on the short side). If I were to scan a 6x6 negative at 4000dpi like I do with 35mm, I get an 8800x8800 pixel image good for a 24.4x24.4 inch print with no upsampling. So you generally don't have to scan bigger formats at higher dpi settings unless you want your scanner to get as much detail as it possibly can get for post-processing and/or you want to make super-big prints.

Working with large-format that were scanned at maximum dpi would probably crash my computer. With a 4x5 negative at something like 4000dpi, we're talking 2gB files. And for 8x10 negatives, 8gB files. If one wants to really push the limits of their computer, post-processing these insanely large scans from large-format film is a way to do it. With most of today's computers, you couldn't even fully load such a file into RAM memory along with Photoshop, the OS, and anything else that you may be running.

Moral of the story - don't trust the maximum dpi numbers. They don't mean much. There are many more factors that influence the final results. The technique of the user is a big one. It took me months to figure out how to get the best from my Nikon scanner and I'm still learning new tricks. I expect the same learning curve with the M1 when it arrives. You have to evaluate the scans - that's the only way to compare.

Despite writing this longish post, I honestly do not worry much about my scanners, printers or anything to do with computers. I am more picky about the film and lenses that I use. The film is what is going to last. Scanners, printers and computers will change and get better. I treat my negatives as the masters, if you will. I expect that my negatives to last beyond my lifetime. I can always scan/process/print them again whenever the technology improves. (I can also process and print in the darkroom if I wanted to.) The only thing that bothers me a bit is that the post-processing will probably change - not just because the changes in technology but perhaps also a change in my interpretation of the negative over time. I can't even figure out if that is a good or a bad thing or if its even relevant.

Excuse me for totally geeking-out there. I didn't intent to steal your gallery thread with gear talk.

Well, I've been absent for a long time now, but I haven't disappeared. Had a bunch of stuff on the go.
Anyways....

Nando is bang on about not taking the max resolution too seriously. An old colleague of mine bought an HP scanner because on paper it could scan 4x5 negs to the same resolution as the comparable Epson. (For less than half the price)
The problem was that he could barely get that thing beyond 600ppi without losing detail, the tonal range was horrendous, color reproduction was worse and if I remember correctly, the DOF was quite thin. The biggest problem was when he tried to scan color neg film. It seemed to change the relationship between colors. Making correction much more complicated than just shifting the color for the whole image.
Though Nando's got a point about not going too crazy on this technology because it will be obsolete soon, you've got to value the scanner almost as much as the lens and film. Photography is a science of the weakest link. Great camera, cheap lens.... crap. Great lens, cheap film..... crap. Even a bad monitor can lead to improper post production resulting in..... crap.
I do love the idea of sticking with film. But no one is using a darkroom now for color printing. That means that even a die hard film jockey will need something to bridge that gap between the organic world of film to the digital realm. All this to say, Don't cheap out.
I would really suggest going with an EPSON product. It's the industry standard.
I've heard nice things about canon, but have never met a pro photographer willing to take the chance. Their software is easy to use and effective.
Though I should say that even with a high end scanner, many photographers avoid going above 1600ppi. I will admit that because of the advice I had received by many respectable photographers, I haven't even tried going above. (also, with the 4x5 negs I have been scanning, those files were big enough)

Another factor to large scans/prints is the viewing distance. No one will look at a 4foot x 6foot print from an arm's length. They stand way back to take it all in. Those huge fashion billboards in downtown Toronto that look so sharp actually have pixels larger than golf balls.

The last thing, just because Nando quickly touched on it... As for printers and dpi, 300 should be the max used. Even on a digital screen, you should try and make the image 300ppi/dpi at the maximum print size. The human eye can't see any variation beyond 300 so it has become on of those obsolete figures quoted by manufacturers to try and make their product sound better. That means that Nando's 6x6 scan would actually give him a 20.5"x20.5" print.(if my math is right)

Well it's been quite a long rant but I hope it's been helpful.

I agree with you say Colin. You don't want to have a weak link in the process of photography. Usually I'm the weak link though but I'm working on it. I'm very nit-picky with my gear and developing, scanning and processing is almost like religious rituals however, I'm pretty reckless with exposure. I'm a man of many contradictions. Main reasons why I don't worry about gear on the computerize side of photography as much is because one has to draw the line somewhere in terms of needs/budget. I decided to draw it there. I also don't want to get caught up in constantly upgrading. It used to be that upgrading meant spending a few bucks trying a roll of new type of film or a a pack of new paper. Now upgrading means buying a whole new camera and sometimes all new lenses to go along with it, a new monitor, a new computer, a new printer... geez. And if you have second thoughts, you've invested too much to go back and you can't sell off the gear without losing a ton of money due to its rapid depreciation. I'd rather spend most of my money on good gear that I can use for a long time without need for constant change and on a high-resolution medium that can be stored reliably for decades. Computer stuff is made so cheaply these days. Even the high priced stuff is made poorly. If a certain scanner is spectacular and expected to be top of the line for many years, it may not matter because it will likely start breaking down only after a few years of use. And there won't be anybody out there that can repair it. My Nikon scanner is only 3 years old (from date of manufacture) and it already exhibits some weird quirks from time to time. I have a feeling that it probably won't last another 3 years without something going really wrong with it. With my 10-month old Epson 3800, the main paper feeder stopped working correctly (it won't grab onto the paper). I now have to send it to a repair centre for warranty work (this thing is 60lbs). I can still print using two other feeders and will wait until the fall to send it back. If you're not upgrading computerized gear, your replacing things that break down. The manufacturers really have it made now. I wish all things were like my 1953 M3 - always works perfectly if serviced every 20 years.

With my particular printer (Epson 3800), I actually don't have any choice in the matter when it comes to dpi. Although 300dpi may be the theoretical maximum that would be required, my printer will only print at 360dpi so I scan/resize for 360dpi myself. If I were to scan/resize for a 300dpi print, my printer driver will automatically make adjustments to the image for 360dpi once it is sent to the printer. Probably not a big deal but I'd rather do all the adjusting myself so I can have full control instead of leaving it to the printer driver.

Also one has to be careful with ppi and dpi and other terms that manufacturers use measure/advertise resolution. I don't think that there is any standardized naming convention but even if there is, who follows them? They all seem to massage the numbers to make their product look good. Some people treat ppi as pixels per inch and use it interchangeably with dpi - dots per inch - in the world of Photoshop. With Epson for example, they use ppi and dpi to mean different things when it comes to their printers. ppi in Epson-speak means points per inch and relates to how many solid points of colour from their ink cartridges can be made in an inch. Well you need good number of these points mixed together to make up a colour of a single pixel unless the pixel is coloured white. They advertise my printer to have a max resolution of 2880x1440 ppi meaning points-per-inch and people think they mean pixels-per-inch. The printer actually prints at 360dpi. Then there's the question of paper. With my printer, I cannot really get the full 360dpi with conventional photo papers found at stores like Staples. I'll leave that for another thread though.

I agree, one must think of the audience and scan/print accordingly. Sometimes big pixels help. I prefer looking at photographs up close, personal and naked in my hands. When I put one of my prints up on a wall (framed and behind glass), it usually isn't contrasty enough for viewing from a distance. I then have to go back to the computer and make adjustments to the contrast, sharpen the image more and reprint. The new print will look crappier than the original in my hands but better than the original on a wall from a distance.

I look at photos up close because I was mainly influenced by photography books. I think that's why I like holding photographs in my hands. There were no really meaningful exhibitions around here. Let's face it, someone like Paul Caponigro is not going to do a show in the Soo. Until serious photographers started actively publishing their photos online, photography books were my main source of inspiration.

BTW, I still think that the Epson V500 is currently the best bang for the buck. The current price is basically half of what the scanner was going for just a few months ago. I don't know why. Perhaps Epson is coming out with a replacement for it? Or perhaps the are responding to new competition from other manufacturers? Given that the Epson v700 and v750 are basically the same - the V500 is the next best consumer-scanner currently available from that company and quite popular among photographers.