Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,738   Posts: 1,515,535   Online: 1057
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    I too bought a 100' roll and honestly, it's nearly driven me to give up film twice now. I'm processing with D76 stock, and scanning with an Epson V500 and the grain and resolution makes the shots look like a 2 or 3 megapixel capture that's been sent through SilverEfex Pro. I've scanned quite a few rolls so far, so I do not think it was just a "one bad /off temp batch" either... unless my whole roll is suspect.

    On the other hand, it is cheap to purchase and moderately fast ISO, so that's not a terrible thing!

  2. #22
    Jerevan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sweden
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,855
    Images
    9
    I'd just say scanning 35 mm film with a low-end scanner is going to be hard work however you do it. And the scanner accentuates any grain in the film, so... get wet printing instead!
    “Do your work, then step back. The only path to serenity.” - Lao Tzu

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by helvetica View Post
    I too bought a 100' roll and honestly, it's nearly driven me to give up film twice now. I'm processing with D76 stock, and scanning with an Epson V500 and the grain and resolution makes the shots look like a 2 or 3 megapixel capture that's been sent through SilverEfex Pro. I've scanned quite a few rolls so far, so I do not think it was just a "one bad /off temp batch" either... unless my whole roll is suspect.

    On the other hand, it is cheap to purchase and moderately fast ISO, so that's not a terrible thing!
    I've got an Epson 3490 Photo flatbed scanner, far inferior to your v500.

    Here's a couple of examples:
    - http://flic.kr/p/dbT1dd
    - http://flic.kr/p/dbT1aL

    I think the scanner has some impact to the final image but I think what you do to the image is far more important than the scanner. At least for web imaging.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessandro Serrao View Post
    Here's a couple of examples:
    - http://flic.kr/p/dbT1dd
    - http://flic.kr/p/dbT1aL
    I picked up a refurbished v500 on sale for less than $100 - it was too good to pass up! Would you mind sharing a full resolution scan? They look to have clean detail!

    This is what i am up against:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/4932595...n/photostream/
    That is the full resolution, and a slight crop into the negative at that. Compare that to say, this one:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/4932595...n/photostream/
    shot with cheap Fuji 200 color negative film. Granted it's not an apples-to-apples comparison!

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    883
    Quote Originally Posted by helvetica View Post
    I picked up a refurbished v500 on sale for less than $100 - it was too good to pass up! Would you mind sharing a full resolution scan? They look to have clean detail!

    This is what i am up against:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/4932595...n/photostream/
    That is the full resolution, and a slight crop into the negative at that. Compare that to say, this one:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/4932595...n/photostream/
    shot with cheap Fuji 200 color negative film. Granted it's not an apples-to-apples comparison!
    I have scanned those pics of mine @1400dpi to begin with. Then resized @1024dpi for flickr account.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin