I have the V700 myself and know quite well what it does - and what it doesn't. Wet mounting can help with all kinds of things, but AFAIK not with sensor noise. The V700 is probably one of the best flat bed scanners for film out there, but still woefully inadequate for negatives.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
You don't need dynamic range for scanning negative film, because the density range is minuscule (check data sheets). What would help the V700 is a sensor that produced very low noise in that narrow dynamic range.
Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson
As a result I use my V700 mostly for previewing, which points me at negs with potential for optical RA4 enlargements.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
Yes, the V700 is not a complete product at all. With that said I have scanned 6x6 120 negatives for printing digitally to 72x72". Ideal? No. Works? Yes. The print looks pretty good, actually.
Originally Posted by Rudeofus
I was referring to dynamic range with slide film, if you read my post again.
Agree with what you say. RA4 enlargements will always produce better results from C41 neg film than any flatbed scanner will even come close to.
"Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank
"Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman
"...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh
The problem with cheap scanners and color neg film is the sampling size in relation to the curve shape. The smaller the film format, the better
the scan you need, otherwise color reproduction (and not just detail or range) is likely to significantly suffer. Plus the scanner has to read thru the orange mask and properly interpolate the actual image, which most amateur scanners were never engineered to do well. Wrong forum for going into the details. But many problems blamed on the film are really scanning issues. Even graduating from 35mm to medium format will significantly help, but is no substitute for a real drum scan. I'm glad I print color negs directly, using an enlarger, but sometimes do use scans
in lieu of a proof sheet, just to preview work.
With a proper hires scan, 160 & 400 are very similar. 400 seems to interact with lower res scanners quite poorly thoug. On my screen cezanne i can hardly tell the difference in grain
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I use Portra 400, I have also Epson V700, scans look nice to me (I am no pro, this is just my hobby). OT: I had problem to get nice colors from scan, but this was solved by buying ColorPerfect plugin (found a video on youtube where guy describes his scanning process using this).
I have prints 24x24 (61x61 cm) and 24x27,6 (61x70cm) and they look nice to me. If the photo is properly exposed, grain is visible from closer look, but it is not disturbing, I like that grain. From normal viewing distance grain is visible a little, most people will probably not notice if they are not interested more in photography. Bigger the print, longer the viewing distance and smaller chance to notice grain.
To OP maybe try to look also at Kodak Ektar100 (but I think it has more saturated reds and greens)
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Here's a 5300dpi scan of a Portra 400 neg downsampled to 4000dpi. This was done on the Screen Cezanne Elite. The original ended up 11,000px by 11,000px. That's a pretty sharp 36" square print with very little sign of noise.
Originally Posted by pdmk
I wouldn't blame the scanner.
It's possible to produce perfectly good images from film with a V700 or less. At least for hobbyist use.
The rub is finding a workflow that delivers what you want. The rule of thumb is that you have to do a little post-processing with slide film, more with b&w and a lot with colour negatives.
After about six months I ended up with a workflow which is very similar to this one:
The difference is that I don't use color perfect but set colour balance manually by sight. I just wish that I had seen the video before I started to figure out film scanning.
What are you shooting outdoors that you need 400?
Originally Posted by Shootar401
I was always taught that if you want to get the maximum quality out of film you should use the slowest film practicable for the job in hand, and I find Portra 160 very suitable for most portrait photography I undertake and find it capable even in 35mm of beautiful 20"X16" prints, and for the odd occasion when it isn't fast enough I carry another body loaded with Portra 400.
I've been tinkering with all three of the portras. My thoughts? Insofar as MF and studio lighting are concerned, I prefer 160 over 400. And 800 is actually my favorite colour film.
For outdoor snapshots with my 35mm cams, I always keep portra 400 around.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk