Demon_Corsair posted:

Cool, thanks for the info.

I wish I had the $2600 for that coolscan. I realized after that I posted that I do have a few prints to scan, and I will probably be making more soonish. So my dreams of a dedicated scanner are gone.

I ended up grabbing the epson v500 as no one around seems to be selling the v600.

Since I'm not even sure where to start with scanning, it seemed like a good choice. Do I want to grab the inserts from betterscanning, or will I be ok with the default ones?

Already Bored posted:

So if money is no object is the Nikon COOLSCAN 9000 ED what I should be ordering?

35mm and 120 here.

MrBlandAverage posted:

I used a V500 to digitize my mom's Kodachromes and got great results. Now I want to use it for my own stuff.

Two questions - first, anybody have any betterscanning.com stuff for the V500? More specifically, the 35mm ANR insert. Second - I've tried Silverfast and Vuescan and found Silverfast to be much closer to my needs; if you have Silverfast, which version do you have and why? Are there any features in the more expensive versions you wish you had? I'm currently looking at the SE Plus version for $100.

OJ.SImpson posted:

I have an Epson v700 and i am using the betterscanning holder,glass, and Silverfast- 2 questions:

1) How do people do scans of their film and still have the black film borders?

2) Is it always a pain in the rear end to get the color correct? Using negafix gets me kind of close, but even then the negative color looks muddy and the contrast is way off the prints. I can dial it in a bit but it takes forever and never looks as good as the print. It almost looks like i am scanning at a low bit-depth but i have it set to the 48->24bit setting. Am i missing something?

Reichstag posted:

Well what scanner will they be using? Regardless, for 35mm a dedicated scanner beats a flatbed every time.

AIIAZNSK8ER posted:

I'm looking at getting an Epson V600, it's $20 more than the V500. The goal is to scan 35mm and 120 bw. Should I go ahead and order those better scanning holders? I'm planning on buying everything from Freestyle photo. Chemicals, scanner, film. Oh dear God I'm going to be more broke. Why is shooting MF so much drat fun?

Teen Jong-il posted:

Can anyone give me some advice on coping strategies for dealing with what a piece of poo poo silverfast is?

Teen Jong-il posted:

atomicthumbs posted:

I've found a clean synthetic sock works well, and a lenspen works if there are any smudges.

Miso Beno posted:

Ive asked this like seven times now but the Epson V600 is basically the best thing I can get without breaking the $200 barrier, right? (I'm assuming the V330 makes scanning film a pain making the V600 $100 better).

Miso Beno posted:

I take it TWAIN isn't going to cut it.

Inf posted:

I may take you up on that at some point. I have maybe 75 sheets of Ektachrome and Fuji RTPII to get started on. They all "expired" in 1998-2001, but they've been refrigerator stored since purchase in the early-mid 1990s. I'm hoping they're still in good shape.

I'm assuming a 48 bit tiff scan of a 4x5 would be ridiculously huge and out of the question? Most of the labs I've looked up have "absolutely not" in the faqs regarding any form of higher bit large format scans. It'd be cool to find a place that would ship me back such files on a DVD. I'm just thinking about the possibility of making very large prints after making adjustments in Lightroom.

Anyone have experience working with ridiculously huge file sizes in LR4? Does it crap out?

eggsovereasy posted:

This is what I'd guess too, my Yashica D gets some pretty bad flare at times. A lens hood helps a lot though.

XTimmy posted:

Thanks! Using a levels or curves control? Because I tried setting the black and white points for each channel in these and the end result is what you see in my post. Hard cyan highlights. I'm wondering if I'm just not playing enough.

Paul MaudDib posted:

And of course the serious pros are using real film scanners, not a $100 flatbed. Or at the least they're buying the V700 or something.

There's solutions that could be done. But overall it's probably better for Epson just to let that 1% of their user base deal with it than to really solve it. There's still Betterscanning holders if you really want to spend $100 in improvements on a $100 scanner.

Spedman posted:

The film has a crazy amount of relief in the surface, you can see when you hold it at an angle in the light. I was just glad I got to shoot a few rolls before it disappeared.

Pompous Rhombus posted:

I don't know if I'm just now noticing your av text or if it's new, but

There's an Aussie guy who did his own, apparently it's possible (just a massive PITA, if you're doing color) and the chemical patents and stuff are all available in the public domain. He was originally trained as a Kodachrome tech before it became obsolete and works in a pro lab, said it was definitely not something you could do in your kitchen and not worth the hassle to do commercially, even in small quantities.

edit: I was saving my lone roll of Kodachrome 25 for Halong Day. Naturally, my XA jammed halfway through it. Those things are nice but can be unreliable little shits, had the shutter die on another one.

Pukestain Pal posted:

Well, my V600 managed to last almost exactly 6 months. Using this as an excuse to pick up a new scanner. Any reason to get the v850 over the v800 besides the extra film holders? Seems like the v800 is a much better deal.

Hexigrammus posted:

Windows 10?

rohan posted:

onto an MBP running 10.11.3.

BANME.sh posted:

I wouldn't pay for color perfect if I had all the disposable income in the world. Dude has to hire a UI designer before I'll even touch that steaming pile. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just ugly, but it blatantly goes against just about every software UI convention that exists.

VelociBacon posted:

So I've been scanning my 120 and have been very happy with the results I'm getting. I've been scanning at (I think) 600dpi for 10" on the long side then resizing down after correcting levels and such in PS. Someone wants a print of one of the scanned shots and the image I have is ~3700x2600 pixels. They're looking to print this around 36"x24" or so, possible a little smaller. They've been using a webapp from a reputable print shop and it's giving them some indication that the resolution of the file is appropriate for a 12"x9" print.

I'm guessing I should at this point scan at a higher DPI, or should I leave the DPI at 600 and scan for a larger image? I believe the epson v550 I'm using has a maximum optical resolution of 6400dpi but I know better than to scan at that. Thanks.

VelociBacon posted:

Should I also be setting the output size of the scan to the desired size of the print? Thanks.