[Swift1]

I just got an Epson V750-M Pro, and so far I'm quite impressed with the 35mm Portra 400 scans I've been getting from it.

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V750-M Pro

[samtr87]

The newer Epson scanners really do give great pics straight from the scanner.

[AtitG]

At what dpi do you scan your negatives (120 & 35mm) colt?

[Swift1]

At what dpi do you scan your negatives (120 & 35mm) colt?

Usually 2400dpi for both.
I've scanned a few 35mm Portra frames at 6400dpi with the V750, and they look really good.

[AtitG]

Thank you

[LesDMess]

Another from the last roll of redscale. A bit different with the sun over my left shoulder instead of shooting directly into it. Four minute exposure.

Interesting results from this film but I am not sure what to make of it. Perhaps it is looking for a more appropriate subject or lighting or both?

[_Ben]

Interesting results from this film but I am not sure what to make of it. Perhaps it is looking for a more appropriate subject or lighting or both?

I'm not sure either. It was three rolls of 120 for $12 IIRC. Kind of a novelty IMO. Don't think I'll buy it again, maybe 35mm in an extra camera. Trying out different film is cheaper and more enjoyable than lusting after unattainable gear, at least for me anyway.

[Swift1]

This is a digital image, but I figured it kinda belongs here.
I did a 6400dpi scan of my "Newseum" negative, and then out of curiosity, I had it printed at 20"x 30".
Considering that it's such a huge enlargement of 400 iso 35mm film, it actually looks quite good.

[LesDMess]

This is a digital image, but I figured it kinda belongs here.
I did a 6400dpi scan of my "Newseum" negative, and then out of curiosity, I had it printed at 20"x 30".
Considering that it's such a huge enlargement of 400 iso 35mm film, it actually looks quite good.

Perfectly fine since it is a print of your film shot.

When I started back again into film in early 2000, I also made 20" X 30" optical prints of each film type I was using then and one of those was Fuji Superia 1600. This gave me a basis for comparison with my own scans and expected enalrgements. I found it a very useful exercise.

[Swift1]

Perfectly fine since it is a print of your film shot.

When I started back again into film in early 2000, I also made 20" X 30" optical prints of each film type I was using then and one of those was Fuji Superia 1600. This gave me a basis for comparison with my own scans and expected enalrgements. I found it a very useful exercise.

How did the Superia 1600 work at 20"x30"?

[LesDMess]

How did the Superia 1600 work at 20"x30"?

It is actually quite good - much better than I anticipated.

[Swift1]

It is actually quite good - much better than I anticipated.

Awesome!

[LesDMess]

Awesome!

What was really great was 20" X 30" optical prints only cost about $15 back in early 2000. I even got optical prints for some of my slides. When the slides came back, it included an interneg. So they shot the slide with a negative and they made the prints from the interneg and not the slides. Unfortunately the interneg copy suffered a bit of loss of detail.

[stevebrot]

Looks great to me.

FWIW, any scan of negative film is post processed.

...as is any print made from any film!


Steve

[stevebrot]

small British cars from the 50s

I believe those are made-in-America Nash Metropolitans.


Steve