[goddo31]

7600i

It's interesting that you are getting better results with the Epson even though in theory it cannot resolve as much detail as the Plustek.
A good reminder perhaps that resolution isn't everything.

[dsmithhfx]

[photocles]

More way-back machine stuff. Proof that I've had a camera in my hands most of my life. c1979-1980 in Monument Valley. My dad's baby blue 1969 Bronco and my mom with her own camera are in the foreground. I had just inherited a well-used Kodak Instamatic C-126. Scanned from a drugstore print of the same vintage - the colors now nearly gone.

[gofour3]

I had just inherited a well-used Kodak Instamatic C-126.

Nice, that was my first camera as well. I started with Kodachrome 64 and the slides are still like new after almost 50 years.

Phil.

[Swift1]

It's interesting that you are getting better results with the Epson even though in theory it cannot resolve as much detail as the Plustek.
A good reminder perhaps that resolution isn't everything.

This kinda makes sense to me.
In my experience, most dedicated 35mm give more detail, but they give you a "dry" almost harsh gritty look. The Epson flatbed scanners don't give the same level of detail, but will give you a much smoother "wet" look. With careful scanning and careful editing and the right amount of sharpening, I've found that I can usually get better looking results from my V750 than I can get with my Nikon Coolscan V.

[stevebrot]

Colton, I so want to straighten up that bit of chrome trim!

That is rangefinder artifact


Steve

[dsmithhfx]

Tmax 400

[jschoonj]

Canon 7 rangefinder
Canon 50/2.2 LTM
Fujicolor C200
Epson V750-M Pro

Great shot.

[Swift1]

Great shot.

Thank you kind sir

---------- Post added 05-30-20 at 10:22 AM ----------

Asahi Pentax SV
Super-Takumar 55/1.8
Kodak Ektar 100
Epson V750-M Pro

[cooltouch]

This kinda makes sense to me.
In my experience, most dedicated 35mm give more detail, but they give you a "dry" almost harsh gritty look. The Epson flatbed scanners don't give the same level of detail, but will give you a much smoother "wet" look. With careful scanning and careful editing and the right amount of sharpening, I've found that I can usually get better looking results from my V750 than I can get with my Nikon Coolscan V.

I have a 4990, which was the immediate predecessor to the V750. Forget about the exaggerated resolution claims that Epson (and others) tout regarding their flatbed scanners. Mine supposedly has 4800x9600 dpi resolution with a 4.0 DMax. Even though it did a decent job of scanning negatives and slides, I was never quite happy with it because I could tell, just by looking through a loupe, that the 4990 was not generating the sort of resolution I was seeing with my loupe. After doing quite a bit of research on the subject, I found out that the 4990's real resolution is something like 2000 pixels per inch and that the V750's is only about 2200 to 2300 ppi.

But one thing I did find that sort of blurred these values was, if I scanned at maximum resolution, the gradient in colors that was recorded was quite a bit finer than the resolution the printer was supposedly recording. So, suddenly it was no longer clear what actual resolution was anymore once the gradation of colors got tossed into the mix. I suppose if I want to look at edge definition, I need to use the lower resolution number, but if I'm looking at color depth, I need to be aware of a noticeably higher number. Perhaps this contributes to the "wet" look you mention, since there is a noticeably smoother flow of color at higher scanner resolutions.

These days, I use my 4990 for medium format scanning, which it does an excellent job at, and I duplicate my 35mm negatives and slides with my 24.3 mp Sony NEX 7. 24.3 mp gives me 4000 x 6000 pixel images. I find the reproductions using my duplication setup to be very faithful to the originals.

[TwoUptons]

Another from the KX walkabout a few weeks ago....
I played with this a little in post, and while the effect is cheap and cheesy, in some of the out of focus areas, it helped the foreground cyprus, I think...


Pentax KX, Ektar 100, Pentax 35-70 f2.8 AF

-Eric

[womble]

This kinda makes sense to me.
In my experience, most dedicated 35mm give more detail, but they give you a "dry" almost harsh gritty look. The Epson flatbed scanners don't give the same level of detail, but will give you a much smoother "wet" look. With careful scanning and careful editing and the right amount of sharpening, I've found that I can usually get better looking results from my V750 than I can get with my Nikon Coolscan V.

I'm very envious of the results you get from your scanning / editing. I never quite manage to get such a great look (and never mind the content).

[dsmithhfx]

Tmax 400

[Swift1]

I'm very envious of the results you get from your scanning / editing. I never quite manage to get such a great look (and never mind the content).

It's pretty much all written down in this,
Getting the most from color negative film with your Epson flatbed. – Photography by Colton Allen

[dsmithhfx]

Tri-X