scanning b&w negatives with Epson V500

cad van lei

cad van lei

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8
Name
dan
Edit My Images
Yes
good morning,

wondering if any of you is familiar with the Epson Pro V500 (with "ImageScan!" for Linux) and could advise me on the correct way to scan 35mm B&W negatives.

the Epson manual says: Slide one or two film strips all the way into the film holder with the shiny base side facing down..

I've come across a variety of posts - various forums - where a number of people claim that this is not the best way to do it: negatives should be scanned "emulsion face-down", they say (so, if I understand this correctly, that'd be "shiny based side face-up").

Now, i've tried both ways but can't seem to notice any difference in terms of result (other than having to flip the image if i scan the negative "shiny side face-up". On the other hand, the Gimp on my ancient PC cannot handle scans deeper than 1,200dpi...

forgotten to say that i don't scan to get good quality prints, but as sort-of pre-darkroom activity, if this makes any sense at all.

can you please help? Thanks!
 
welcome to tp Dan
if you are only scanning them instead of doing a contact print do them shiny side down to save flipping them ( thats pretty much what i scan mine for, much better to see whats on them than a small contact sheet )
 
thanks for the tip donutagain!

on a separate note, i couldn't agree more on the combination FM + HP5 :)
 
Welcome Dan. I do the same as Andy, above. I haven't noticed any real difference in scanning when the other way round but it does save a step when you don't have to flip.

Andy
 
Not sure if it's appropriate to re-use this thread... although both the conditions apply! I was scanning my black and white 645 negatives on my newish V.500 yesterday evening. The processed film had just arrived from Peak, but the results were terrible; absolutely full of dust! One negative needed over 300 retouches, and a couple more needed over 200.

Thinking about it, I realise that I had been scanning my father's DufayColors: 75-year old transparencies in card mounts, and I hadn't cleaned the platen.

So my question is: what sort of flat-bed scanner hygiene regime do you operate? Clearly there is danger of adding fluff or of abrading the glass if not careful.
 
i give both sides a good blow job..............oi leave it out you dirty gits
then a gentle wipe over with a soft cloth now and again and if i want a half decent scan i make sure the negs are clean as well ,,i dont print from scans though so im not that fussed about dust ( showing up )
 
cad van lei said:
on a separate note, i couldn't agree more on the combination FM + HP5 :)
Click to expand...

i'll never sell the fm's as long as there is film ,,,and hp5+ is the tank of the film world ,it makes me look better than i am ,,,
who was that at the back said anything would ??? just watch it pal thats all just watch it :D
 
hp5+ is the tank of the film world

:) i like that. I just hope prices don't keep going up...i'm considering turning to fomapan...possibly that'd be unwise a move?

ChrisR: i understand that the Epson comes with some technology that removes dust (and scratches, maype) from films, though i don't think i can use it on Linux...
 
cad van lei said:
hp5+ is the tank of the film world :) i like that. I just hope prices don't keep going up...i'm considering turning to fomapan...possibly that'd be unwise a move? ChrisR: i understand that the Epson comes with some technology that removes dust (and scratches, maype) from films, though i don't think i can use it on Linux...
Click to expand...

It would be unwise in my opinion, fomapans quality control isn't nowhere near that of Ilfords and the emulsion itself is a lot more fragile.
 
donutagain said:
i give both sides a good blow job..............oi leave it out you dirty gits then a gentle wipe over with a soft cloth now and again and if i want a half decent scan i make sure the negs are clean as well ,,i dont print from scans though so im not that fussed about dust ( showing up )
Click to expand...

Yep - I find a rocket blower comes in handy for removing dust from negs and the scan bed
 
robhooley167 said:
It would be unwise in my opinion, fomapans quality control isn't anywhere near that of Ilfords and the emulsion itself is a lot more fragile.
Click to expand...

Corrected the terrible grammar for you Rob. Wouldn't want people to think you woz fick :nuts::D
 
cad van lei said:
ChrisR: i understand that the Epson comes with some technology that removes dust (and scratches, maype) from films, though i don't think i can use it on Linux...
Click to expand...

Hi, yes I've used that infrared tech on my Plustek; the trouble is that it doesn't work with black and white films becuse of the silver content. Actually, with Silverfast on the Plustek I can draw a mask so that the infrared is only applied to the sky; this worked quite well with some of my ancience Kodachromes. But I don't think that capability is available with Vuescan, which I use for the V.500 for MF stuff. :(
 
ChrisR said:
Hi, yes I've used that infrared tech on my Plustek; the trouble is that it doesn't work with black and white films becuse of the silver content. Actually, with Silverfast on the Plustek I can draw a mask so that the infrared is only applied to the sky; this worked quite well with some of my ancience Kodachromes. But I don't think that capability is available with Vuescan, which I use for the V.500 for MF stuff. :(
Click to expand...

I've found it does highly depend on the frame, some that I've tried using with just straight Digital ICE don't show any sharpness reduction, but others do! I've tried sorting them by colour etc, but I've not actually been able to identify any clear pattern as even some with mass amounts of cyan (other than the sky) don't show any reduction (but others do) or sometimes theres not a hint of a cyan sort of colour and there will be a reduction.

The philosophy that I've eventually come to is: scan it both with and without ICE to see if there is a difference, and if there is a reduction in sharpness then go with the non-ICE version (in Vuescan you can alter the ICE setting after scanning and then just save it twice). It would take a while if I was doing a lot of them, but its probably less than that of having to remove the dust etc if the ICE could have worked.
 
It may just be me, but I find I tend to spend just as much time spotting out the artefacts that ICE creates when it removes dust as I would spotting the dust itself, and the ICE artefacts are harder to work on.

I don't bother with it as a result.
 
I've also noticed that the scans using Vuescan (whether from the V.500 or the Plustek) are much "flatter" than when I used Silverfast with the Plustek. In the latter case I could increase the contrast in a way that I haven't found with Vuescan. I have managed to increase the contrast with Aperture, and maybe that's the right way to do it. But I prefer to use JPEGs rather than TIFFs (since it's "be kind to your hard disk" week :) ), and somehow it seems like it would be better to get those manipulations out of the way at source?

I thought it might be possible to save the "good shots" as TIFFs, but judging from the last 4 rolls I've scanned, the process of deciding on good shots is not really possible at scan time. So to do this I'd have to go back and scan again. In the past, this has happened a few times, but it's unlikely to be a regular part of my workflow!
 
Musicman said:
It may just be me, but I find I tend to spend just as much time spotting out the artefacts that ICE creates when it removes dust as I would spotting the dust itself, and the ICE artefacts are harder to work on.

I don't bother with it as a result.
Click to expand...

For me it really depends on the type of film being used. I find ICE works very well on colour negative film but that's about it, I never even try it anymore if I'm scanning black and white or slide!
 
The effectiveness of ICE does highly depend on the scanner, some are just better it at than others.

I use it for all colour film (minus Kodachrome sometimes) on my Reflecta Proscan 7200 dedicated 35mm scanner as it just works so effectively and saves so much time. I've only every noticed it make a slight error once, so I dust simply blew off the dust again, and rescanned. It as fine the next time.
 
I've not really noticed any difference when scanning from either side of black and white negatives. One thing I don't use though is ICE. I feel it takes away something from the images, I quite like the scratches and dust marks. I like imperfections, you get imperfections with anything that is hand made and in my case home developed films.

Also I bought the Lomo Digitalizer neg holder for scanning 35mm. I find that the holder for 120mm that comes with the scanner works great, but not so much the 35mm holder. I find that too flimsy. Also, with the Lomo holder you also get the sprocket holes which is nice if you're into that kind of thing.
 
KayJay said:
I've not really noticed any difference when scanning from either side of black and white negatives. One thing I don't use though is ICE. I feel it takes away something from the images, I quite like the scratches and dust marks. I like imperfections, you get imperfections with anything that is hand made and in my case home developed films.
Click to expand...

Well ICE doesn't work with B&W anyway so I think the point is moot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top