Just purchased a Coolscan V ED

[Ivan]

I was sorting through 25 years worth of slides and negatives today. I
forgot about all the great images I had taken over the years. It used to be
such a bother to take the negatives to the lab for enlarging. They could
never get the cropping just right, or the critical colors right, or even
make snow white instead of gray. Between that and having recent exposure to
Photoshop I could resist no longer. I dropped what I was doing to go buy a
Nikon scanner. I'm in a small rural area in Canada so of course I paid my
left coconut for it. It could have been worse though......I had to pick up
and move the Coolscan 5000 which was sitting onto of the Coolscan V. I
almost didn't put the 5000 down. Oh well, the store has a one week return
policy and a two week exchange, so I must be strong for at least two weeks.
I will be installing it this evening, and subjecting this NG with samples.
Wish me luck....any advice?
Ivan

 

[David Sykes]

Wish me luck....any advice?

For what it's worth, I had more luck with the NikonScan software than with
VueScan.
That surprised me.
Also, VueScan chopped the right side of the images.
After advice from here, I also bought the FH-3 strip film holder from Amazon
UK.
It took a few months for delivery !


David Sykes

 

[im5150too]

For what it's worth, I had more luck with the NikonScan software than with
VueScan.
That surprised me.
Also, VueScan chopped the right side of the images.
After advice from here, I also bought the FH-3 strip film holder from Amazon
UK.
It took a few months for delivery !


David Sykes

I'm just starting to figure out mine. The documentation that comes
with the V ED isn't the best... Do a search on Nikon and Nikonscan on
this thread. Tons of useful advice, especially from Kennedy and Wayne
Fulton.

 

[Ivan]

I'm just starting to figure out mine. The documentation that comes
with the V ED isn't the best... Do a search on Nikon and Nikonscan on
this thread. Tons of useful advice, especially from Kennedy and Wayne
Fulton.

Okay, will do that. Looking good so far. Scanning slides of autumn leaves.
Nice. Ice seems to be a good thing!! Yeah the documentaion isn't the best.
Toggling between the screens is confusing...but it's only been one hour now.
Do you have any scans to show yet?
Ivan

 

[Ivan]

http://photobucket.com/albums/v453/Prairie_Pal/Nikon Coolscans/?

 

[im5150too]

Okay, will do that. Looking good so far. Scanning slides of autumn leaves.
Nice. Ice seems to be a good thing!! Yeah the documentaion isn't the best.
Toggling between the screens is confusing...but it's only been one hour now.
Do you have any scans to show yet?
Ivan

I've scanned about 150 negatives, mostly old family snapshots. The
more I do the better they get. I'll probably be rescanning most of
them. That seems to be the norm here.... Lots of comments about
thinking they looked so great until you learn.

The scan tools including the ICE and GEM have been wonderful. The Ice
in particular is really amazing! I wish the ICE in my Epson 4870 was
even half as good. It is hard to tell any difference in the
Epson....very disappointing! Even after careful cleaning, there's
still dust spots on most of the print scans.

My negatives vary so much, it's going to be a while before I figure
out all the tweaks. Growing up poor, a roll of film would sometimes
last most of a year! So lots of different conditions.

You've definitely come to the right place. Lots of knowledgeable,
patient folks, with great ideas. Ignore the occasional knucklehead.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

For what it's worth, I had more luck with the NikonScan software than with
VueScan.
That surprised me.
Also, VueScan chopped the right side of the images.

That should be adjustable in any of the scanning packages - I know it
certainly is in Vuescan.

 

[David Sykes]

David Sykes wrote :
Kennedy McKewan replied :

That should be adjustable in any of the scanning packages - I know it
certainly is in Vuescan.

In a previous thread ("Coolscan V ED unusable with VueScan ? ") I wrote :-

"I have spent all day trying to batch-scan six images (or even any single
image) and it is impossible to get more than one of the images centred in
the preview area.
The remaining ones are cropped left or right.
The preview area is very 'tight' .
Even though you can set an initial offset and frame-spacing this is not
consistent enough."

Someone recommended the FH-31 filmstrip holder and I now use that for
'troublesome' end-frames.


David Sykes

 

[Ivan]

I'm pleased with the scans I'm getting, especially considering they will be
improving even more. Now I have a project I need to finish in two days.
The factory where I work is inviting our employees to submit "seasonal
scenic" pictures for a desk top calendar. They are requesting 4x6 prints or
digital files. The person who is collecting the images is clueless as to
what file formats they want....she's only a go between for head office 3000
kms away. I'm assuming they are not publishing the calendar "in house".
And if they accept the digital file as one of the images, I have NO IDEA how
they will use it. I don't know if they need a tiff, jpeg, NEF. Off the top
of your head what would you suggest, at least as far as resolution? If they
are going to use the file directly, what would be your best guess for
resolution? I'm still new at this, and I wouldn't ask such a naive question
if I had more time to do my own leg work.
Thanks, Ivan

 

[Matthew Rex]

David Sykes wrote :



Kennedy McKewan replied :




In a previous thread ("Coolscan V ED unusable with VueScan ? ") I wrote :-

"I have spent all day trying to batch-scan six images (or even any single
image) and it is impossible to get more than one of the images centred in
the preview area.
The remaining ones are cropped left or right.
The preview area is very 'tight' .
Even though you can set an initial offset and frame-spacing this is not
consistent enough."

Someone recommended the FH-31 filmstrip holder and I now use that for
'troublesome' end-frames.


David Sykes

Do you mean scanning a strip of 6 in the feeder?

There is a desription in the Vuescan manual I think. It goes something like:
1) scan frame 2
2) work out offset from edge of frame to edge of preview area (you can
do that with the mouse
3) enter the value in the appropriate place in Vuescan
4) Scan all 6 frames in bach mode.

Been a long time since I used the strip feeder, don't know if the method
in Vuescan has improved.

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[CSM1]

I'm pleased with the scans I'm getting, especially considering they will
be improving even more. Now I have a project I need to finish in two
days. The factory where I work is inviting our employees to submit
"seasonal scenic" pictures for a desk top calendar. They are requesting
4x6 prints or digital files. The person who is collecting the images is
clueless as to what file formats they want....she's only a go between for
head office 3000 kms away. I'm assuming they are not publishing the
calendar "in house". And if they accept the digital file as one of the
images, I have NO IDEA how they will use it. I don't know if they need a
tiff, jpeg, NEF. Off the top of your head what would you suggest, at
least as far as resolution? If they are going to use the file directly,
what would be your best guess for resolution? I'm still new at this, and
I wouldn't ask such a naive question if I had more time to do my own leg
work.
Thanks, Ivan

If you know the size the image will be printed on the calendar then you can
calculate the needed digital image size.

They are asking for 6 X 4 inches.
Take the dimensions and multiply by 300.
6 X 300 = 1800 pixels.
4 X 300 = 1200 pixels.
So you need a 1800 X 1200 pixel image. 2.16Megapixels.
A 2 Megapixel camera makes a 1600 X 1200 pixel image.
2.16 Megapixel camera or more is needed for a calendar.

If you have more than a 2 Megapixel camera, do not crop or reduce the image.
The printer would like as much resolution and they can get. The printer will
adjust the image as necessary.

I would do both a TIFF and a High quality JPEG. That way the printer can
choose the format.
Do not use NEF unless it is asked for by the calendar printer.

 

[David Sykes]

:

Do you mean scanning a strip of 6 in the feeder?
There is a desription in the Vuescan manual I think.

Thanks, I will bear that in mind and may try again.

David

 

[CSM1]

If you know the size the image will be printed on the calendar then you can
calculate the needed digital image size.

They are asking for 6 X 4 inches.
Take the dimensions and multiply by 300.
6 X 300 = 1800 pixels.
4 X 300 = 1200 pixels.
So you need a 1800 X 1200 pixel image. 2.16Megapixels.
A 2 Megapixel camera makes a 1600 X 1200 pixel image.
2.16 Megapixel camera or more is needed for a calendar.

If you have more than a 2 Megapixel camera, do not crop or reduce the image.
The printer would like as much resolution and they can get. The printer will
adjust the image as necessary.

I would do both a TIFF and a High quality JPEG. That way the printer can
choose the format.
Do not use NEF unless it is asked for by the calendar printer.

Addendum.
The image should be in landscape. The wider dimension horizontal. The narrow
dimension vertical.

 

[Jan]

(e-mail address removed) (im5150too) wrote in message

I wish the ICE in my Epson 4870 was
even half as good. It is hard to tell any difference in the
Epson....very disappointing! Even after careful cleaning, there's
still dust spots on most of the print scans.

If the ICE on your Epson 4870 leaves dust spots, you should send your
scanner in for repair.
I had problems with ICE on my Epson 4870 twice (an infrared channel
misalignment caused the software to apply the corrections *besides*
the dust spots, so the dust remained visible). On both occasions the
problem disappeared as suddenly and obscurely as it had come, just a
few days after it started...
I contacted Epson and they said I should send my scanner in for
repair, but I'm waiting until the problem reappears (hope it will
during the warranty time).

Use Vuescan to find out if you've also got problems with misalignment.
Vuescan is able to visualise the infrared channel (you can give it any
colour you like). You'd see the infrared detection just beside the
actual dust spots on the RGB picture. Try it on the edges of the slide
scan area (in the centre the misalignment is only minimal).

I did several hundreds of scans with ICE with my Epson 4870, and it
removes *every* dust spot (and other fungus-like spots on old slides).
Only the very big marks (e.g. spots of several mm diameter on damaged
slides) aren't fully eliminated.

Jan

 

[im5150too]

(e-mail address removed) (im5150too) wrote in message

If the ICE on your Epson 4870 leaves dust spots, you should send your
scanner in for repair.
I had problems with ICE on my Epson 4870 twice (an infrared channel
misalignment caused the software to apply the corrections *besides*
the dust spots, so the dust remained visible). On both occasions the
problem disappeared as suddenly and obscurely as it had come, just a
few days after it started...
I contacted Epson and they said I should send my scanner in for
repair, but I'm waiting until the problem reappears (hope it will
during the warranty time).

Use Vuescan to find out if you've also got problems with misalignment.
Vuescan is able to visualise the infrared channel (you can give it any
colour you like). You'd see the infrared detection just beside the
actual dust spots on the RGB picture. Try it on the edges of the slide
scan area (in the centre the misalignment is only minimal).

I did several hundreds of scans with ICE with my Epson 4870, and it
removes *every* dust spot (and other fungus-like spots on old slides).
Only the very big marks (e.g. spots of several mm diameter on damaged
slides) aren't fully eliminated.

Jan

I have had fairly good results on negatives with the Epson, just not
much on prints. Seems to be everybody's experience. I bought the
4870 mainly for prints, I bought a Nikon for the film. I have a small
quantity of medium frame negatives that the Epson is good for, maybe
I'll return it after that, and just use my older Epson flatbed.

Bottom line, if you need the ICE for prints, the Epson 4870 is going
to dissapoint you.

 

[Jan]

(e-mail address removed) (im5150too) wrote in message >

I have had fairly good results on negatives with the Epson, just not
much on prints. Seems to be everybody's experience. I bought the
4870 mainly for prints, I bought a Nikon for the film. I have a small
quantity of medium frame negatives that the Epson is good for, maybe
I'll return it after that, and just use my older Epson flatbed.

Bottom line, if you need the ICE for prints, the Epson 4870 is going
to dissapoint you.

I forgot to specify : the ICE misalignment problems I had occurred
with transparancies only (slides & negatives).
ICE on prints is indeed another story. I had good results on some
occasions, and major trouble on others.

As I needed the flatbed for MF slides and negatives anyway, I decided
not to buy a dedicated film scanner immediately (Nikon LS V is on top
of my list, but the major drawback for me is that it can't batch scan
slides at all, for that I'd need a $$$ Nikon 5000-with-slide-feeder).
Since the Epson is able to produce scans that are good enough for me
(I'm getting decent A4 prints out of a 24x36mm slide/negative), I
probably won't buy the Nikon after all.

Jan

 

[Ivan]

"Jan" wrote :

As I needed the flatbed for MF slides and negatives anyway, I decided
not to buy a dedicated film scanner immediately (Nikon LS V is on top
of my list, but the major drawback for me is that it can't batch scan
slides at all, for that I'd need a $$$ Nikon 5000-with-slide-feeder).
Since the Epson is able to produce scans that are good enough for me
(I'm getting decent A4 prints out of a 24x36mm slide/negative), I
probably won't buy the Nikon after all.

Jan, I'm curious what your applications are to be satisfied with A4 prints
from your 24x36mm originals. What are your requirements?
Ivan

 

[Jan]

Jan, I'm curious what your applications are to be satisfied with A4 prints
from your 24x36mm originals. What are your requirements?
Ivan

Well, I don't think my requirements differ from anybody else's : I'm
satisfied when I can get a sharp (that is, after Photoshop USM) print
with realistic colours (sometimes after some curve tweaking in
Photoshop).
I mainly take nature pictures - as an amateur, I'm not a pro.
First requirement is good source material. I got the best results with
Fuji Sensia/Provia/Velvia slide film and a 50mm lens (no zoom).

When I want an A4 print, I need to use the whole 24x36mm surface (no
cropping since the magnification factor would become too big). The
Epson 4800's true resolution is around 2400dpi (my "experienced"
guess), so that's just enough for a 300dpi A4 print.

With zoom lenses and/or consumer grade film (e.g. Fuji Superia), I can
get very good results only up to A5 maximum. A4 is still acceptable if
you don't judge with your nose on the print.

A4 printed from a MF original (Fuji Velvia & Rolleiflex) is *splendid*
most of the time. The MF thing is the other reason I needed the 4870 -
a Nikon 8000 or 9000 is way above my budget).

Other software/hardware used : Qimage, Epson R200.

Jan

 

[Ivan]

Ivan Asked:
Jan explained:

Well, I don't think my requirements differ from anybody else's : I'm
satisfied when I can get a sharp (that is, after Photoshop USM) print
with realistic colours (sometimes after some curve tweaking in
Photoshop).
I mainly take nature pictures - as an amateur, I'm not a pro.
First requirement is good source material. I got the best results with
Fuji Sensia/Provia/Velvia slide film and a 50mm lens (no zoom).

When I want an A4 print, I need to use the whole 24x36mm surface (no
cropping since the magnification factor would become too big). The
Epson 4800's true resolution is around 2400dpi (my "experienced"
guess), so that's just enough for a 300dpi A4 print.

With zoom lenses and/or consumer grade film (e.g. Fuji Superia), I can
get very good results only up to A5 maximum. A4 is still acceptable if
you don't judge with your nose on the print.

A4 printed from a MF original (Fuji Velvia & Rolleiflex) is *splendid*
most of the time. The MF thing is the other reason I needed the 4870 -
a Nikon 8000 or 9000 is way above my budget).

Other software/hardware used : Qimage, Epson R200.

Jan

Jan, If you can live with the compromise that's great!
And what is your finished product intended for? I know you said you're not
professional,
but do you still produce any prints to sell? Are you framing for display?
I was curious
of what the level of quality you are achieving. Does the 4870 reach the
fringe of producing saleable prints from MF for portraits or scenics?
Ivan

 

[Jan]

And what is your finished product intended for?

Personal pleasure only. I'd love to do more around photography, but
I'd need a second life... Right now it's no more than a hobby for
which I haven't got enough time...

I know you said you're not
professional, but do you still produce any prints to sell?

No I don't. Mainly because I'm not familiar at all with this circuit &
I haven't got the time to get into it.

Are you framing for display?

I "display" in my office - my job hasn't got anything to do with
photography, but as I spend most of my day in my office...
Collegues-amateur-photographers have been amazed to hear that they
were looking at prints that were scanned with a (relatively) low cost
scanner and printed with a really low cost printer (if you don't count
the ink price . And then they looked again with their noses right
onto the prints and were even more amazed.

I was curious
of what the level of quality you are achieving. Does the 4870 reach the
fringe of producing saleable prints from MF for portraits or scenics?
Ivan

I'd definitely say yes, and most certainly from MF ! But you have to
get it all right from the start (tripod etc.).

As for the colo(u)rs : I can get the colo(u)rs spot on (easy to
compare when you have slides as source material), though sometimes a
bit of tweaking in Photoshop is necessary to get there.

But to be honest : not every slide->scan->print is a success story.
It's also a matter of getting to know your equipment & I'm still
learning.

Jan