Scanner, Epson V 750 Pro

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tim,

 

For dust, try this :

BOOFEY*COM - Professional Film Cleaning

 

I'm very happy with it.

Cheers,

Johan

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ericperlberg]

Eric, thanks. I have looked but can't see the reference to the review--could you post it again? Sounds like a worthwhile read for someone like me.

 

This is the review for the 700 and this is the review for the 750. The 750 is an extension of the 700 one and both are worth reading I thought (I'm trying to decide whether to get one... I once owned a Nikon 4000 and found it so slow and the whole workflow so mindnumbing that I swore off film forever which as we know can be a very short time relatively speaking

 

It's useful to me to read the varying opinions here (and thanks to those posting). One thing which might play into the different opinions is the type of film used (this is a question). I could imagine that people working with Tri-x and a 700 will have much different scanning expectations than someone working with a fine grained colour film or slides leading to wildly different judgements? Anyway, site I've linked to is generally well regarded from what I know.

[Tim B]

Tim,

 

For dust, try this :

BOOFEY*COM - Professional Film Cleaning

 

I'm very happy with it.

Cheers,

Johan

 

Johan,

 

Wow! Thanks for this. Does this really work and without damage to film?

If so I feel like Christmas has come early. Why haven't I heard of this before? All my adult life I have been struggling with dust, first in the darkroom, now with the scanner and at last this comes along.

 

Thanks again, this forum is a great place.

 

Tim

[photolandscape]

This is the review for the 700 and this is the review for the 750. The 750 is an extension of the 700 one and both are worth reading I thought (I'm trying to decide whether to get one... I once owned a Nikon 4000 and found it so slow and the whole workflow so mindnumbing that I swore off film forever which as we know can be a very short time relatively speaking

 

It's useful to me to read the varying opinions here (and thanks to those posting). One thing which might play into the different opinions is the type of film used (this is a question). I could imagine that people working with Tri-x and a 700 will have much different scanning expectations than someone working with a fine grained colour film or slides leading to wildly different judgements? Anyway, site I've linked to is generally well regarded from what I know.

 

Eric, thanks very much. Look forward to reading both.

[JHAG]

Johan,

 

Wow! Thanks for this. Does this really work and without damage to film?

If so I feel like Christmas has come early. Why haven't I heard of this before? All my adult life I have been struggling with dust, first in the darkroom, now with the scanner and at last this comes along.

 

Thanks again, this forum is a great place.

 

Tim

 

Tim,

As far as I know, it's safe, reliable, quite efficient. You have to be careful not to touch the film with the antistatic brush though.

[ericperlberg]

FWIW More comparisons between a Nikon 9000 dedicated scanner and the 700/750. The Nikon definately pulls more detail seems to be the consensus. Here. Also includes a link to comparing drum scanning to desktop scanning. No difficulty here deciding which works better.

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, Eric, I had seen this one.

More details for the Nikon, yes, it should be : it's 4 times more expensive.

Apart that, the poor reliability of the alim of the 9000 is well documented

history.

PhotoNet has a thread on a user who had his replaced 3 times, with one

DOA and two others dying on him within a few weeks, 1 scanner 2 times

sent in on repair with Nikon, Nikon sending it back defective, und so weiter…

 

Apparently, lesser models, like the 5000 many users here seem to be

very happy with, don't seem to suffer such defects.

[Guest jimmy pro]

FWIW More comparisons between a Nikon 9000 dedicated scanner and the 700/750. The Nikon definately pulls more detail seems to be the consensus.

 

My lab guy dumped his 9000 for a 750. But he only uses it for medium format (and I suppose some large format if he ever gets any). Still uses a 5000 for 35mm. He also says that (in order of effectiveness) adjusting the height of the holders, using a glass holder or wet-mounting ups the 750's capabilities significantly, as does doing multiple scan passes with the View-Scan software. Again, scanning isn't my bag, so just passing on what someone said who by his results really knows his scanning.

 

Jim Provenzano

[vanhulsenbeek]

Hi,

 

I've just acquired a v750 for my MF film and am so far very impressed with the results. I've had a brief go with Vuescan, but find a few glitches I need to work on. At the moment SilverFast Ai is easier.

 

I'm using the SilverFast software for best control, although the Epson Scan software works for "quick and dirty."

 

I use the V700 with (upgraded) Silverfast Ai software, because that software makes working with multiple 35 slides very easy. The results, with ICE, leave nothing to be desired.

 

Anyone expecting scanner results from 35 slides (from whatever consumer scanner) to better >10Mp digital pictures should continue dreaming. They will never get there, in real life and at reasonable costs.