Have you seen those pictures of a bright orange Half Dome in his gallery? I think the guy is actually mentally ill. www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-10-yosemite/IMG_0960-red-half-dome-at-sunset.jpg
Thank you for posting the full-res tiffs, Kyle. While the differences in the video seemed insignificant to me, looking at those files for myself really opened my eyes.
Unless you're going for a really big print, the Epson does a pretty good job of getting quality scans as long as you know how to edit. With my V800, I get excellent 11x14 prints from 6x7 shots. And really, that's all most people need if they're looking to hang something on the wall. I think most people should be happy with their Epsons and relieve their urges to get a Coolscan.
Yep, there's no doubt that the Epson's are very capable with medium format. And I agree that it's important to take final output into account. I print quite large regularly (30" +), so for me, I'm happy knowing that I'm getting the absolute most out of my negatives with the Nikon. But if I were printing 20" and smaller, I think you'd be able to prep both files to look very similar once on paper.
Always good to see the comparison between these scanners. I've just got back into 35mm film and new to scanning, but even with my cheap V600 the 35mm scans were way way better than the prints I had back from the processing lab. My 8x10 prints look great when viewed from a normal distance. I would love to have a Coolscan but as I don't intend to print above A3 I'll be happy for now getting the best out of my scanner, investing in a very good quality A3 printer and maybe trying out the lab that you use.
For sure. There’s so much variation in the scanning process. Most important is to find a workflow or a lab that you like best and then dial in the details.
@@KyleMcDougall tanks for the video but no man the nikon is far better more sharp image and clear the other is low quality man. How can it be enough for you???
Great comparison ! I have the Epson V750 which I plan to ue for Medium Format and 4X5. I have a dedicated scanner for my 35mm since the Epson is not really great at that format.. I would love to have the Nikon CoolScan, but my budget won't allow it .
Hi Kyle! Thank you very much! This video made my choice into Epson! Your comparison helped me to make a right decision! Thank you again! Wish you a great photos and personal projects
Man, I saw an Epson 4990 for 70€ online, I'm gonna buy it right now, it looks quite good for what it cost, just enough for what I do. Thanks for the video!
So I have a CS9000 and CS5000, both bought new years ago. The 9000 really is materially and significantly better than the rather high-end Epson scanners I had been using prior to that. One consideration is that the Nikons are much better in digging into dense films. The Epson can't, and when it does try bad artifacts like halos and seeming halation comes up. Film density issues aren't so apparent with color negatives, even the worst of which aren't that dense to begin with. This can be a problem with reversal (slide) film and traditional B&W. When I shoot B&W, I try to maximize the recorded dynamic range, practicing essentially the zone system. A frame of that TMY2 from the RB-67 can sometimes span 11, 12 or 13 stops. The Nikon works; the Epson didn't.
Your videos are always so in depth! Great one as always! Hopefully my Epson scanner will at least be good enough to get me started when I begin shooting Medium format on my channel :)
You will see a real difference with very dense negatives. Any scanner can handle well and normally exposed negatives. It gets interesting with extreme color gradients and very dense negatives. Here, LED always has an advantage over white light.
That’s what I anticipated as well. My old V550 struggled with anything even slightly overexposed. But as you could see in this test, the 4990 actually handled it well.
Great data and info! To be honest, having to scan at a high "resolution" setting in the Epson and scaling down sounds like a horrible workflow considering how much slower the Epson gets at the higher dpi setting! The Nikon is probably also slow per frame but at least the dpi they claim is true! Have a nice week!
well, considering that you wouldn't do that with every single frame, it is not so bad. For internet use, the 2400dpi is more than enough, and if you want to print a select few shots, making that extra effort to scan at max res should not be such a big deal, considering the price difference.
absolutely awesome video that was made infinitely better with the file downloads that are still up 3 years latter... even the images were ideal half in bright sun and half deep shadow (were I would assume lower cost scanners/digital would suffer vs the higher end). Shot medium formate in the beginning of my career for events and in my studio than as the studio slowed started doing more action/sports with 35mm and eventually digital and only doing sports... think it was the Nikons first "full frame" cameras they kinda sealed the deal for my medium formats. Now decades latter I dont shoot for fun much at all and only own FF cams and super teles. I have been wanting to buy a low cost used 6x6 or 645 but just assume even for screen use and modest print sizes I would need a dedicated film scanner so I was really considering a Fuji medium format but they do not have all that much larger sensor than a FF Nikon. I am so outdated your flat bed samples honestly blew me away. Now I just need to decide on a low cost used 645, the Bronica ETRS/Si and the Mamiya 645s seem to be plentiful and comically cheap to start back at this.
I'm so happy I managed to snag a refurbished Epson V700 for 130 euros. I have found that a combination of texture, clarity and sharpening works better at making a scan crisper than just straight up sharpening in LR or an unsharp mask in PS.
I do not mind the difference in sharpness. I'd even say I might prefer the "blurrier" ones from the Epson. Pin sharp images for film seem a little bit "unnatural" to me. However I do mind the color balance. The Coolscan colors are what I expect from film photography. The Epson colors look too "modern". As you said colors may vary depending on the scanning process and settings applied but here, straight out of scan with basic settings, it just looks perfect to me. The color correction potentially needed for the Epson files are beyond my abilities. Cranking one slider for sharpness is easy. Balancing 4 color wheels, 7 sliders, 3 curves and 2 profiles is a job in and of itself. Does it justify the *MASSIVE* price hike? Most certainly not. But if by any one-in-a-million-year chance I were to find a Coolscan for only, say, 4x the price of the Epson I'd be doing some thinking.
In terms of workflow, I would have wanted to hear how much longer it takes to do a Nikon scan vs. the Epson. If the amount of time is significantly greater, then the flatbed becomes a far more "productive" tool.
Hi Kyle. I was looking for some scanner hw to move my negative scanning set up from DSLR (Nikon D90) to something more automated and higher end to yield better and easier scans. I did consider the Coolscan but it is so expensive, and I could not justify the cost of one. I did loads of research over a couple of months and settled on an Epson V850 with Silverfast Ai Studio 9. The entire flow of this setup, in addition to the image quality, is what reinforces this as a fantastic film scanning choice (for me). Also, I've compared high resolution lab scans from two labs with professional scanning kit (Noritsu) using the same negatives as I've scanned with my Epson set up, and there is no real discernable difference in sharpness / clarity between them (I use 3200ppi on the Epson). In addition, Silverfast's Negafix and 'one click' iSRD are game changers and give me such a great starting scan output every time (iSRD not for B&W) that I rarely have to do much to the images once I bring them into LR. If pixel peeping, fixed focus flatbeds like the Epsons may never compete with variable focus 'prosumer' high-end scanners like the Coolscan, so it's not surprising if zooming in to the nth degree some marginal difference in sharpness may be visible. I have no experience with Vuescan but I know that Silverfast Ai plus the dual lens Epson scanners yield very, very good results. So much so that you'd have to get scrupulously close to a print to see any difference. It's interesting to see your comparison in this video but it's not all about sharpness (IMHO) and one's hard earned money may be better spent on hardware and software which provides a more productive workflow end to end rather than just marginally sharper scans. Cheers
Glad to hear the V850 is working for ya, Matt. I've never had a chance to use one, but I've heard great things. But yeah, we're all going to have different preferences. This video is all about just showing the difference between the two and letting others come to their own conclusion. Maybe one day I'll have to try and get my hands on the V850 to see how it is compared to the Nikon, just out of curiosity for myself.
@@KyleMcDougall I'd be happy to scan some negs for you if you wanted to have a look at what comes straight off the v850 with Silverfast and the v850 film holders. There are various other gadgets for flatbeds too that allow the height to fine tuned. Some folks use ANR glass directly on the scanner platen too (not tried that myself). Lot of scanner hacking out there :-)
I have had the V 850 Pro for awhile and just now buying the Wet Scan stuff for it. I will be shooting Velvia 100 in 120 and 4x5 this summer. So I am hoping they look good for printing on the Epson P700. We will see
I'm a noob using 6x7, (RZ67) and yet to scan. I have a Epson Perfection Photo 3200 that I bought from a graphic artist. I'm using updated Silverfast 8 scanning software and I shoot b+w negative. HP5. Thanks for the survey/analysis.
How are the colours? I just bought a second hand 3490 and anxiously waiting for it. There aren't any reviews or smaller scans on the internet. I guess yours is a bit closer to mine, so how are the colours?
@@booleanvisuals8564 Quite well as far as I can figure. I always find the white and black points in PS afterwards though to catch any hidden colour cast.
Another super informative video. A question though. Is the V4990 comparable to the V600? I can't find a lot of information about the V4990 and it seems you can only buy the V600 new...
Hi! What kind of holder did you use to scan those negatives? Asking because the scans made with the epson look quite out of focus and I presume you used holders that don’t have the possibility to select the point of focus. Nikon scanner focuses automatically, that’s why they look sharper. Try v850 with focusing holders and you’ll get better results! 👋
I used the stock holder for this one. Funny enough, I used to own a Better Scanning adjustable holder for my previous V500 Epson, and I did multiple tests at about seven different heights using micro adjustments, and the sharpest scans came from the zero position.
Thanks for the comparisons - interesting video! I have a 4870, very close to the 4990, but one generation older. I've always struggled to get as good color "out of the box" as I get with a Nikon - particularly with negatives. I also find that it's more difficult to get the colors right today compared to when I bought it around 15 years ago. It could be my imagination, that the film has degraded (scanning mostly old film), but I also suspect that the light source in the scanner has changed slightly.
One thing I noticed after using my 4180 for 15yrs then recently upgrading to a v850 - Dmax matters even on negatives (unless you purposely develop thin negs). Negatives that I thought had blown out highlights (and noisy) came through detailed on rescan with the v850.
Thank you so much for this beautiful explaining video, Kyle. I can't find an explanatory video for the Epson Expression 12000 XL Pro anywhere. Have you had any experience with this scanner?
I must disagree with your statement that the v850 is not much different from the 4990. I just upgraded from the v600 and the difference is very substantial. Especially if you wet mount. For 35mm I use the Pacific Image PrimeFilm XAs Automated Super Edition 35mm Slide & Film Scanner and am very surprised at the detail I am getting out of it compared to flatbed. I am getting the same amount of detail as I do from a hi-res lab scan.
Yeah, maybe that came across wrong. No doubt there will be a difference with the 4990/550/600, just from what I’ve seen online with comparisons, there’s still quite a gap between the Coolscan and the 800/850. But of course, I’ve never personally compared the two.
I just bought a 5000ed off ebay. It needs some repairs done but i think i can handle it since its just soldering. Apparently you need a sa-21 adapter to get going with auto feed for negatives. Does that sound right to you? Those adapters are north of 170$ :'(. But i guess its better than the regualr slide adapters. I heard those used to go for 25$ but are now 180$+.
So I see every comment relates to home scanning, my question is are Lab scans any good and what would you look for in a lab scan, can you trust their claimed resolution levels?
Lab scans can be very good. Just all depends on the lab you use. Results can vary quite a bit. I would say look for a lab that is open to feedback and has good communication. You need to be able to tell them your preferences, as well as what worked/what didn't work.
Superb video as usual. Really interesting to see the difference in the resolving power of the two scanners. FYI the epson v700 + have the ability to calibrate focus via the film holders and can make a drastic difference to sharpness. Would be great to see how this comparison of your translates to your prints....
I use a V850 and when I scan a new film I always go through all the shim heights to choose the best one. It's just as a sanity check, to make sure nothing is seriously out of whack, and in the end it's always one of the middle two settings for me. Getting the shim height wrong has, as you say, a drastic effect. Having said that, the scans Kyle shows here are, to my eyes at least, as good as they get from those scanners (i.e. the seem to be scanned at, or very near, the optimal shim height).
@@TrashTheLens glad you adjust them so adamantly... Same here. Even at the highest adjustment I found I needed to add two tabs of electrical tape to increase even more and that brings me even better results!!
@@MrGORILLAWRENCH Wow. I haven't tried that... yet! :) But I do scan emulsion-side down as I found it increases the sharpness a little bit too. Have you considered getting some better holders? Maybe there's something with screw adjustments rather than shims. That would be more precise than electric tape, I guess. Also, I have been wondering what would happen if I ripped the glass bed out, or at least cut a 6cm wide hole in it. But that's not something I'll be trying on my v850. ;)
@@TrashTheLens I've upgraded from the v700 to v800 that has the ANR glass which helps with the film flatness a lot, but only scan a couple at a time compared to the v700. I feel like I've got best quality I can get that isn't wet mounting....
I serviced both scanners, and there are huge differences in construction(you expect that for the massive difference in price) but the short version is this: the nikon is using a bigger brighter lens, also it auto focuses the image, giving it a bit more clarity(if serviced right the epson can get the same clarity but for the price normal calibration is good enough) also epson sensor is waaay higher resolution in total (something like 4 times) for a sensor similar in size(it can scan a full a4 sheet at full 4800dpi), so the nikon has an advantage in dynamic range as pixels are physically bigger and can capture more light). also the light source is of a better quality than epsons leds in theory giving it a better color pallet, with more film types. That said Nikon's technology hasn't advanced past 90's technology, (slightly higher resolution sensor). Epson though uses more recent technology, and I personally prefer the color separation and more natural colors of the epson out of the box. Also in the higher price bracket (v600 - v800) you get a better light source, higher resolution, modern os support, and overall better qc from epson. I use a v600 almost daily, I use the nikon only when I have weird color negatives that it might resove a bit better. That said I also have a(even older) minolta dimage film scanner, that I prefer to the nikon. All in all, for the price and quality, the epsons are unbeatable imo.
Hey Rogier, I used to own a Better Scanning adjustable holder for my previous V500 Epson, and funny enough, I did multiple tests at about seven different heights using micro adjustments, and the sharpest scans came from the zero position.
This is an informative comparison of two scanners. Consider using a black and white image instead - to eliminate the distraction of colour. Colour depends on … « Artistic intent ». Scene. Scanner used [resolution, colour response, dmax]. Program doing the scanning. Parameters of the scan. Output of the scan. Where/how each negative is inverted [Negative lab pro]. Tweaks within the image processing program . Format and process used for the final image [paper, monitor …]. Viewing conditions. Observer [viewing distance/visual response/interpretation].
Great video about limits of flatbed and that you don't need v700/v750/v800/v850 to get so so scans. 4990 is more than capable for RUclips videos and instagram
Thank you for bringing your salt to the scanners comparison! Just bought a second hand Epson v700 and I am eager to find the best workflow. Out of curiosity, what's the max size you would print these negs? For example the 6x7?
Cheers, Tommaso. I’m assuming you’re referring to the Epson scans? If so, if have to grab a file and work with it a bit to give you an exact answer. But you could probably get a nice 20” wide from on of the half res scans, sharpened and prepared properly.
From an uncropped 6x7 scanned on a V800, I usually aim for around 24” on the long side and am perfectly happy with the results. The v700 has a true resolution of around 2300-2500dpi, though you need to scan at 4800dpi and then downres to get that result.
question: will any / every "flatbed" scanner properly scan film? been trying to look for the usual recommended models (V4990, V550, V600) here in the philippines...but sadly, no avail model here... I usually see "Epson Perfection V39II Flatbed Photo Scanner" or "Canon LIDE 400 Flatbed Scanner" here (cost around $100), and it would be a waste of money if I get it and wont scan my films any idea if it will work? Thanks a million! insta sub here :)
Kyle, I watched your comparisons on a color balanced 32 inch monitor and honestly I couldn't tell the difference on any of your examples. That tells me an inexpensive Epson scanner can definitely hold its own against a $3K Nikon scanner.
do you know an epson flatbed that doesn't take 3 years to scan one negative? haha. i have an old epson 3170 that i started using lately, but it takes hours to scan 1 roll of 35mm film.
Very helpful video as always. How would you go about the whites turning grey on the flatbed? I saw the same thing happening with the Plustek and I was wondering if there's a way to tame this problem!
Really enjoy your videos, Kyle, and wondered whether you've considered a comparison between the Coolscan and drum? Would be interesting to see whether there is much or any differences between the two.
The Epson for me is good enough. I had the same scanner and prints looked great up to A3. The difference in colour seems more white balance than straight saturation. If you positively need the super sharpest image for zooming in on or printing very large the nikon is the way to go
I wonder how big a Difference between the Nikon Scanner and a high resolution image taken with a Digital camera. I see lots of people scanning their film that way now
Fascinating comparison! The difference looked VERY substantial to me. Question: How do you think they would compare if I was scanning old photographs as opposed to negatives? Thank you.
Ive been having a hard time with super grainy images and crazy color. Is there a way to tell what problems come from what? Like am I messing up developing or scanning?
Could be a number of different things. Grain/noise could be from under exposure. Colour could be from your conversion process. Hard to tell without seeing the exact images.
Best bet in these situations is to send off a roll to a lab to get professionally scanned. You'll quickly see if there's a problem with the negs through poor development or whether the issue lies with your scanning. I'm lucky enough to own a Frontier and the only time I have any issues with colour is when there's a dev problem. The other option is to invert your phone's screen and use something like Lightroom Mobile to look at your negs.Once properly white-balanced you can get a pretty good idea whether your colours are ok - I use it all the time to get a quick overview of a roll before scanning.
Thanks for the vid and the comparisons. It seems that you're rubbing salt in the wound since the 9000 is pretty hard to find. Lots of people are doing DSLR scanning now, have you or could you compare DSLR to the coolscan?
There’s also the 8000 as an option as well. But yeah, I really wish we got a new ‘affordable’ 120 scanner with similar performance to the Nikon. As for DSLR, maybe in the future, just a big investment to get a setup going when it’s not something I’d use long term.
I love these videos, I'm constantly going back and forth trying to weigh all the pros and cons of upgrading the old Epson. For scanning dense negatives wouldn't it be possible to just scan 2-3 different exposures and then merge into a HDR image? I haven't seen anyone do this with their scanning process with an Epson but it seems like it could easily be done.
3 года назад+1
It's not worth it, it will not really add anything. Scanning dense negatives is not an issue of dynamic range. The Epson can handle most dynamic range that you need. I have scanned hundreds of rolls of negatives with my epson v800 and i never had an issue with it's dynamic range.
Yeah, the issues you may run into with dense negatives won't have anything to do with different exposures. It's all about the lamp in your machine. So it will vary with different scanners. Something like the V800 will likely be better than something like a V550 when it comes to dense negatives. All I know, is from my experience, scanning overexposed negatives with my old V550 was not a great experience. Weird color casts that were hard to correct.
Does photostacking software work well to improve scan image quality? I really can't justify buying an expensive scanner just for a roll of film a year.
You can look at a camera with pixel shift or high res mode. I'm doing a video soon about that. There are some good older cameras that can be had for cheap that do it.
@@KyleMcDougall Thanks. It's the first time I heard of it. I had to Google it. I certainly won't be buying a camera especially for that but it's good information.
The more videos I watch about these film scanning, the more I feel slide film is the only true form of film photography. I mean does anyone still remember what the original Kodak Porta film really looks like?
Film negatives had to be interpreted from the beginning and will ever have to. So I doubt that there is an actual look of Portra films besides what you got from the standard settings of your local minilab and paper. That said, scanning definately adds a very different type of interpretation.
Well, first of all Portra is negative film, not slide. And as far as slide film is concerned, it only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, where good digital cameras have upwards of 15.
I had two Prime Film XAs, they both had banding issues and I had to return both of them. I gave up, sold my flatbed that I used for medium format, and bought a coolscan 9000.
Kyle, I'd suggest it would have been more useful to have looked at images resized to the same size. Without this we were never able to truly compare the same section of the images. 100% isn't a set in stone must see evaluation of the scan - it's just the happenstance of the scanning resolution. By all means look at the Coolscan at 100%, but then resizing the larger Epson file to match the pixel ratio from the Nikon would have been revealing. Or downsize the Nikon to the same size as the 2400 res. from the Epson. There's no doubt the Coolscan would be the boss, but the point here is to show the differences... I have a Coolscan 5000 for 35mm, but I'm just realising that I could sell that and buy a 5000 for about another £1,000. Hmmm.....
Hey Jim, I made full res images available for download from both scanners. Link is in the description. Feel free to download and compare however would suit you best.
I have been using my epson v600 for a couple of months and i hate the result from it. i am going to sell it and buy every things for scanning by my sony digital camera.
35mm, 645, and really anything under 6x6 the Nikon is noticeably better and sharper. 6x7 and above both scanners look quite similar and you really need to pixel peep in order to see a marked difference. So all in all if you’re doing larger negatives the flatbed might be the better deal, while the Nikon is better if you’re doing smaller negatives and worth the extra money.
Epson is definitely more natural, True to life. With a flatbed you can get good results with a smaller file size than a film scanner. Great for creating slide shows that don't take forever to load. For my purposes the flatbed works better. Film scanners are better for photo labs doing detail work.
The Nikon would be my dream home film scanner, but at 3k?! I think I'm gonna have to stick with the Epson I have. Maybe if I'm able to make money from my photography, but I can't justify to spend that much on something without a return.
This video was really well done, but digitally capturing your negatives with a light table, a stand, an Essential Film Holder & good 100/105 macro lens will blow the pants off of any flatbed scanner like the Epson. (Probably not the Nikon tho, but it would be cool to see a comparison video Kyle *hint hint*) I've seen results that were better (imo) than even lab scans with NLP 2.2. The algorithm has come forward eons in just the last few years. Once you go to digital scanning, flatbeds tend to either get sold or thrown in the bin. Imagine scanning a full roll in just a few minutes once you get the hang of it & having results to rival any scanner, even professional labs'... I highly recommend going this route if someone has a decent to good DSLR & a good macro lens. Save your time & get the results you really want. RUclips has a bunch of videos about the process & shows you the results, and also how much better NLP 2.2 is from 2.0. You won't be disappointed.
100% agree. DSLR scans are superior! I get the best scans from my 26mpx DSLR camera. I use it with a macro lens, light table, stand and the EFH. I do all my scans with NLP in LR. I blast through my 120 and 35mm rolls in minutes, not hours. One-shot is good for online or small prints. With stitched shots, it can give you images that are over 10000 pixels long for 120. I may go back to Epson flatbeds for 4x5 or 8x10 but it isn't necessary. Detail from a DSLR scan is equivalent to a Flextight imacon scanner. Those dedicated scanners costs thousands of dollars or $20 per hour at my community lab. The only downside with DSLR scanning is stitching isn't 100% perfect. It doesn't do clear skies/gradients well but you can buy the software for it. DSLR scanning is an investment but it is the future of film scanning. Everything is modular or upgradable while dedicated scanners are just getting older.
@@brntgudn And the software is totally crap for those scanners, some reaching like 20-25 years old now. It's a no brainer to go DSLR scanning when the results are this great & the process takes seconds per image once set up. I do 35mm & 120 scans, so no need on my end to stitch anything, but I see your point. You may need to put it thru PS to get a superior stitching. Kyle gets great results from his Nikon scanner, but I wonder if he tested his Fuji MF (X-T3/X-T4?) versus the Nikon scanner, what the results would be. That would be a great video. When I first started digitizing, I was using my Nikon D90 & my Tokina 100mm Pro Macro, but I upgraded to FF & got a Nikon D600. 10mp vs. 24.3mp. My results are a tonne better now. But after I found the Lomo film holder was slightly scratching my negatives somehow, I immediately stopped using them & decided to order an Essential Film Holder instead. Just waiting for it to be made & shipped out. They're getting so much demand, it's taking two weeks just to fulfill a small chunk of orders coming in by the 2 person company over there in England. Demand outstripping supply there. Good for them hey...
@@mpk33 I'll try stitching in PS but I heard it gives people problems. But I'll give it a shot regardless. I'm still learning more ways to improve the workflow. People say you're missing out on dust removal tech from scanners with DSLR scanning but I found less dust to deal with for shots than on my Flatbed. I use a rocket blower on each frame.
Cheers, Michael. I haven't done any 'camera scanning'. I had the opportunity recently to test out some gear related to it, but it's one of those things where it's quite an investment to get all the pieces you need. Totally doable if I didn't have the Nikon, but since I'm really happy with how it's working for me, it's tough to try and put everything together right now. I still would like to do it at some point in the future, just to be able to make a video about it that would hopefully help others. We'll see!
An interesting comparison. The Nikon scanner is obviously far superior. I wonder how it compares to the top of the line Epson 850 Pro? The Nikon is definitely not in my budget but I might be able to spring for the 850 Pro.
Please do a comparison of the coolscan vs dslr self scan with macro lens Oh and then coolscan vs imacon flextight Coolscan is just too good, it bothers me that no one’s come up with better, more convenient and affordable tech for scanning
Personally, I find just placing straight on glass with ANR glass right on top actually sharpens epson scans even further. The plastic holders are garbage.even with out the anr GLASS, straight on bed is still better.
Yeah, seems like everyone gets mixed results. I had the better scanning holder with ANR glads for my 550 and actually noticed best results from the stock plastic holder. And that was testing it against different heights on the BS holder, as well as straight on the glass.
@@KyleMcDougall And that was?...Seems like your comment got cut short there! I think every scanner is a bit different. I would love a dedicated 120 scanner, but they're all super expensive and I'm not nearly good enough, nor do I make a penny from my work to justify the expense lol. However, I do have an enlarger, which technically squeezes out every ounce of performance which no scanner can match. Issue with that is, you can't really "edit" the photos like you can in Lightroom (like you've shown in your other videos). What you get is what you get, you can dodge and burn it, do some color cast correction, but you'll find your self burning through expensive sheets of paper and chemicals for that.
Yeah, but the image of the Cadillac are not the same. The one on the right was taken at a slightly different angle. Small changes in camera viewpoint can make big changes on film.
Why even shot film if you are going to edit the photos? Just shoot digital. It makes no sense giving the amount you pay for film and processing just to turn around and edit it.
I’m sorry, but don’t you think comparing a $3000 scanner to a $300 scanner is a bit lopsided to begin with? And only using the saturation slider to try to give similar results seems a bit unfair as well. I have no doubt whatsoever I could match the Nikon scan result with the Epson using the color mixer and some masks. If you’re only going to use the out of scanner results to compare the two units I get, but doesn’t post process these days?
![Kodak Black - Catch Fire [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4ch-olIuZo/mqdefault.jpg)
"Let's do this for fun... not that you would ever do this. Let's jack saturation up to 100"
Ken Rockwell was personally offended.
Good.
Have you seen those pictures of a bright orange Half Dome in his gallery? I think the guy is actually mentally ill. www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2021-10-yosemite/IMG_0960-red-half-dome-at-sunset.jpg
Thank you for posting the full-res tiffs, Kyle. While the differences in the video seemed insignificant to me, looking at those files for myself really opened my eyes.
No problem! Always tough to do this on RUclips because of the compression, so I feel like the full res images are a must.
Unless you're going for a really big print, the Epson does a pretty good job of getting quality scans as long as you know how to edit. With my V800, I get excellent 11x14 prints from 6x7 shots. And really, that's all most people need if they're looking to hang something on the wall. I think most people should be happy with their Epsons and relieve their urges to get a Coolscan.
Yep, there's no doubt that the Epson's are very capable with medium format. And I agree that it's important to take final output into account. I print quite large regularly (30" +), so for me, I'm happy knowing that I'm getting the absolute most out of my negatives with the Nikon. But if I were printing 20" and smaller, I think you'd be able to prep both files to look very similar once on paper.
Killer video as always kyle! It makes my day seeing you in my sub box!! :)
Thanks Kelsey!
Always good to see the comparison between these scanners. I've just got back into 35mm film and new to scanning, but even with my cheap V600 the 35mm scans were way way better than the prints I had back from the processing lab. My 8x10 prints look great when viewed from a normal distance. I would love to have a Coolscan but as I don't intend to print above A3 I'll be happy for now getting the best out of my scanner, investing in a very good quality A3 printer and maybe trying out the lab that you use.
For sure. There’s so much variation in the scanning process. Most important is to find a workflow or a lab that you like best and then dial in the details.
@@KyleMcDougall tanks for the video but no man the nikon is far better more sharp image and clear the other is low quality man. How can it be enough for you???
Great comparison ! I have the Epson V750 which I plan to ue for Medium Format and 4X5. I have a dedicated scanner for my 35mm since the Epson is not really great at that format.. I would love to have the Nikon CoolScan, but my budget won't allow it .
Hi Kyle! Thank you very much! This video made my choice into Epson! Your comparison helped me to make a right decision! Thank you again! Wish you a great photos and personal projects
Glad to hear it helped. Cheers.
Man, I saw an Epson 4990 for 70€ online, I'm gonna buy it right now, it looks quite good for what it cost, just enough for what I do. Thanks for the video!
Cheers. The 4990 is still a great scanner.
We need a video comparing the coolscan to a Noritsu HS1800 or Fuji SP3000.
+1 would be very interested in this! I've been relying on lab scans and would be curious how they compare to the Coolscan.
@Frank Silvers how so. Definitely not in workflow.
So I have a CS9000 and CS5000, both bought new years ago. The 9000 really is materially and significantly better than the rather high-end Epson scanners I had been using prior to that.
One consideration is that the Nikons are much better in digging into dense films. The Epson can't, and when it does try bad artifacts like halos and seeming halation comes up. Film density issues aren't so apparent with color negatives, even the worst of which aren't that dense to begin with. This can be a problem with reversal (slide) film and traditional B&W.
When I shoot B&W, I try to maximize the recorded dynamic range, practicing essentially the zone system. A frame of that TMY2 from the RB-67 can sometimes span 11, 12 or 13 stops. The Nikon works; the Epson didn't.
Your videos are always so in depth! Great one as always! Hopefully my Epson scanner will at least be good enough to get me started when I begin shooting Medium format on my channel :)
Thank you! And yea, IMO, the epsons are more than capable with medium format.
Give DSLR scanning a go. The results are amazing.
You will see a real difference with very dense negatives. Any scanner can handle well and normally exposed negatives. It gets interesting with extreme color gradients and very dense negatives. Here, LED always has an advantage over white light.
That’s what I anticipated as well. My old V550 struggled with anything even slightly overexposed. But as you could see in this test, the 4990 actually handled it well.
Great data and info!
To be honest, having to scan at a high "resolution" setting in the Epson and scaling down sounds like a horrible workflow considering how much slower the Epson gets at the higher dpi setting!
The Nikon is probably also slow per frame but at least the dpi they claim is true!
Have a nice week!
well, considering that you wouldn't do that with every single frame, it is not so bad. For internet use, the 2400dpi is more than enough, and if you want to print a select few shots, making that extra effort to scan at max res should not be such a big deal, considering the price difference.
absolutely awesome video that was made infinitely better with the file downloads that are still up 3 years latter... even the images were ideal half in bright sun and half deep shadow (were I would assume lower cost scanners/digital would suffer vs the higher end). Shot medium formate in the beginning of my career for events and in my studio than as the studio slowed started doing more action/sports with 35mm and eventually digital and only doing sports... think it was the Nikons first "full frame" cameras they kinda sealed the deal for my medium formats. Now decades latter I dont shoot for fun much at all and only own FF cams and super teles. I have been wanting to buy a low cost used 6x6 or 645 but just assume even for screen use and modest print sizes I would need a dedicated film scanner so I was really considering a Fuji medium format but they do not have all that much larger sensor than a FF Nikon. I am so outdated your flat bed samples honestly blew me away. Now I just need to decide on a low cost used 645, the Bronica ETRS/Si and the Mamiya 645s seem to be plentiful and comically cheap to start back at this.
Pentax 645 has great legacy and new glass, interchangeable with their 645z 50mgpxl slr.
I'm so happy I managed to snag a refurbished Epson V700 for 130 euros. I have found that a combination of texture, clarity and sharpening works better at making a scan crisper than just straight up sharpening in LR or an unsharp mask in PS.
Great price. Nice find!
I do not mind the difference in sharpness. I'd even say I might prefer the "blurrier" ones from the Epson. Pin sharp images for film seem a little bit "unnatural" to me. However I do mind the color balance. The Coolscan colors are what I expect from film photography.
The Epson colors look too "modern". As you said colors may vary depending on the scanning process and settings applied but here, straight out of scan with basic settings, it just looks perfect to me. The color correction potentially needed for the Epson files are beyond my abilities. Cranking one slider for sharpness is easy. Balancing 4 color wheels, 7 sliders, 3 curves and 2 profiles is a job in and of itself.
Does it justify the *MASSIVE* price hike? Most certainly not. But if by any one-in-a-million-year chance I were to find a Coolscan for only, say, 4x the price of the Epson I'd be doing some thinking.
In terms of workflow, I would have wanted to hear how much longer it takes to do a Nikon scan vs. the Epson. If the amount of time is significantly greater, then the flatbed becomes a far more "productive" tool.
Hi Kyle. I was looking for some scanner hw to move my negative scanning set up from DSLR (Nikon D90) to something more automated and higher end to yield better and easier scans. I did consider the Coolscan but it is so expensive, and I could not justify the cost of one. I did loads of research over a couple of months and settled on an Epson V850 with Silverfast Ai Studio 9. The entire flow of this setup, in addition to the image quality, is what reinforces this as a fantastic film scanning choice (for me). Also, I've compared high resolution lab scans from two labs with professional scanning kit (Noritsu) using the same negatives as I've scanned with my Epson set up, and there is no real discernable difference in sharpness / clarity between them (I use 3200ppi on the Epson). In addition, Silverfast's Negafix and 'one click' iSRD are game changers and give me such a great starting scan output every time (iSRD not for B&W) that I rarely have to do much to the images once I bring them into LR.
If pixel peeping, fixed focus flatbeds like the Epsons may never compete with variable focus 'prosumer' high-end scanners like the Coolscan, so it's not surprising if zooming in to the nth degree some marginal difference in sharpness may be visible. I have no experience with Vuescan but I know that Silverfast Ai plus the dual lens Epson scanners yield very, very good results. So much so that you'd have to get scrupulously close to a print to see any difference.
It's interesting to see your comparison in this video but it's not all about sharpness (IMHO) and one's hard earned money may be better spent on hardware and software which provides a more productive workflow end to end rather than just marginally sharper scans. Cheers
Glad to hear the V850 is working for ya, Matt. I've never had a chance to use one, but I've heard great things. But yeah, we're all going to have different preferences. This video is all about just showing the difference between the two and letting others come to their own conclusion. Maybe one day I'll have to try and get my hands on the V850 to see how it is compared to the Nikon, just out of curiosity for myself.
@@KyleMcDougall I'd be happy to scan some negs for you if you wanted to have a look at what comes straight off the v850 with Silverfast and the v850 film holders. There are various other gadgets for flatbeds too that allow the height to fine tuned. Some folks use ANR glass directly on the scanner platen too (not tried that myself). Lot of scanner hacking out there :-)
I have had the V 850 Pro for awhile and just now buying the Wet Scan stuff for it. I will be shooting Velvia 100 in 120 and 4x5 this summer. So I am hoping they look good for printing on the Epson P700. We will see
I’ve been really happy with 4x5 on the 4990. Should be good to go with the 850 and a wet scan setup!
I'm a noob using 6x7, (RZ67) and yet to scan. I have a Epson Perfection Photo 3200 that I bought from a graphic artist. I'm using updated Silverfast 8 scanning software and I shoot b+w negative. HP5. Thanks for the survey/analysis.
Glad you found it helpful.
How are the colours? I just bought a second hand 3490 and anxiously waiting for it. There aren't any reviews or smaller scans on the internet. I guess yours is a bit closer to mine, so how are the colours?
@@booleanvisuals8564 Quite well as far as I can figure. I always find the white and black points in PS afterwards though to catch any hidden colour cast.
@@filmic1 okey. Thanks for the input. Can't wait for mine!
Another super informative video. A question though. Is the V4990 comparable to the V600? I can't find a lot of information about the V4990 and it seems you can only buy the V600 new...
Hi! What kind of holder did you use to scan those negatives? Asking because the scans made with the epson look quite out of focus and I presume you used holders that don’t have the possibility to select the point of focus. Nikon scanner focuses automatically, that’s why they look sharper. Try v850 with focusing holders and you’ll get better results! 👋
I used the stock holder for this one. Funny enough, I used to own a Better Scanning adjustable holder for my previous V500 Epson, and I did multiple tests at about seven different heights using micro adjustments, and the sharpest scans came from the zero position.
Thanks for the comparisons - interesting video! I have a 4870, very close to the 4990, but one generation older. I've always struggled to get as good color "out of the box" as I get with a Nikon - particularly with negatives. I also find that it's more difficult to get the colors right today compared to when I bought it around 15 years ago. It could be my imagination, that the film has degraded (scanning mostly old film), but I also suspect that the light source in the scanner has changed slightly.
For sure. Hard to know how some of these machines age and what could change over time.
One thing I noticed after using my 4180 for 15yrs then recently upgrading to a v850 - Dmax matters even on negatives (unless you purposely develop thin negs). Negatives that I thought had blown out highlights (and noisy) came through detailed on rescan with the v850.
Thank you so much for this beautiful explaining video, Kyle. I can't find an explanatory video for the Epson Expression 12000 XL Pro anywhere. Have you had any experience with this scanner?
I must disagree with your statement that the v850 is not much different from the 4990. I just upgraded from the v600 and the difference is very substantial. Especially if you wet mount. For 35mm I use the Pacific Image PrimeFilm XAs Automated Super Edition 35mm Slide & Film Scanner and am very surprised at the detail I am getting out of it compared to flatbed. I am getting the same amount of detail as I do from a hi-res lab scan.
Yeah, maybe that came across wrong. No doubt there will be a difference with the 4990/550/600, just from what I’ve seen online with comparisons, there’s still quite a gap between the Coolscan and the 800/850. But of course, I’ve never personally compared the two.
I just bought a 5000ed off ebay. It needs some repairs done but i think i can handle it since its just soldering. Apparently you need a sa-21 adapter to get going with auto feed for negatives. Does that sound right to you? Those adapters are north of 170$ :'(. But i guess its better than the regualr slide adapters. I heard those used to go for 25$ but are now 180$+.
So I see every comment relates to home scanning, my question is are Lab scans any good and what would you look for in a lab scan, can you trust their claimed resolution levels?
Lab scans can be very good. Just all depends on the lab you use. Results can vary quite a bit. I would say look for a lab that is open to feedback and has good communication. You need to be able to tell them your preferences, as well as what worked/what didn't work.
Superb video as usual.
Really interesting to see the difference in the resolving power of the two scanners.
FYI the epson v700 + have the ability to calibrate focus via the film holders and can make a drastic difference to sharpness.
Would be great to see how this comparison of your translates to your prints....
I use a V850 and when I scan a new film I always go through all the shim heights to choose the best one. It's just as a sanity check, to make sure nothing is seriously out of whack, and in the end it's always one of the middle two settings for me. Getting the shim height wrong has, as you say, a drastic effect. Having said that, the scans Kyle shows here are, to my eyes at least, as good as they get from those scanners (i.e. the seem to be scanned at, or very near, the optimal shim height).
@@TrashTheLens glad you adjust them so adamantly... Same here.
Even at the highest adjustment I found I needed to add two tabs of electrical tape to increase even more and that brings me even better results!!
@@MrGORILLAWRENCH Wow. I haven't tried that... yet! :) But I do scan emulsion-side down as I found it increases the sharpness a little bit too. Have you considered getting some better holders? Maybe there's something with screw adjustments rather than shims. That would be more precise than electric tape, I guess.
Also, I have been wondering what would happen if I ripped the glass bed out, or at least cut a 6cm wide hole in it. But that's not something I'll be trying on my v850. ;)
@@TrashTheLens I've upgraded from the v700 to v800 that has the ANR glass which helps with the film flatness a lot, but only scan a couple at a time compared to the v700.
I feel like I've got best quality I can get that isn't wet mounting....
Things I learned today: My Epson is good enough for me. If I was ever making money from my film shots then a Coolscan would be a smart investment.
I serviced both scanners, and there are huge differences in construction(you expect that for the massive difference in price) but the short version is this: the nikon is using a bigger brighter lens, also it auto focuses the image, giving it a bit more clarity(if serviced right the epson can get the same clarity but for the price normal calibration is good enough) also epson sensor is waaay higher resolution in total (something like 4 times) for a sensor similar in size(it can scan a full a4 sheet at full 4800dpi), so the nikon has an advantage in dynamic range as pixels are physically bigger and can capture more light). also the light source is of a better quality than epsons leds in theory giving it a better color pallet, with more film types. That said Nikon's technology hasn't advanced past 90's technology, (slightly higher resolution sensor). Epson though uses more recent technology, and I personally prefer the color separation and more natural colors of the epson out of the box. Also in the higher price bracket (v600 - v800) you get a better light source, higher resolution, modern os support, and overall better qc from epson. I use a v600 almost daily, I use the nikon only when I have weird color negatives that it might resove a bit better. That said I also have a(even older) minolta dimage film scanner, that I prefer to the nikon. All in all, for the price and quality, the epsons are unbeatable imo.
Have you considered further improvement of the flatbed scans by elevating the negative a bit above the glass bed? About 1mm will do wonders.
Hey Rogier, I used to own a Better Scanning adjustable holder for my previous V500 Epson, and funny enough, I did multiple tests at about seven different heights using micro adjustments, and the sharpest scans came from the zero position.
This is an informative comparison of two scanners. Consider using a black and white image instead - to eliminate the distraction of colour. Colour depends on … « Artistic intent ». Scene. Scanner used [resolution, colour response, dmax]. Program doing the scanning. Parameters of the scan. Output of the scan. Where/how each negative is inverted [Negative lab pro]. Tweaks within the image processing program . Format and process used for the final image [paper, monitor …]. Viewing conditions. Observer [viewing distance/visual response/interpretation].
Nice comparison. Have you scanned 4x5 with the Epson? Were you happy with the results?
Yep, that’s what I bought it for. The 4990 with 4x5 has been great.
It might just be me but I think I prefer the Epson version of every image.
Just picked up a canon 9000f for cheap. Hope it does as well or better .
Great video about limits of flatbed and that you don't need v700/v750/v800/v850 to get so so scans. 4990 is more than capable for RUclips videos and instagram
The 4990 is a great scanner. Especially for something like 6x7.
@@KyleMcDougall I be seen awesome 35mm scans for a buck as well🙏 thank you for head to head comparison🙌
Thank you for bringing your salt to the scanners comparison! Just bought a second hand Epson v700 and I am eager to find the best workflow.
Out of curiosity, what's the max size you would print these negs? For example the 6x7?
Cheers, Tommaso. I’m assuming you’re referring to the Epson scans? If so, if have to grab a file and work with it a bit to give you an exact answer. But you could probably get a nice 20” wide from on of the half res scans, sharpened and prepared properly.
From an uncropped 6x7 scanned on a V800, I usually aim for around 24” on the long side and am perfectly happy with the results. The v700 has a true resolution of around 2300-2500dpi, though you need to scan at 4800dpi and then downres to get that result.
@@KyleMcDougall yes half res scans with the Epson is what is nearer my case; thanks for the reply!
question: will any / every "flatbed" scanner properly scan film? been trying to look for the usual recommended models (V4990, V550, V600) here in the philippines...but sadly, no avail model here... I usually see "Epson Perfection V39II Flatbed Photo Scanner" or "Canon LIDE 400 Flatbed Scanner" here (cost around $100), and it would be a waste of money if I get it and wont scan my films
any idea if it will work?
Thanks a million! insta sub here :)
Kyle, I watched your comparisons on a color balanced 32 inch monitor and honestly I couldn't tell the difference on any of your examples. That tells me an inexpensive Epson scanner can definitely hold its own against a $3K Nikon scanner.
do you know an epson flatbed that doesn't take 3 years to scan one negative? haha. i have an old epson 3170 that i started using lately, but it takes hours to scan 1 roll of 35mm film.
Have you tried wet mound scanning with the epson? I get the best out of my epson when I scan with that method. Really sharp images
Not something I’ve ever tried, no.
Very helpful video as always.
How would you go about the whites turning grey on the flatbed? I saw the same thing happening with the Plustek and I was wondering if there's a way to tame this problem!
It'd be something you'd have to try and correct while editing, possibly with a curves adjustment.
I manage to make my v550 work. I know the coolscan would be way nicer but I just cannot afford one. Wish they'd make new scanners
Nothing wrong with the 550 at all for medium format.
@@KyleMcDougall Is 500 okay also?
The V550 is a *fantastic* scanner for 120.
Really enjoy your videos, Kyle, and wondered whether you've considered a comparison between the Coolscan and drum? Would be interesting to see whether there is much or any differences between the two.
Thanks, Robert. I've never done a comparison between those two, but something I've been thinking about for a future video!
The Epson for me is good enough. I had the same scanner and prints looked great up to A3. The difference in colour seems more white balance than straight saturation. If you positively need the super sharpest image for zooming in on or printing very large the nikon is the way to go
For sure. All going to be based on what you need out of it for your work.
Have to agree Epson scans more natural, and which is what you really want in preserving history. Thanks!
How does the flatbed compare to the plustek. I bought a plus tek a week ago and am considering returning it because it takes so long to process film
The Plustek is way ahead for 35mm.
I wonder how big a Difference between the Nikon Scanner and a high resolution image taken with a Digital camera. I see lots of people scanning their film that way now
Fascinating comparison! The difference looked VERY substantial to me. Question: How do you think they would compare if I was scanning old photographs as opposed to negatives? Thank you.
The Nikon scanner only scans negatives so it will be a comparison between a negative scan and a photo document scan from a flatbed Epson scanner.
What software do you use for the Nikon scan?
Another Great Video.
Awwww is that Bisbee Arizona? That’s where I am located 🤍
Thank you, insightful
Ive been having a hard time with super grainy images and crazy color. Is there a way to tell what problems come from what? Like am I messing up developing or scanning?
Lol... I'm in the same boat. Just bought a V600, NLP and a C41 kit and I'm messing it so bad and don't know where.
Could be a number of different things. Grain/noise could be from under exposure. Colour could be from your conversion process. Hard to tell without seeing the exact images.
Best bet in these situations is to send off a roll to a lab to get professionally scanned. You'll quickly see if there's a problem with the negs through poor development or whether the issue lies with your scanning. I'm lucky enough to own a Frontier and the only time I have any issues with colour is when there's a dev problem. The other option is to invert your phone's screen and use something like Lightroom Mobile to look at your negs.Once properly white-balanced you can get a pretty good idea whether your colours are ok - I use it all the time to get a quick overview of a roll before scanning.
Thanks for the vid and the comparisons. It seems that you're rubbing salt in the wound since the 9000 is pretty hard to find. Lots of people are doing DSLR scanning now, have you or could you compare DSLR to the coolscan?
There’s also the 8000 as an option as well. But yeah, I really wish we got a new ‘affordable’ 120 scanner with similar performance to the Nikon. As for DSLR, maybe in the future, just a big investment to get a setup going when it’s not something I’d use long term.
@@KyleMcDougall if this film resurgence continues it might be enough of an incentive for a manufacturer to build one again. Cheers.
I love these videos, I'm constantly going back and forth trying to weigh all the pros and cons of upgrading the old Epson. For scanning dense negatives wouldn't it be possible to just scan 2-3 different exposures and then merge into a HDR image? I haven't seen anyone do this with their scanning process with an Epson but it seems like it could easily be done.
It's not worth it, it will not really add anything.
Scanning dense negatives is not an issue of dynamic range.
The Epson can handle most dynamic range that you need. I have scanned hundreds of rolls of negatives with my epson v800 and i never had an issue with it's dynamic range.
Yeah, the issues you may run into with dense negatives won't have anything to do with different exposures. It's all about the lamp in your machine. So it will vary with different scanners. Something like the V800 will likely be better than something like a V550 when it comes to dense negatives. All I know, is from my experience, scanning overexposed negatives with my old V550 was not a great experience. Weird color casts that were hard to correct.
Does photostacking software work well to improve scan image quality? I really can't justify buying an expensive scanner just for a roll of film a year.
You can look at a camera with pixel shift or high res mode. I'm doing a video soon about that. There are some good older cameras that can be had for cheap that do it.
@@KyleMcDougall Thanks. It's the first time I heard of it. I had to Google it. I certainly won't be buying a camera especially for that but it's good information.
The more videos I watch about these film scanning, the more I feel slide film is the only true form of film photography. I mean does anyone still remember what the original Kodak Porta film really looks like?
Film negatives had to be interpreted from the beginning and will ever have to. So I doubt that there is an actual look of Portra films besides what you got from the standard settings of your local minilab and paper.
That said, scanning definately adds a very different type of interpretation.
Well, first of all Portra is negative film, not slide. And as far as slide film is concerned, it only has about 5 stops of dynamic range, where good digital cameras have upwards of 15.
Would be awesome if you compare Prime Film XAs to these for 35mm scanning.
Maybe at some point in the future.
I had two Prime Film XAs, they both had banding issues and I had to return both of them. I gave up, sold my flatbed that I used for medium format, and bought a coolscan 9000.
Kyle, I'd suggest it would have been more useful to have looked at images resized to the same size. Without this we were never able to truly compare the same section of the images. 100% isn't a set in stone must see evaluation of the scan - it's just the happenstance of the scanning resolution. By all means look at the Coolscan at 100%, but then resizing the larger Epson file to match the pixel ratio from the Nikon would have been revealing. Or downsize the Nikon to the same size as the 2400 res. from the Epson. There's no doubt the Coolscan would be the boss, but the point here is to show the differences...
I have a Coolscan 5000 for 35mm, but I'm just realising that I could sell that and buy a 5000 for about another £1,000. Hmmm.....
Hey Jim, I made full res images available for download from both scanners. Link is in the description. Feel free to download and compare however would suit you best.
@@KyleMcDougall Oh yes - I forgot about that. Apologies, and thanks for the work you do.
I have been using my epson v600 for a couple of months and i hate the result from it. i am going to sell it and buy every things for scanning by my sony digital camera.
Did you end up doing this? How are the results?
@@orrin-manning I sold mine Epson Scanner. Didn’t like the results from it, sharpness was awful
I wanna know that how to scan 4*5 using 4990? Put the film directly on the glass or on the film holder? Is there have 4*5 film hold for 4990?
thanks
The 4990 comes with a holder for 4x5.
How do these compare with say a GFX100/100s scanning and macro lens combo?
Not too sure as I’ve never done any camera scanning.
Thanks ❤
35mm, 645, and really anything under 6x6 the Nikon is noticeably better and sharper. 6x7 and above both scanners look quite similar and you really need to pixel peep in order to see a marked difference. So all in all if you’re doing larger negatives the flatbed might be the better deal, while the Nikon is better if you’re doing smaller negatives and worth the extra money.
Has anyone compared the Coolscan to a Noritsu scanner? It would have to be limited to 35mm but it would be interesting to see how they compare.
Epson is definitely more natural, True to life. With a flatbed you can get good results with a smaller file size than a film scanner. Great for creating slide shows that don't take forever to load. For my purposes the flatbed works better. Film scanners are better for photo labs doing detail work.
The Nikon would be my dream home film scanner, but at 3k?! I think I'm gonna have to stick with the Epson I have. Maybe if I'm able to make money from my photography, but I can't justify to spend that much on something without a return.
For sure. It's not for everyone, and the results to some may be way too close for it to be worth it.
This video was really well done, but digitally capturing your negatives with a light table, a stand, an Essential Film Holder & good 100/105 macro lens will blow the pants off of any flatbed scanner like the Epson. (Probably not the Nikon tho, but it would be cool to see a comparison video Kyle
*hint hint*)
I've seen results that were better (imo) than even lab scans with NLP 2.2. The algorithm has come forward eons in just the last few years. Once you go to digital scanning, flatbeds tend to either get sold or thrown in the bin. Imagine scanning a full roll in just a few minutes once you get the hang of it & having results to rival any scanner, even professional labs'...
I highly recommend going this route if someone has a decent to good DSLR & a good macro lens. Save your time & get the results you really want. RUclips has a bunch of videos about the process & shows you the results, and also how much better NLP 2.2 is from 2.0. You won't be disappointed.
100% agree. DSLR scans are superior! I get the best scans from my 26mpx DSLR camera. I use it with a macro lens, light table, stand and the EFH. I do all my scans with NLP in LR. I blast through my 120 and 35mm rolls in minutes, not hours. One-shot is good for online or small prints. With stitched shots, it can give you images that are over 10000 pixels long for 120. I may go back to Epson flatbeds for 4x5 or 8x10 but it isn't necessary. Detail from a DSLR scan is equivalent to a Flextight imacon scanner. Those dedicated scanners costs thousands of dollars or $20 per hour at my community lab. The only downside with DSLR scanning is stitching isn't 100% perfect. It doesn't do clear skies/gradients well but you can buy the software for it. DSLR scanning is an investment but it is the future of film scanning. Everything is modular or upgradable while dedicated scanners are just getting older.
@@brntgudn And the software is totally crap for those scanners, some reaching like 20-25 years old now. It's a no brainer to go DSLR scanning when the results are this great & the process takes seconds per image once set up. I do 35mm & 120 scans, so no need on my end to stitch anything, but I see your point. You may need to put it thru PS to get a superior stitching.
Kyle gets great results from his Nikon scanner, but I wonder if he tested his Fuji MF (X-T3/X-T4?) versus the Nikon scanner, what the results would be. That would be a great video.
When I first started digitizing, I was using my Nikon D90 & my Tokina 100mm Pro Macro, but I upgraded to FF & got a Nikon D600. 10mp vs. 24.3mp. My results are a tonne better now. But after I found the Lomo film holder was slightly scratching my negatives somehow, I immediately stopped using them & decided to order an Essential Film Holder instead. Just waiting for it to be made & shipped out. They're getting so much demand, it's taking two weeks just to fulfill a small chunk of orders coming in by the 2 person company over there in England. Demand outstripping supply there. Good for them hey...
@@mpk33 I'll try stitching in PS but I heard it gives people problems. But I'll give it a shot regardless. I'm still learning more ways to improve the workflow. People say you're missing out on dust removal tech from scanners with DSLR scanning but I found less dust to deal with for shots than on my Flatbed. I use a rocket blower on each frame.
@@brntgudn Same here. Rocket blower FTW!
Cheers, Michael. I haven't done any 'camera scanning'. I had the opportunity recently to test out some gear related to it, but it's one of those things where it's quite an investment to get all the pieces you need. Totally doable if I didn't have the Nikon, but since I'm really happy with how it's working for me, it's tough to try and put everything together right now. I still would like to do it at some point in the future, just to be able to make a video about it that would hopefully help others. We'll see!
An interesting comparison. The Nikon scanner is obviously far superior. I wonder how it compares to the top of the line Epson 850 Pro? The Nikon is definitely not in my budget but I might be able to spring for the 850 Pro.
the other issue is actually finding a MF coolscan if you want one
Yeah, definitely getting harder to find.
I have the Nikon 9000 scanner placed on top of my coffin as a burial object.
Haha!
@@KyleMcDougall meanwhile a used Nikon 9000 costs more as the new one I bought years ago.
And a new one costs - ah - I dont wanna talk about it.
Please do a comparison of the coolscan vs dslr self scan with macro lens
Oh and then coolscan vs imacon flextight
Coolscan is just too good, it bothers me that no one’s come up with better, more convenient and affordable tech for scanning
Personally, I find just placing straight on glass with ANR glass right on top actually sharpens epson scans even further. The plastic holders are garbage.even with out the anr GLASS, straight on bed is still better.
Yeah, seems like everyone gets mixed results. I had the better scanning holder with ANR glads for my 550 and actually noticed best results from the stock plastic holder. And that was testing it against different heights on the BS holder, as well as straight on the glass.
@@KyleMcDougall And that was?...Seems like your comment got cut short there! I think every scanner is a bit different. I would love a dedicated 120 scanner, but they're all super expensive and I'm not nearly good enough, nor do I make a penny from my work to justify the expense lol. However, I do have an enlarger, which technically squeezes out every ounce of performance which no scanner can match. Issue with that is, you can't really "edit" the photos like you can in Lightroom (like you've shown in your other videos). What you get is what you get, you can dodge and burn it, do some color cast correction, but you'll find your self burning through expensive sheets of paper and chemicals for that.
Yeah, but the image of the Cadillac are not the same. The one on the right was taken at a slightly different angle. Small changes in camera viewpoint can make big changes on film.
actually, this vedio means: epson 4990 looks better.
Why even shot film if you are going to edit the photos? Just shoot digital. It makes no sense giving the amount you pay for film and processing just to turn around and edit it.
If you're scanning film, you're editing it.
@@KyleMcDougall I get that but are you doing additional edits in Lightroom after the that?
I’m sorry, but don’t you think comparing a $3000 scanner to a $300 scanner is a bit lopsided to begin with? And only using the saturation slider to try to give similar results seems a bit unfair as well. I have no doubt whatsoever I could match the Nikon scan result with the Epson using the color mixer and some masks. If you’re only going to use the out of scanner results to compare the two units I get, but doesn’t post process these days?
It provides useful information for someone like me who has zero knowledge of the topic.
I would loose the black mist filter. It's annoying for this kind of video. Too strong also.