Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Looking for forum for help with Epson scanner
3 views
Skip to first unread message
android
Apr 28, 2016, 4:53:21 AM4/28/16
to
Cross posting to: rec.photo.digital, alt.comp.periphs.scanner
In article <nfofj9$m2j$1...@dont-email.me>, philo <ph...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 02:18 PM, tmcd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Macbook Pro with OS X El Capitan on Epson Perfection v600
> >
> > I am struggling with scanning odd sizes of old film. I love the Epson v600
> > scanner. Sometimes it is amazingly intelligent, but other times it is
> > totally unpredictable and uncontrollable.
> >
> > For example i am having trouble with the old Kodak 110mm film from the
> > Instamatics.
> > What is a good forum or help group to ask questions about Epson scanning?
> >
> > It will do things like this:
> >
>
>
>
> You left that part blank but I can probably help you as I have the same
> scanner.
>
> For 35mm and medium format, the scanner is set up to properly auto-crop
>
> but to scan other types of film, though it can do it you will need to
> scan with the auto-crop feature turned off, the crop manually.
>
> If you have just a few rolls, that should not be a big deal
>
>
> If you have hundreds, that might be a problem
Depending on the software i would try to treat each 110 strip as one
picture and crop them afterwards. They are soo small. If there is a
problem to store crops in presets of the software you're using then I
would recommend that you download Vuescan and try it out. It's a free
download and works unlicensed with watermarks.
<http://www.hamrick.com/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film>
--
teleportation kills
In article <nfofj9$m2j$1...@dont-email.me>, philo <ph...@privacy.net>
wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 02:18 PM, tmcd...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Macbook Pro with OS X El Capitan on Epson Perfection v600
> >
> > I am struggling with scanning odd sizes of old film. I love the Epson v600
> > scanner. Sometimes it is amazingly intelligent, but other times it is
> > totally unpredictable and uncontrollable.
> >
> > For example i am having trouble with the old Kodak 110mm film from the
> > Instamatics.
> > What is a good forum or help group to ask questions about Epson scanning?
> >
> > It will do things like this:
> >
>
>
>
> You left that part blank but I can probably help you as I have the same
> scanner.
>
> For 35mm and medium format, the scanner is set up to properly auto-crop
>
> but to scan other types of film, though it can do it you will need to
> scan with the auto-crop feature turned off, the crop manually.
>
> If you have just a few rolls, that should not be a big deal
>
>
> If you have hundreds, that might be a problem
Depending on the software i would try to treat each 110 strip as one
picture and crop them afterwards. They are soo small. If there is a
problem to store crops in presets of the software you're using then I
would recommend that you download Vuescan and try it out. It's a free
download and works unlicensed with watermarks.
<http://www.hamrick.com/>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110_film>
--
teleportation kills
none@given
Apr 29, 2016, 3:08:25 AM4/29/16
to
On Thu, 28 Apr 2016 10:53:20 +0200, android <he...@there.was> wrote:
>Depending on the software i would try to treat each 110 strip as one
>picture and crop them afterwards.
I've been down this route, and the only thing that really works for
>Depending on the software i would try to treat each 110 strip as one
>picture and crop them afterwards.
these old 110 sizes is a customozed film holder, It makes the whole
thing feasible and straightforward, and you don't have to cut up the
negs...
Cost from around $20, some people make their own but I don't have the
skill for that.
Make sure you get the one for your scanner. This is one supplier.
http://www.negative-solutions.com/index.html
I got mine from these people:
http://www.filmscanusa.net/
Be aware, the old 110 negs are pretty grainy in comparison with 35mm.
They were never meant to last.
none@given
Apr 29, 2016, 3:12:57 AM4/29/16
to
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00NPIRRD2/ref=s9_hps_bw_g229_i1
android
Apr 29, 2016, 6:23:52 AM4/29/16
to
In article <ga26ibpudeihp3t4b...@4ax.com>, none@given
wrote:
Oki... That one holds to strips. Should make life easier for the OP.
--
teleportation kills
wrote:
--
teleportation kills
none@given
Apr 29, 2016, 5:10:09 PM4/29/16
to
the best out of each one, Also holds slightly curling negatives flat
for the scan.
Much better results than with trying to scan a whole strip at once and
then editing it. Definitely worth the investment in my experience, I
was able to scan negatives that I thought were un-doable.
One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
with software.
Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
the worst ever in terms of preservation.
nospam
Apr 29, 2016, 6:33:07 PM4/29/16
to
In article <qti7ibh7kgsteh5j6...@4ax.com>, <none@given>
wrote:
>
> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> with software.
>
> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
it was no different than the same film in any other size.
wrote:
>
> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> with software.
>
> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
none@given
Apr 30, 2016, 1:39:43 AM4/30/16
to
On Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:33:06 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
Based on my experience, I would disagree. The color Instamatic films
that I have scanned from the 1970s are noticeably more degraded than
other formats from the same time or before it. The 110 in particular
seems to be worse than all the others.
I appreciate however that I may have just been consistently unlucky
with the film I bought at that time. Others may find the same
however.
wrote:
that I have scanned from the 1970s are noticeably more degraded than
other formats from the same time or before it. The 110 in particular
seems to be worse than all the others.
I appreciate however that I may have just been consistently unlucky
with the film I bought at that time. Others may find the same
however.
nospam
Apr 30, 2016, 8:20:54 AM4/30/16
to
In article <qqg8ib9feodf6l6vd...@4ax.com>, <none@given>
smaller size.
film from the 1970s faded more than most, but that wasn't limited to
110 format. if you bought the same film in 35mm or 120 at the same time
as the 110, it would also have faded just as much.
what matters is the film formulation, not how big or small it is.
wrote:
> >>
> >> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> >> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> >> with software.
> >>
> >> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> >> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
> >
> >it was no different than the same film in any other size.
>
> Based on my experience, I would disagree. The color Instamatic films
> that I have scanned from the 1970s are noticeably more degraded than
> other formats from the same time or before it. The 110 in particular
> seems to be worse than all the others.
if the fading was not the same, then you bought *different* film in the
> >>
> >> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> >> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> >> with software.
> >>
> >> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> >> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
> >
> >it was no different than the same film in any other size.
>
> Based on my experience, I would disagree. The color Instamatic films
> that I have scanned from the 1970s are noticeably more degraded than
> other formats from the same time or before it. The 110 in particular
> seems to be worse than all the others.
smaller size.
film from the 1970s faded more than most, but that wasn't limited to
110 format. if you bought the same film in 35mm or 120 at the same time
as the 110, it would also have faded just as much.
what matters is the film formulation, not how big or small it is.
Ken Hart
Apr 30, 2016, 11:18:33 AM4/30/16
to
introduced in 1972. Kodak also introduced C-41 process film in the same
year. Some film manufacturers "didn't get the memo", and made 110 film
in the older C-22 process. Some early processors of C-41 film also might
not have gotten the memo, and may have had some growing pains with the
C-41 process.
So it is possible that the OP is comparing C-22 process film with C-41
film, or it is possible that the "lab" that processed his film was using
the wrong process or the correct process incorrectly ("Fixer is fixer-
let's not waste this C-22 fixer- we'll just mix it with the C-41 stuff!")
In order to say that 110 film faded more or the same as other film
sizes, more information is needed, to be sure that the comparison is valid.
--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com
none@given
May 1, 2016, 4:29:16 AM5/1/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:18:28 -0400, Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com> >>
That said, the core point is that when scanning 110, these issues are
made more tryng by that format's tiny size and fiddly handling when it
comes to scanning negatives. Not least when the film is no longer
perfectly flat.
This is why in my opinion, it pays to invest the small sum for a
specialized film holder for the purpose rather than trying to wing it
with crude workarounds and bodges. At the very least, you start off
with the best scan you can get out of it.
what matters is the film formulation, not how big or small it is.
>>
>
>The film formulation may be the issue. The pocket instamatic was
>introduced in 1972. Kodak also introduced C-41 process film in the same
>year. Some film manufacturers "didn't get the memo", and made 110 film
>in the older C-22 process. Some early processors of C-41 film also might
>not have gotten the memo, and may have had some growing pains with the
>C-41 process.
>
>So it is possible that the OP is comparing C-22 process film with C-41
>film, or it is possible that the "lab" that processed his film was using
>the wrong process or the correct process incorrectly ("Fixer is fixer-
>let's not waste this C-22 fixer- we'll just mix it with the C-41 stuff!")
>
>In order to say that 110 film faded more or the same as other film
>sizes, more information is needed, to be sure that the comparison is valid.
This is quite probable.
>>
>
>The film formulation may be the issue. The pocket instamatic was
>introduced in 1972. Kodak also introduced C-41 process film in the same
>year. Some film manufacturers "didn't get the memo", and made 110 film
>in the older C-22 process. Some early processors of C-41 film also might
>not have gotten the memo, and may have had some growing pains with the
>C-41 process.
>
>So it is possible that the OP is comparing C-22 process film with C-41
>film, or it is possible that the "lab" that processed his film was using
>the wrong process or the correct process incorrectly ("Fixer is fixer-
>let's not waste this C-22 fixer- we'll just mix it with the C-41 stuff!")
>
>In order to say that 110 film faded more or the same as other film
>sizes, more information is needed, to be sure that the comparison is valid.
That said, the core point is that when scanning 110, these issues are
made more tryng by that format's tiny size and fiddly handling when it
comes to scanning negatives. Not least when the film is no longer
perfectly flat.
This is why in my opinion, it pays to invest the small sum for a
specialized film holder for the purpose rather than trying to wing it
with crude workarounds and bodges. At the very least, you start off
with the best scan you can get out of it.
android
May 2, 2016, 11:14:00 PM5/2/16
to
In article <qti7ibh7kgsteh5j6...@4ax.com>, none@given
Shouldn't make a difference except from the last point.
all, but the the tiny format gives less redundancy.
that I got my mother looked like a James Bond gadget in operation. Treee
cool!
--
teleportation kills
>
> Much better results than with trying to scan a whole strip at once and
> then editing it. Definitely worth the investment in my experience, I
> was able to scan negatives that I thought were un-doable.
>
> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> with software.
I don't think that the film fades faster. Kodakcolor is Kodakcolor after
> Much better results than with trying to scan a whole strip at once and
> then editing it. Definitely worth the investment in my experience, I
> was able to scan negatives that I thought were un-doable.
>
> One point though: a lot of the old 110 color negative films really
> lose color over time, so you'll probably need to do some correction
> with software.
all, but the the tiny format gives less redundancy.
>
> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
The tiny format had all possibly drawbacks, but the Agfa Optima 5000
> Apart from the convenient size, that 110 format was probably one of
> the worst ever in terms of preservation.
that I got my mother looked like a James Bond gadget in operation. Treee
cool!
--
teleportation kills
0 new messages