Also, color noise is much more visible in the Epson scans, though it can be cleaned up later.īoth of the Nikons have an advantage with 35mm. Color negs and slides right out of the Nikons are contrasty, with great color. It's as if the scanner (or software) simply has no idea what color the files should be. I've only used Epson software (perhaps Vuescan or Silverfast may be better), but color negatives especially need much post-processing. Where the Nikon does have an advantage over the Epson is for color film. With Tmax 400 II in 6圆, the differences with the Nikon 8000 are very small. For enlargements up to about 8x10, most won't notice a difference. For traditional silver films, this means much work with a clone tool. This comes with a price, however: any and all imperfections are emphasized, such as grain, dust, and scratches.
Using the supplied Epson software, scans generally come out with soft contrast, so the judicious addition of contrast and sharpening are necessary. Some films that work well include Plus-X, Pan-F, and Fuji Acros. In general, scans of fine-grain high-contrast films have been the most successful for me The results from the V500 are heavily dependent on choice of film and expertise at post-processing.
The Epson is a tremendous value and comes very close to what the Nikons can do at a fraction of the price. I have used the Epson V500 for several years, but also have experience with both the Nikon Coolscan V and 8000 ED.
0 kommentar(er)
