Quote from: Seren on March 08, 2008, 16:15

I'm open to suggestions though if anyone knows models that produce superior scans to the Epson 700 in the under �400 range.

There aren't any I'm aware of (for medium format anyway). The Microtek Artixscan M1 is priced between Epson v700 and v750 in the States but as I said the european version is about twice the cost while the other step further from v700 would be the Nikon Coolscan 9000 that it's in the 1500 pounds range (about 2000-2300 euros and about 2000$ but then VAT, custom, trasport etc etc).

A possibility could be some used older Microtek Artixscan (like the 120tf) now that a new model came out but I still have to find one (I guess most people keep them at warm with cuddles and love). I also hear good things about some Heidelberg film scanners but I have very few infos about them and anyway I didn't find any of them on the used market.

Thanks for your help.  I think I'll go with the Epson.  I'm already familiar with the Epson interface since I have an all in one from them (prints nice photos!).

We'll see if I can afford it out of my photography business account next month!

I read that (see bold text above). I was mentioning my experience with 35mm film vs flatbed scanners, and these scanners are anyway out-of-production. I believe there must be MF film scanners, maybe with an adapter (my Minolta can scan APS film with an optional adapter).

Regards,
Adelaide

Unfortunately the only medium format dedicated scanner I could find in the same vein as yours, are �2000 upwards Nikon models.  That's around two and a half months wages from my regular job, so I don't think I'll be getting one of those in a hurry!  I'm open to suggestions though if anyone knows models that produce superior scans to the Epson 700 in the under �400 range.

Aha!  Fankyoo!

Silly me, I was expecting some sort of help page with it on, not checking boxes as if you're going to do a web upload!

The best results are by far with dedicated film scanners.  I have an old HP Photosmart, which scans up to 2100dpi (I think) and a Minolta Dual Scan IV, which scans up to 3200dpi and has a much better dynamic range (catching better the dark and bright areas).  Neither of these models however would scan medium format films.

Please read the line in my first post where I say it would be "mainly medium format films".

I have nearly twenty 120 cameras that I inherited from my grandfather as well as my TLR that I'd like to get more use out of.  At the moment I don't use them because the costs are prohibitively high.  I also have thousands of medium format shots of his I'd like to scan as well as to a lesser extend 35mm slides.  The medium format is the priority though, because it's the older stuff.  There is also plenty of stock worthy stuff there, and I have now inherited the copyright to it all...

I'm looking for a flatbed film scanner (so that I can scan up to large format).  It'll be mainly for medium format scans that I've shot myself, but I'd also like to start selling some of my Grandfathers medium format and slide work.

Can anyone recommend one that would get me through the micro inspection?  I think iStock will be my best bet, since it has the specialist film inspectors.

I've been eyeing up the Epson Perfection V500 Photo Scanner, at �200 it's around what I want to spend.  I'd go over a little if I could get something pretty awesome.

Anyone with experience?

(BTW, please don't suggest drum scanning - I've got literally thousands of his pictures to go through, I can't afford drum scanning!)

EDIT - Also eying up the Epson Perfection V700 Photo Scanner which is above my price range, but it looks like it's far better.  Any experience?

Not exactly a nice thing to say. Maybe not "slanderous" but certainly not something she'd say to the reviewers face.

Oh believe me, I would!

I don't read a lot of magazines, but I was paying more attention to the photo magazines I occasionally buy, and I noticed that many of them use microstock photos without proper attribution - for example "photo by istockphoto" , they don't mention the name of photographer. Only one magazine I found using FT has "John Doe/Fotolia.com" which is very nice.

I am shocked that -photographic- magazines don't give proper attribution to photographers. And why they don't just use their reader's photos I have no idea.

Are magazine editors just plain evil or what?

You'll also find that many photo magazines also invite photographers to enter competitions to win goodies, when in the small print it gives the magazine a royalty free license to use the picture however they want.  The magazine industry is not the most honest.

Also, if you're in the UK, keep your eye on nuts and zoo if you shoot glamour, they tend to take photos without asking and only pay up when you see your picture and send them an invoice.

If you think it's an invalid rejection, you should write support.  If a reviewer is doing something wrong according to their standards, they will (hopefully) instruct that person.

I never said it was an invalid rejection, it was fairly borderline with noise problems in my eyes.  But they rejected it for "stray pixels".  Well, there weren't any stray pixels because I shot it on a white background and didn't do anything to it in photoshop... so there was nothing to be stray!  They didn't reject it for the obvious problem, which I thought was strange.  Although saying that, it wasn't a problem on iStock and ShutterStock where they are anal about noise (I think I just see noise in all my old shots now, getting too used to the 5D!).

Was just pointing out, that the reviewer in question had extremely dubious pictures in their portfolio that frankly look worse than my mother can take.

So many fat people around nowadays.

So many average people that want to be slim.  ;-)

They are mid stock for those that have over 100 downloads and can set their own prices.  I have a few there at higher prices.

Why does everything I read put me off the site?

That surely is just confusing to buyers?

iStock tend to reject files that are larger than your cameras native resolution unless there is a good reason why.

I've had a few rejections asking me to resubmit with as much of the white space cropped out as possible, meaning my shot has to be taken down to a medium or so forth (with my old camera, without much play room).

Couldn't say about Fotolia since I've not been there long, but I think it's not very good practice to add white space to image if it's not for a compositional reason.  You're essentially conning the designer, you may as well just upload it at the largest file size you have, since a designer can always add extra white space.

If you can't get your images accepted at various agencies just go with the others till you can afford a half decent camera.  Places like Shutterstock accept piddly little files (I shrink all of mine down for there now) and the return is very good.  You'd only need a few good shots somewhere like Shutterstock and you'd have money for a new camera in two or three months, easily.

Edit: I have pictures in my portfolio from a Dimage Z1 and I don't think I had any rejected for technical problems - they're a half decent range of P&S cameras.  You shouldn't have too many problems getting pictures from this camera accepted.

Got a rejection from LO last week.  It was just some bog standard shots of some eggs on a white background, feathered shadow underneath to ground them (as per my usual style).  They were a little noisy I guess, because I shot them on my old 350D on ISO200, but that wasn't why they were refused.

They were refused basically because they were bad isolations.  Stray pixels was the reason.

But then I looked at the portfolio of the "bouncer" who reviewed my photos, and found that they have a portfolio that has absolutely shocking isolations in!  We're talking obvious on camera flash, focus on the wrong parts sometimes, white balance issues and worst of all...  they had clearly been cut out using the pen tool, but they have left a tiny bit of shadow under the object!  But not a nice feathered shadow just to ground the object, a horrid, horrid black line basically that abruptly stops!

My shots, although not perfect, were a thousand times better than that, and yet they were rejected!  Double standards is not a good trait in a stock agency!

NB:  I'm not adding which reviewer it was, or what shots they were, that's not fair at all.  But suffice to say, between the patronizing note and the double standards, I'm not impressed!

Generally it is better to

You said exactly what I wanted to.  I'm just not very good at saying things.

I don't go as far as you though, I just keep my RAW, my RGB JPEG and a sRGB JPEG saved for web at 600px high.