Coolscan 9000 vs. Printing from neg?

[bstar]

Hi there, Im pretty new to MF film, I just got a Mamiya 7II + 80mm lens and have access to a Nikon Coolscan 9000. After scanning a few rolls the image quality has not really lived up to my expectations (comparing files to images shot on a Canon 1D mark III 10mp), Ive been scanning at 4000dpi but it looks horrendous so Im res-ing down to around 30" on the longside @ 200dpi, it seems I could get a print of around 30" before the quality starts to deteriorate considerably. Im just wondering if printing directly from the negative is the way to go if I want to try and make prints as large as possible from my negs?

thanks in advance!

B

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The quality looks bad compared to your digital because film has grain and digital cameras don't. I'm talking about seeing on screen. Try making a print from the digital and one from your scan, the same size, and compare. The film will look better. People scan film then look at it at 100% on screen, which is showing more grain than you'll see on a 300dpi print at the size the scan allows. Don't res down unless you want to make a small print, and print at 300dpi, it really does look better than a 200 dpi print.

I have the 8000 and have made large prints from it; they match my darkroom prints in quality, and in many cases are better because of the greater tonal control you have in Photoshop compared to darkroom printing.

 

[dfoo]

4000 dpi from a 6x6 neg is 9000x9000 pixels (81 mpixels). Are you saying you downres that to 10.1 mpixels the image is worse than a straight shot from the 1D mk3?

 

[Prosaic]

Hi there, Im pretty new to MF film, I just got a Mamiya 7II + 80mm lens and have access to a Nikon Coolscan 9000. After scanning a few rolls the image quality has not really lived up to my expectations (comparing files to images shot on a Canon 1D mark III 10mp), Ive been scanning at 4000dpi but it looks horrendous so Im res-ing down to around 30" on the longside @ 200dpi, it seems I could get a print of around 30" before the quality starts to deteriorate considerably. Im just wondering if printing directly from the negative is the way to go if I want to try and make prints as large as possible from my negs?

thanks in advance!

B

Forget about "inches" and "dpi". What matters is the actual number of pixels. What size in pixels do you scan and what size in pixels do you compare to the 1D Mk III?

 

[bstar]

thank for the replies, about the dpi, the printer i plan to print from only prints up to 200dpi,

dfo - when i scan my 6x7 negs @ 4000dpi, they yield an image approx 11,000 pixels on the long side which would give me a 36" print @ 300dpi, it looks very poor quality, i probably wouldnt even go that big due to the loss of resolution.... when I res down to 14x11 @ 300dpi, the image looks very sharp, it was shot on a tripod @ f16, my gut feeling is that the 1D mk3 would look better based on what im seeing, if anyone wants to shoot me an email I would be happy to forward a full res image and get an opinion: info@brentlewin.com

thanks!

 

[rogue_designer]

Not enough information here.

Scanning well is an art, and takes a lot of time, practice and experience to do well. 1D mk3 files are very good, but they will not get anywhere close to a well made scan from a well made 6x7 neg (or chrome) - especially if you used a high resolution, low grain film.

When you say it looks horrendous, can you be more specific? Soft? Grainy?

How are you viewing/comparing? Is your system calibrated and color managed?

What holder are you using? And what software to scan then edit?

As far as your final question. Optical prints, to me always have something special about them that I like. But to get really big, scanning then printing seems to work better for me once I want to get above 30"

 

[bstar]

Not enough information here.

Scanning well is an art, and takes a lot of time, practice and experience to do well. 1D mk3 files are very good, but they will not get anywhere close to a well made scan from a well made 6x7 neg (or chrome) - especially if you used a high resolution, low grain film.

When you say it looks horrendous, can you be more specific? Soft? Grainy?

How are you viewing/comparing? Is your system calibrated and color managed?

What holder are you using? And what software to scan then edit?

As far as your final question. Optical prints, to me always have something special about them that I like. But to get really big, scanning then printing seems to work better for me once I want to get above 30"

hi, ok well horrendous is a bit dramatic, but its soft and grainy, the grain i can live with, it was shot on fuji pro 400H, the images are meant to be blown up to be displayed in a gallery and Im finding that the quality from this scanner is either not up to the task or I might have to shell out $45/hr to use an Imacon scanner at a lab,

im working on a calibrated system, Im using the holder that comes with the Nikon Coolscan 9000, not the glass holder for MF and im not touching up anything with the Nikon Scan software

 

[Don Hutton]

1. Shooting at f16 is going to introduce some softness due to diffraction.
2. Fuji Pro 400H is reasonably grainy, but very sharp. Under a loupe, are the negs sharp? if not, you may have a rangefinder calibration issue.
3. Scanning requires a level of skill and understanding. To achieve the best possible results, you need an entire imaging chain with no weak links and there seems to be plenty of room for many from what you've described. I'd loupw the film with at least a 10X loupe as a starting point. If that's an issue, you may have a rangefinder issue or simple user error at the front end. If that's all OK, get a decent professional drum scan done by a reputable outfit (not simply any owner of a drum scanner) - have a look at that....

 

[sahe69]

........Im using the holder that comes with the Nikon Coolscan 9000, not the glass holder for MF and im not touching up anything with the Nikon Scan software

The reason might very well be the holder. For MF film it's definitely worth to invest in either the normal or the rotating glass holder. The std holders simply allow the film to curve too much for all of the frame to be in sharp focus.

OTOH if you have a sharp focus of the grain all over the image the scanner focusing should not be an issue but the camera/lens combination focusing might need to be (re)calibrated. It would not be the first time this needs to be done on a Mamiya 7 (II).

Anyway whathever the reason is, I strongly recommend going for the glass holder on the 9000.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The reason might very well be the holder. For MF film it's definitely worth to invest in either the normal or the rotating glass holder. The std holders simply allow the film to curve too much for all of the frame to be in sharp focus.

OTOH if you have a sharp focus of the grain all over the image the scanner focusing should not be an issue but the camera/lens combination focusing might need to be (re)calibrated. It would not be the first time this needs to be done on a Mamiya 7 (II).

Anyway whathever the reason is, I strongly recommend going for the glass holder on the 9000.

That is a big part of it. The plain holder is INCAPABLE of holding film flat, and you simply cannot get maximum sharpness from your scans without one of the glass carriers.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Ive been scanning at 4000dpi but it looks horrendous

Is this the beginning of the end for Mamiya? 😱

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Not enough information here.

Scanning well is an art, and takes a lot of time, practice and experience to do well.

Agreed. And if the scanner were made by Leica you'd hear all the horror stories across the Internets.

The variables are so many, it is very hard to tell what single thing could be wrong, if it's only one that is wrong.

Color profiling, color calibration, Nikon's color engine vs. Photoshop's settings, the monitor profile, assigning vs. converting one colorspace to the other, ICE settings for B&W film, auto-brightness on/off, negative vs. positive scanning, autocurves, auto color correction...improper resampling prior to printing, allowing the printer driver to do its own ICM vs. allowing the host application do its own ICM, the right paper...

...we could bring the popcorn and we'd still be one bag short.

 

[aparat]

Are you using a glass holder? Without the holder, you will get uneven focus. Also, I got unbelievably good results by wet mounting (see this thread for a discussion on this topic). I use the kit from Aztek. Coolscan 9000 is a very good scanner. With proper technique, you will get great scans.

I also print in the darkroom. My wet prints are comparable to digital prints, but they have more character, more depth. They also look sharper and less grainy than digital prints.

Digital scanning and printing requires as much attention to detail and technique as traditional darkroom printing. There's a learning curve, so be prepared for it.

 

[rogue_designer]

From everything I have seen of this scanner, the holder could well be the biggest problem in getting sharp scans across the film.

Also - looking at the file on the monitor is not always a good indication of how it will look in the print. Especially a large print, whose appropriate viewing distance is typically a few feet away (not pixel peeping).

I also find that a certain amount of sharpening is a very necessary step once the final file is being output to the required size. (last step in the process though, and the amount of sharpening varies with both image size, and output method).

Depending on the timeframe and size/stature of the show, getting the ones that require very large prints professionally drum scanned could well be worth the expense. The 9000 is a great scanner, so is the Imacon, but neither can compare to a professionally done drum scan (by a tech who knows what they are are doing).

 

[trev2401]

A few pts here...

1. yes, the nikon holders are !"$"#$"#. As the holders age/get worn due to usage, they become loose. Mount your negs in those holders and look carefully across the surface of the neg.. u will see some bowing/bending of the neg.. and yes.. this'll more than often, make your image "soft".

2. F16 - diffraction... not so bad, but slight softness...

3. i totally agree on the RF calibration point. Do check your RF on the m7ii. Are all your prints of the same softness?

4. We used to use the 1ds2 and now the 1ds3 in the library where i used to work at, mainly for copy/archival. Even when mounted with C/Y and Leica R lenses, the images were just not as crisp and detailed vs the when shots with 120 techpan/64t or proper archival film/slides. (flame suit on.) Even with NPZ/NPH, i'm sure that the 9000's capable of pumping out images from a 6x7 u can cover the front of a house with,.

 

[bstar]

A few pts here...

1. yes, the nikon holders are !"$"#$"#. As the holders age/get worn due to usage, they become loose. Mount your negs in those holders and look carefully across the surface of the neg.. u will see some bowing/bending of the neg.. and yes.. this'll more than often, make your image "soft".

2. F16 - diffraction... not so bad, but slight softness...

3. i totally agree on the RF calibration point. Do check your RF on the m7ii. Are all your prints of the same softness?

4. We used to use the 1ds2 and now the 1ds3 in the library where i used to work at, mainly for copy/archival. Even when mounted with C/Y and Leica R lenses, the images were just not as crisp and detailed when shot with 120 techpan/64t or proper archival film/slides. (flame suit on.) Even with NPZ/NPH, i'm sure that the 9000's capable of pumping out images from a 6x7 u can cover the front of a house with,.

about #3, no now that im looking at them it seems the close-up shots are very nice, the softness is only a major issue with some of the medium/long range shots

...and thanks for all the replies everyone!