sper
Well-known
So I recently picked up a Nikon Coolscan V, which I was very excited about considering I have only fond memories of my College's LS-9000, and had somewhat mixed feelings about the V700s performance with 35mm.
After working with the scanner for a few days I have to say that my thoughts remain unclear. I figured the Nikon would be far and above the better performer, but I have come to see that the differences are not night and day. I thought I share some very unscientific (therefore relevant to available light rangefinder photographers) comparisons and tests.
First off. The pictures were shot with an R2A and a Color Skopar 35mm f2.5, and the CV 21mm f4. The films are Tri-X, processed in Rodinal 1:50, Kodak E200 (chrome).
Lets look at two scans I from a Tri-X negative. I scanned the negative at 3200ppi in the V700, and at 4000 in the LS-50. I think 3200 is just about the 'sweet spot' with 35mm in the Epson.
This is one of my favorite shots. (Bessa-L & CV 21mm f4 @ f8 - Rodinal 1:50):
The image above shows the LS-50 file (on top) and the V700 file (in the Aperture window) The LS-50 image has higher pixel resolution, and sharper contrast, but I do not believe it shows actual resolution of detail that surpasses the detail resolved in the V700 scan. Coupled with the debris on the surface of the film that the LS-50 picks up, I would much rather deal with the V700 scan.
Here you see another detail from the lower left corner. Once again the LS-50 scan appears slightly sharper, but only just. This image would have to be printed at actual size for this difference to be picked up. And then I think, well hells bells, if I were making a print 18" wide, I would be far more satisfying renting darkroom space, or having a lab do a silver print.
This is the same image, and I further sharpened the V700 scan. I'll leave you free to make your own conclusions.
Color images are a bit of a different story. Please forgive the obnoxious water mark, but I'm trying to decide if I wanna buy Silverfast or not. Nikon Scan fails to see the scanner.
And a 100% crop:
In this case I think the LS-50 did a pretty great job. It's not super sharp, but hey, it's 35mm. Look at how far away I am! I have never ever been satisfied with 35mm chrome scans from the Epson. It lacks the dynamic range to pick up any highlight detail, which makes the images kind of 'glow' but in a real ugly way.
Here is a raw V700 scan:
Whoa lets give that some Lasik!
A little better, but it still doesn't match the contrast and color depth that came straight outta the LS-50.
So I gotta say, it's kind of a toss up. For color and certainly chrome I'm sold. But I also love shooting Tri-X...so in this case I don't know what to do. I'll probably start with a LS-50 scan, and see what I can get. If it's at all giving me problems I switch back to the Epson, knowing that I can get results pretty damn close to what the Nikon can deliver.
I wanted to show these samples because I thought people on this site gave the Nikon scanner a little too much credit. If I had to only own ONE scanner, it would be the Epson. it does a close enough job to the Nikon scanner to outweigh the major advantages. And with the Nikon's aging software and lack of support, the Epson really makes more sense.
Oh and if you haven't seen medium and large format scans, well you should. So I'm going to show them to you!
This is an 8x10 Ilford FP4+ negative scanned with the v700:
This is a 100% crop:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1419/1474914824_e58da1b1e0_o.jpg
This is a 4x5 Ilford Ortho+ negative:
100%:
Hasselblad color negative:
100%:
Hasselblad Tri-X negative:
100%:
That's right! There I am in her eyeball taking this picture.
So I'm not trying to make any major conclusions about either scanner here. I just thought I'd share some examples for people who may be wondering which one to purchase, or what it's like working with either device. Scanning is a critical skill, and I'm no pro, but I think I do okay.
If others have scan examples to show, particularly from the LS-9000 I would love to see them. Or examples with 35mm film and better (leica or Zeiss) lenses. I just wanted to get a discussion going that shows examples of what I'm seeing with the actual equipment from actual pictures I made in the real world.
After working with the scanner for a few days I have to say that my thoughts remain unclear. I figured the Nikon would be far and above the better performer, but I have come to see that the differences are not night and day. I thought I share some very unscientific (therefore relevant to available light rangefinder photographers) comparisons and tests.
First off. The pictures were shot with an R2A and a Color Skopar 35mm f2.5, and the CV 21mm f4. The films are Tri-X, processed in Rodinal 1:50, Kodak E200 (chrome).
Lets look at two scans I from a Tri-X negative. I scanned the negative at 3200ppi in the V700, and at 4000 in the LS-50. I think 3200 is just about the 'sweet spot' with 35mm in the Epson.
This is one of my favorite shots. (Bessa-L & CV 21mm f4 @ f8 - Rodinal 1:50):
The image above shows the LS-50 file (on top) and the V700 file (in the Aperture window) The LS-50 image has higher pixel resolution, and sharper contrast, but I do not believe it shows actual resolution of detail that surpasses the detail resolved in the V700 scan. Coupled with the debris on the surface of the film that the LS-50 picks up, I would much rather deal with the V700 scan.
Here you see another detail from the lower left corner. Once again the LS-50 scan appears slightly sharper, but only just. This image would have to be printed at actual size for this difference to be picked up. And then I think, well hells bells, if I were making a print 18" wide, I would be far more satisfying renting darkroom space, or having a lab do a silver print.
This is the same image, and I further sharpened the V700 scan. I'll leave you free to make your own conclusions.
Color images are a bit of a different story. Please forgive the obnoxious water mark, but I'm trying to decide if I wanna buy Silverfast or not. Nikon Scan fails to see the scanner.
And a 100% crop:
In this case I think the LS-50 did a pretty great job. It's not super sharp, but hey, it's 35mm. Look at how far away I am! I have never ever been satisfied with 35mm chrome scans from the Epson. It lacks the dynamic range to pick up any highlight detail, which makes the images kind of 'glow' but in a real ugly way.
Here is a raw V700 scan:
Whoa lets give that some Lasik!
A little better, but it still doesn't match the contrast and color depth that came straight outta the LS-50.
So I gotta say, it's kind of a toss up. For color and certainly chrome I'm sold. But I also love shooting Tri-X...so in this case I don't know what to do. I'll probably start with a LS-50 scan, and see what I can get. If it's at all giving me problems I switch back to the Epson, knowing that I can get results pretty damn close to what the Nikon can deliver.
I wanted to show these samples because I thought people on this site gave the Nikon scanner a little too much credit. If I had to only own ONE scanner, it would be the Epson. it does a close enough job to the Nikon scanner to outweigh the major advantages. And with the Nikon's aging software and lack of support, the Epson really makes more sense.
Oh and if you haven't seen medium and large format scans, well you should. So I'm going to show them to you!
This is an 8x10 Ilford FP4+ negative scanned with the v700:
This is a 100% crop:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1419/1474914824_e58da1b1e0_o.jpg
This is a 4x5 Ilford Ortho+ negative:
100%:
Hasselblad color negative:
100%:
Hasselblad Tri-X negative:
100%:
That's right! There I am in her eyeball taking this picture.
So I'm not trying to make any major conclusions about either scanner here. I just thought I'd share some examples for people who may be wondering which one to purchase, or what it's like working with either device. Scanning is a critical skill, and I'm no pro, but I think I do okay.
If others have scan examples to show, particularly from the LS-9000 I would love to see them. Or examples with 35mm film and better (leica or Zeiss) lenses. I just wanted to get a discussion going that shows examples of what I'm seeing with the actual equipment from actual pictures I made in the real world.
Last edited:
maddoc
... likes film again.
I did similar, bought an Epson V700 two and a half years ago to scan both 120 and 135 but felt that a Coolscan would be better for 135. So I added a Nikon Coolscan 4000ED (cheaper than the 5000ED but also can scan 135-36 stripes in one batch with the SA-30) and compared both scanners.
The following samples were taken using a 90mm Summicon-M pre-ASPH (last version) on Fujifilm ACROS100. Aperture was about f/5.6 (from memory) and shutter speed either 1/125s or 1/250s and the camera a M7. Both scans were done using Vuescan, single-pass and resolution set to 4000dpi (Coolscan 4000ED) or 4800dpi (V700).
First the Coolscan:
and 100% crop:
and here the Epson V700
and again 100% crop:
I had manually set the curves in Vuescan to identical values and sharpening was turned off.
The following samples were taken using a 90mm Summicon-M pre-ASPH (last version) on Fujifilm ACROS100. Aperture was about f/5.6 (from memory) and shutter speed either 1/125s or 1/250s and the camera a M7. Both scans were done using Vuescan, single-pass and resolution set to 4000dpi (Coolscan 4000ED) or 4800dpi (V700).
First the Coolscan:
and 100% crop:
and here the Epson V700
and again 100% crop:
I had manually set the curves in Vuescan to identical values and sharpening was turned off.
GoneSavage
not actually
sper, that last shot is amazing!
dfoo
Well-known
Nice comparison, however, try it with a less grainy B&W film In my experience the CS5000 is certainly no worse than the v700 for any film, and a much better performer with lower ISO B&W and blows the v700 out of the water with color & chromes. Its also much faster to use & to scan, and subjects the film to less handling during the scanning process.
In my experience the CS5000 is certainly no worse than the v700 for any film, and a much better performer with lower ISO B&W and blows the v700 out of the water with color & chromes. Its also much faster to use & to scan, and subjects the film to less handling during the scanning process.sper
Well-known
Yes, I know that the scanners do really excel with slower film. That's why I'm grateful that Kodak kept re-tooling their portra emulsions for better scanning. I can't wait to scan some FP4 in the Coolscan.
Actually, just today I bought a used Bessa R4a, and a 50mm Nokton 1.5! So I'm jonezing to put some rolls through my rangefinders. I'll try some FP4 asap, along with some 160VC. Ektar is too punchy for me. I'm hoping they really shine in the Coolscan.
JSU: I have found a simple truth. Digitally 'taken' photographs look better digitally printed or displayed, and film photos look better printed wet. However the reality of it is, it's hard to set up a home darkroom (I live in a small apartment in Brooklyn, NY). I shoot all my personal projects on film, but in order to share them I have to make scans. While it's true I'd probably have better image quality on my website if I just shot everything with my D700, I can't seem to make that adjustment. I'm a film forever type of person. I have considered scanning prints, and tried it a few times, but I found that I couldn't get a clean scan. Way too much debris on the surface of the image.
For exhibition prints I make darkroom silver prints. For color I might start printing with an inkjet. The local labs are $20 dollars an hour to rent, which is way out of my budget.
GoneSavage: thank you! Please do have a look at my current website portfolio, linked in my signature.
Maddoc: Your small V700 scan is clearly softer than the Coolscan's, but like I was saying, I don't think the 100% versions show that the LS-50 is actually resolving more detail. I think the right amount of sharpening could close the quality gap somewhat, although perhaps at the cost of introducing noise.
Actually, just today I bought a used Bessa R4a, and a 50mm Nokton 1.5! So I'm jonezing to put some rolls through my rangefinders. I'll try some FP4 asap, along with some 160VC. Ektar is too punchy for me. I'm hoping they really shine in the Coolscan.
JSU: I have found a simple truth. Digitally 'taken' photographs look better digitally printed or displayed, and film photos look better printed wet. However the reality of it is, it's hard to set up a home darkroom (I live in a small apartment in Brooklyn, NY). I shoot all my personal projects on film, but in order to share them I have to make scans. While it's true I'd probably have better image quality on my website if I just shot everything with my D700, I can't seem to make that adjustment. I'm a film forever type of person. I have considered scanning prints, and tried it a few times, but I found that I couldn't get a clean scan. Way too much debris on the surface of the image.
For exhibition prints I make darkroom silver prints. For color I might start printing with an inkjet. The local labs are $20 dollars an hour to rent, which is way out of my budget.
GoneSavage: thank you! Please do have a look at my current website portfolio, linked in my signature.
Maddoc: Your small V700 scan is clearly softer than the Coolscan's, but like I was saying, I don't think the 100% versions show that the LS-50 is actually resolving more detail. I think the right amount of sharpening could close the quality gap somewhat, although perhaps at the cost of introducing noise.
dfoo
Well-known
I would have to disagree. I've tried lots of photoshop magic and I cannot get a v700 scan to sharpen up to the level of a CS 5000 scan of a sufficiently detailed image. To put it another way, for a grainy image, I agree. The CS5000 doesn't resolve more detail than the v700, primarily because there is insufficient detail.
Denis M.
Denis Muradov
My first scanner was a "borrowed" V-750 that I used for a month. Later I bought a Minolta Elite 5400 and there was a noticeable difference in shadow detail, especially in chromes. This made the difference in recovering some of the unusable slides from the V-700. But my Minolta refused to be recognized anymore, and when I found out that Sony will not fix it I had to let it go.
It's odd that I see blown highlights in the chromes here with the V-700 since I remember scanning the Sensia 100 with the V-750 and getting most of the detail in the highlights, just not in the shadows.
I have a V-700 in the mail, so it would be interesting to compare. Though I did not get it for that, but more so for the BW LF and MF stuff and batch scanning.
It's odd that I see blown highlights in the chromes here with the V-700 since I remember scanning the Sensia 100 with the V-750 and getting most of the detail in the highlights, just not in the shadows.
I have a V-700 in the mail, so it would be interesting to compare. Though I did not get it for that, but more so for the BW LF and MF stuff and batch scanning.
Pavel+
Established
As opposed to dfoo's experience, I had the 5000 for a year and hated it. The nikon software is like all of their software packages - a kludge; but fortunately there is vuescan and silverfast. I used vuescan mostly because I found it faster to go through many files but found, I have to admit, that the silverfast gave me somewhat better results.
The fact of the matter is that the 5000 is excellent with slides, very good with color negs but HORRIBLE with black and white. The cold light it uses exaggerates grain. No way around it, it was not even up to my standards with iso 50 stuff, never mind tri-x.
I always had a 4490 for medium format film and that works better for 35 black and white imho, to the degree that now that I want to get back into doing B&W 35 again ... the 750 is the way I'm leaning ... unless the Plustek is perhaps a better choice? Anyone know how the Plustek 7500 is?
The fact of the matter is that the 5000 is excellent with slides, very good with color negs but HORRIBLE with black and white. The cold light it uses exaggerates grain. No way around it, it was not even up to my standards with iso 50 stuff, never mind tri-x.
I always had a 4490 for medium format film and that works better for 35 black and white imho, to the degree that now that I want to get back into doing B&W 35 again ... the 750 is the way I'm leaning ... unless the Plustek is perhaps a better choice? Anyone know how the Plustek 7500 is?
dfoo
Well-known
I disagree, of course. Yes, its true with the cs5000 you can see lots of grain with TriX. Its not surprising, its a grainy film. If you try Fuji Acros 100, there is virtually no grain. With the v700 you cannot see the grain in tx400, true. That's because all the details are smudged out by the terrible focus
lawrence
Veteran
I also have a Coolscan IV and a V750 and I have also done some tests. The important thing with the V750 is to keep the film flat, for which I use the Better Scanning glass. Personally I much prefer the Epson because of the diffused light rather then the collimated light source (LEDs) of the Nikon. For me, the Epson is also quicker because I can scan four rows of negatives at once. Provided the film is flat I get as sharp results with the Epson but with better tonality, however I generally only scan conventional b&w film so comment on colour neg or trannies.
Pavel+
Established
dfoo, I have two 4490s right now and one is such that you are right on the money - all detail is smudged out. I'd agree with you and go back to the 5000 but for the experience with the other 4490 (at work). It is fabulous (comared to the other). I wonder if one is simply damaged in some way or if the better scanning holders with the adjustable height guides would help it?
I believe the issue is more often that of the focus not being right rather than the scanners being poor quality. Several highly respected test sites have found them to be in effect the equal of the 5000.
Perhaps you have a better technique for black and white than I did. All I know is that the grain was exaggerated past the point where I was happy with it.
I believe the issue is more often that of the focus not being right rather than the scanners being poor quality. Several highly respected test sites have found them to be in effect the equal of the 5000.
Perhaps you have a better technique for black and white than I did. All I know is that the grain was exaggerated past the point where I was happy with it.
Pavel+
Established
Here is a shot with across of my daughter. It looks ok web size and this is one I was decently happy with ... but a large print has a look to it that a wet print would not, and I think a 750 may make look more like what the film should (imho) look like.
Pavel+
Established
THis one, though in color, was scanned with the 4490. I know these are too small to draw many conclusions from ... but I consider this a better scan.
Pavel+
Established
And a few more from the "lousy" little epson. I can only think that the 750 would be an improvement.
dfoo
Well-known
I tried all of the height adjustments with the standard epson v700 holder. None of them produced really sharp 35mm scans. This was also with flat film. If the film is curved, then its naturally worse since nothing holds it flat. Whether the results are acceptable depends on what you want to do with the scans. If all you want to do is post 1000 pixel web scans or similar, then its fine. However, for me, 8x10 (and larger) prints are just not sharp when compared with a CS5000 scan.
Pavel+
Established
What will film shooters do soon when the old nikon stuff goes to wherever it is that Nikon stuff goes to when it wears out - now that the 5000 is discontinued?
hanskerensky
Well-known
What will film shooters do soon when the old nikon stuff goes to wherever it is that Nikon stuff goes to when it wears out - now that the 5000 is discontinued?
Use a decent Flatbed Filmscanner or (maybe even better ?) use a 20+ Megapixel DSLR
and an attachment to duplicate your film instantly
JPSuisse
Well-known
I disagree, of course. Yes, its true with the cs5000 you can see lots of grain with TriX. Its not surprising, its a grainy film. If you try Fuji Acros 100, there is virtually no grain. With the v700 you cannot see the grain in tx400, true. That's because all the details are smudged out by the terrible focus
I'm not sure, but dfoo might be right here. I have Nikon 5000 and an Epson 750. Basically the same units you are using. I get great results with the Nikon with little pronounced grain.
In the end, a print is the only real way to know. So, I am not sure how useful your screen shots are at judging this anyway.
Here below is an example that I shot on 125 PX developed in DD-X including a pretty good close up. I think that the level of grain is very acceptable, even though grain IS a personal thing...
Could it be that your development is not optimal and that your Epson just doesn't see the grain?
JP
