moodlover
Established
After 3 days with this thing, losing 30+ minutes per frame due to the line-banding issue that requires you to use fine mode, and comparing my results on a screen, I've come to the conclusion that the 8000 is not that much better than my V800. The work from my V800 looks extremely similar, and you have to blow the picture up really big to notice the detail differences. Since my primary target is web use I dont think the 8000 was worth the time and money loss.
I have trash talked my V800 and now I after looking at the same negatives scanned side by side from both scanners, I have gained a whole new respect for this flatbed. My technique really grew when I spent a year and a half with the Epson. I shoot 90% shallow depth of field portraits and I dont think the slight increase in sharpness in the eyes/face was worth the money. This scanner is far more useful for the landscape shooter. The V800 work looks identical when viewed at smaller resolutions particularly for web (1600px, 2400px etc).
Someone on flickr did a test of the v750 vs CS9000:
V750: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1195860909/in/album-72157632081381112/
CS9000: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1196119071/in/album-72157632081381112/
Closeup of both: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1197126130/in/album-72157632081381112/
Ignoring the fact that the v750 has a cast in the shadows (user error), the CS9000 is clearly the winner when it comes to fine detail yes. But when it comes to overall picture they are way, way too similar.
Epson Scan's software also blows away Nikon Scan 4, VueScan, and SilverFast Ai Studio 8.8 in terms of contrast control. The levels sliders in Epson Scan allows you to increase/decrease both highlight and shadows with such finesse and smoothness that doesnt exist in any of the other softwares. Its impossible to clip in Epson Scan.
I have trash talked my V800 and now I after looking at the same negatives scanned side by side from both scanners, I have gained a whole new respect for this flatbed. My technique really grew when I spent a year and a half with the Epson. I shoot 90% shallow depth of field portraits and I dont think the slight increase in sharpness in the eyes/face was worth the money. This scanner is far more useful for the landscape shooter. The V800 work looks identical when viewed at smaller resolutions particularly for web (1600px, 2400px etc).
Someone on flickr did a test of the v750 vs CS9000:
V750: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1195860909/in/album-72157632081381112/
CS9000: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1196119071/in/album-72157632081381112/
Closeup of both: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/1197126130/in/album-72157632081381112/
Ignoring the fact that the v750 has a cast in the shadows (user error), the CS9000 is clearly the winner when it comes to fine detail yes. But when it comes to overall picture they are way, way too similar.
Epson Scan's software also blows away Nikon Scan 4, VueScan, and SilverFast Ai Studio 8.8 in terms of contrast control. The levels sliders in Epson Scan allows you to increase/decrease both highlight and shadows with such finesse and smoothness that doesnt exist in any of the other softwares. Its impossible to clip in Epson Scan.
brbo
Well-known
CS8000 has a bit more resolution and that's about it.
Now that you know (first hand) that a particular scanner won't get you any nearer to your wanted look, just use either scanner and sell the other. CS8000 is not the best but it's also far from being particularly bad either. There ARE other scanners in that price range, but they also come with a host of other issues...
Learn to get your look in post processing. Try to understand the differences from your scans and the pro labs' scans. If you are not really really good at post processing you might not get a full understanding of what's going on in the scans that you like. Get a roll of your film scanned by them to see where THEY would take the look. Because your problem is not the scanner, but the negative (interpretation of the negative). We all struggle with it. And the models, the settings and the lighting that we don't have...
Now that you know (first hand) that a particular scanner won't get you any nearer to your wanted look, just use either scanner and sell the other. CS8000 is not the best but it's also far from being particularly bad either. There ARE other scanners in that price range, but they also come with a host of other issues...
Learn to get your look in post processing. Try to understand the differences from your scans and the pro labs' scans. If you are not really really good at post processing you might not get a full understanding of what's going on in the scans that you like. Get a roll of your film scanned by them to see where THEY would take the look. Because your problem is not the scanner, but the negative (interpretation of the negative). We all struggle with it. And the models, the settings and the lighting that we don't have...
adelie
Newbie
Re: Coolscan 8000ED
Re: Coolscan 8000ED
I purchased a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED about 1-2 years ago. Fantastic!!! Here is my 500px gallery. All images shot with Leica M, R and some digital M cameras:
https://500px.com/johnchinstrap
I use both Vuescan and Silverfast. Post-processing done mostly in Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Lightroom.
Re: Coolscan 8000ED
I purchased a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED about 1-2 years ago. Fantastic!!! Here is my 500px gallery. All images shot with Leica M, R and some digital M cameras:
https://500px.com/johnchinstrap
I use both Vuescan and Silverfast. Post-processing done mostly in Adobe Photoshop Elements, or Lightroom.