CanoScan 9000F Mark II - Mushy Scans?

[NicoM]

I just picked up the CanoScan 9000F Mark II and I'm getting pretty "mushy" scans. They look like they'd been good for viewing small, but theres no detail at all when you look close (even with my standard sharpening procedure in in PS or LR)

Is this just how the scanner performs or is there a way around it?

 

[NicoM]

Here are some images. Scanned at 2400ppi and 4800ppi, color corrected/sharpened in Lightroom. Exported at 3000 px width. I've even added some grain for the "appearance of sharpness".

 

[zauhar]

I have similar Canon scanner, and achieve similar results.

I guess I am missing something, where are these mushy? Do I need to see a larger version?

Randy

 

[NicoM]

I have similar Canon scanner, and achieve similar results.

I guess I am missing something, where are these mushy? Do I need to see a larger version?

Randy

I guess it's a little harder to see when viewed very small, but it looks like there just isn't enough resolution when scanning (not anywhere near what is advertised). The "pixels" look big and "mushy"

 

[zauhar]

I guess it's a little harder to see when viewed very small, but it looks like there rust isn't enough resolution when scanning (not anywhere near what is advertised). The "pixels" look big and "mushy"

The scanner specs quote 9600 dpi, but I think the common experience is that reality does not match that. The same is true (I think) for better scanners, like the epson 700.

I think your scans look good, although admittedly your images are not that large.

Randy

 

[valdas]

Your scans do not look bad to me for this scanner.

 

[edge100]

I owned the 9000F for a few years, and have since replaced it with the SprintScan 120.

There's absolutely no doubt: the 9000F scans *are* mushy in comparison. That said, one can make reasonable 8x10 prints of 35mm scans from the 9000F. But go larger than that (or compare to even something like the Plustek 8100/8200), and the deficiencies become clear. Even with medium format, the SpritScan 120 produces scans that are far and away better than the 9000F, but you won't see those differences in small web images.

 

[GaryLH]

In general, a flatbed style scanner will not be as good as a film scanner. For me I find that the key to a good scan is to use the corrective adjustments during the preview for the scan. Save as a tiff or photoshop raw file or dng. This will give the most leeway to make more adjustments in your preferred photo tool later.

Your images look pretty good as well.

Gary

 

[NicoM]

In general, a flatbed style scanner will not be as good as a film scanner. For me I find that the key to a good scan is to use the corrective adjustments during the preview for the scan. Save as a tiff or photoshop raw file or dng. This will give the most leeway to make more adjustments in your preferred photo tool later.

Your images look pretty good as well.

Gary

I've been scanning everything in .tif and color correcting everything in Lightroom. I don't mind the workflow for web output, but right now it feels as if I'm "fixing" the lack or sharpness rather than "enhancing" the image with the post processing. I guess I'll just have to deal with it until I'm able to pick up a nice dedicated scanner.

I just graduated from college where I was used to using the big hasselblad/imacon scanners. I probably would have been happy with these scans if I hadn't experienced better! 😛

 

[NicoM]

I owned the 9000F for a few years, and have since replaced it with the SprintScan 120.

There's absolutely no doubt: the 9000F scans *are* mushy in comparison. That said, one can make reasonable 8x10 prints of 35mm scans from the 9000F. But go larger than that (or compare to even something like the Plustek 8100/8200), and the deficiencies become clear. Even with medium format, the SpritScan 120 produces scans that are far and away better than the 9000F, but you won't see those differences in small web images.

I'm treating this as a testing period. If I get serious about self scanning, I'm going to try to save up for a dedicated scanner.

Is there a scanner that you'd recommend for both 35mm and 120mm?

 

[Aristophanes]

I'm treating this as a testing period. If I get serious about self scanning, I'm going to try to save up for a dedicated scanner.

Is there a scanner that you'd recommend for both 35mm and 120mm?

Plustek 120

Epson V750

 

[Noll]

Mid to low-end flatbed manufacturers are notorius for quoting astronomical dpi's and delivering only a fraction of what is quoted.

These guys do pretty good scanner reviews for further reading.
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html

 

[NicoM]

Mid to low-end flatbed manufacturers are notorius for quoting astronomical dpi's and delivering only a fraction of what is quoted.

These guys do pretty good scanner reviews for further reading.
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000F.html

Thanks for that!

 

[CliveC]

I have the 9000F (Mark I) and I did not find it was sufficient for 35mm.
I have since added an old Minolta Dualscan dedicated 35mm scanner and it's definitely sharper, even though the stated resolution isn't high. The real resolution between the two scanners are probably similar though.

 

[edge100]

I'm treating this as a testing period. If I get serious about self scanning, I'm going to try to save up for a dedicated scanner.

Is there a scanner that you'd recommend for both 35mm and 120mm?

The SprintScan 120 (Microtek 120tf), if you can find one.

Otherwise, dedicated 120 scanners are (a) rare and (b) expensive.

Another option is 'scanning' with a DSLR, macro lens, and a backlight source, which probably outperforms all of these options, but can be a chore to get setup.