Digital Refugee new to film..need scanner

[orenrcohen]

Have decided to move from digital to film. Have been shooting R-D1 and will continue to do so but I love my new (at least to me) M6... 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Now sorting out my workflow.. I am learning to make wet prints but living in a NYC apartment it might make the most sense for me to scan negatives and then print from my Epson 3800. I primarily shoot black and white film on the new M6. It is possible that down the road I might want to work on some medium format. Have heard mixed reviews on this site with regard to Nikon coolscan 9000 with black and white-- --which seems to be my leading canditate at the moment.. Any one have some thoughts before I pull the trigger?

 

[venchka]

The 9000 gets rave mention all the time. The best there is between Epdon or Canon flatbeds for a few hundred & the real scanners (IQSmart, Imacon, Drum scanners) for mega bucks. Seriously, the scanner market has 3 segments: Flatbeds for $100-$700, the Coolscan 9000 for $2k and everythnig above that for $5,000 and up.

If never ever want to shoot medium format (strange, I couldn't do that), then the Nikon 5000 is as good as it gets in 35mm only scanners.

There are very good Minolta scanners out there. However, service and support is ZERO.

That said, my friends & I get very passable results from various Epsons (1680, 4990, 700, 750) for well under $800. However, we all shoot 35-120-4x5 so we need the Epsons for that capability.

 

[sojournerphoto]

There is no alternative to the Nikon at the price point.

Mike

 

[orenrcohen]

any comment as to issues using it for black and white? have seen some mixed comments on the site.. I will be scanning Ilford HP5 and or Tri-X negs..

 

[bagdadchild]

There are indeed alternatives to the coolscan 9000. Used scanners. The Polaroid sprintscan 120 (aka Microtek Artixscan 120tf), [FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][/FONT]the Minolta Multi Pro, used drum scanners & used CCD's as already mentioned. I don't know about the US, but in Europe drum scanners and CCD's can regularly be found for a lot less than the $5000 stated earlier. Only need to be active and patient in finding one.

 

[bagdadchild]

any comment as to issues using it for black and white? have seen some mixed comments on the site.. I will be scanning Ilford HP5 and or Tri-X negs..

I am sure this scanner is as capable for B&W as it is for other types of film. You can always scan B&W as a positive and invert it. But maybe you should ask yourself first if you like the look of digitalized B&W prints vis-a-vis wet prints

 

[dfoo]

What do you want to do with the prints? If they are only for web viewing and such a v500/v700 is fine. If you want to make largish prints, then a 5000 is great (btw, I have both a v700 and CS 5000). For either scanner, you'll want to make sure your workflow is very clean. The scanners really make any scratches and dust on your negatives noticeable.

That being said, I would consider not spending a bunch of money on a scanner, and rather focus on darkroom printing if you are primarily doing black and white. In my experience with both an inkjet printer and a darkroom, there is nothing better than a nice black & white wet print 🙂

 

[Aurance]

Scanning Tests!

Scanning Tests!

Have decided to move from digital to film. Have been shooting R-D1 and will continue to do so but I love my new (at least to me) M6... 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

Now sorting out my workflow.. I am learning to make wet prints but living in a NYC apartment it might make the most sense for me to scan negatives and then print from my Epson 3800. I primarily shoot black and white film on the new M6. It is possible that down the road I might want to work on some medium format. Have heard mixed reviews on this site with regard to Nikon coolscan 9000 with black and white-- --which seems to be my leading canditate at the moment.. Any one have some thoughts before I pull the trigger?

I recently returned to film (for part of my photography) as a nice diversion from digital.

I completed a few tests with scanning the negatives - posted the results as an article on my web site (might be worth a read)

http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/Articles/Ektar 100/ektar100.htm

Regards

Richard

 

[Roger Hicks]

What do you want to do with the prints? If they are only for web viewing and such a v500/v700 is fine. If you want to make largish prints, then a 5000 is great (btw, I have both a v700 and CS 5000). For either scanner, you'll want to make sure your workflow is very clean. The scanners really make any scratches and dust on your negatives noticeable.

That being said, I would consider not spending a bunch of money on a scanner, and rather focus on darkroom printing if you are primarily doing black and white. In my experience with both an inkjet printer and a darkroom, there is nothing better than a nice black & white wet print 🙂

Seconded!

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

I recently returned to film (for part of my photography) as a nice diversion from digital.

I completed a few tests with scanning the negatives - posted the results as an article on my web site (might be worth a read)

http://www.lawrencephotographic.com/Articles/Ektar 100/ektar100.htm

Regards

Richard

Careful... I first did that four years ago when I bought a Yashica Mat 124-g. Now I no longer have any digital camera gear 🙂

 

[historicist]

If you buy a 9000 be prepared for the following:

a) The glass holder ($$$, slows down loading film) is pretty much essential for sharp scans on mf
b) Nikon Scan can be problematic on recent OS's and won't be updated, it might pay to keep an older computer around to run it or invest in Vuescan ($) or Silverfast ($$)

I've got a 8000 and find the bw perfectly acceptable, although I'm no grain connoisseur. When I got it I did a (rather unscientific) comparison with the Epson V500 I used before for medium format (without the glass holder) and although there was a difference in quality, it was slight and only apparent at 100% views. For 35mm there's a pretty clear difference though.

 

[mfogiel]

The truth is, the appearance of a wet print is better, but most wet prints I see on exhibitions are lacking in technical quality anyway, so when it comes to a face to face comparison, the output from a well scanned and processed B&W negative printed on a good inkjet paper on one of the latest printers holds its own very well.
I scan with the CS 9000 and print on Epson R2400, and I find the results very satisfactory. There is some learning to do: how to develop, how to scan, how to keep the negs flat, how to post process. If you are serious about the quality of your negs, and you want also try MF, go directly to the Nikon CS 9000, get Vuescan, and also try a few developers , like Rodinal, D76 and a good pyro developer like Pytocat HD or Prescysol EF. Do not forget to buy the glass (non rotating ) film holder too. If you look at my flickr, you can have an idea on how various developer/film/format combinations look like.

 

[dfoo]

Its a good point. To me its significantly more effort (not to mention money) to get a decent looking inkjet print than it is to get a decent wet print. These days, assuming you can find it, darkroom equipment can be very cheap and its very hardy; that is you won't have issues with your enlarger magically breaking, unlike your scanner. The only major cost is the paper. However, if you actually print your shots, decent quality inkjet paper isn't either, and neither is in the ink!

I also spend my entire day in front of a computer, so getting away from that for me is personally important. Its just more fun in the darkroom!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Its a good point. To me its significantly more effort (not to mention money) to get a decent looking inkjet print than it is to get a decent wet print. These days, assuming you can find it, darkroom equipment can be very cheap and its very hardy; that is you won't have issues with your enlarger magically breaking, unlike your scanner. The only major cost is the paper. However, if you actually print your shots, decent quality inkjet paper isn't either, and neither is in the ink!

I also spend my entire day in front of a computer, so getting away from that for me is personally important. Its just more fun in the darkroom!

I'll drink to that!

Cheers,

R.

 

[Lilserenity]

I would second trying darkroom stuff if you have the room, it's cheap, and I find it a lot of fun. It takes a bit of dedication but I get better results with an analogue to analogue process, than an analogue->scan->digital print process. It's a great antedote to a computer related job I find. But I'm probably odd. 🙂

 

[emraphoto]

have a look at the microtek m1 pro. new they are about $700-$1000 and are a flatbed and a dedicated film scanner in one chasis. it has excellent dynamic range. bit of a bear to dial in but once you do it is the best bang for the buck, without question, in my humble opinion.

 

[emraphoto]

if you're interested

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0308/gt0308-1.html

 

[arunrajmohan]

Epson has instant discounts on v700 & family

Epson has instant discounts on v700 & family

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/rcDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&cp=C&coid=-13626

Just took advantage of it and let me see what I get...

 

[Bike Tourist]

You might find a used Nikon V ED scanner. I have one and its 4000 dpi scan is good enough for me, I guess they don't make them anymore, but there are probably a bunch on the used market. If it has a drawback, I think the Nikon Scan software is a little "tender" and it's hard to get through a session without a screen freeze. But, I'm used to it. I'm told that maybe some third party software may be more robust but I haven't tried anything else.