Epson 4990 to Coolscan 9000ED?

[Peter_S]

Hi!

I have a good offer for a Nikon Coolscan 9000ED. I am currently using an Epson 4990 that I use for webshots and selecting photos for high-end scan/print/publications. What is selected, goes off to be scanned with a Hasselblad X1. However, I find myself sending in photos that are not to be printed anywhere, but that I just want to have in good quality, for A4 prints, and also for achiving.

Now - how do you find the Coolscan for 135 format and
- Modern, high-res. black/white film (Delta 100, Acros), say compared to the Hasselblad X1 or M8 digital files, at print size max. A4 (8 x 12)?
- High-iso film (HP5 at ASA 800/1600, Delta 3200) - much grain enlargement?
- Fine-grained slide film (ICE?), how are the details and the brilliance of slide film retained?

Are the software and profiles good, is much post-processing needed for the scans?

Best,
Peter

 

[mfogiel]

I think, that if you have a decent offer for this scanner, just grab it. I use it mainly for traditional B&W film, but have scanned also some color. At A4 you should get absolutely grainless prints from any non pushed film, and in particular from slides or C41 films. I can't comment on M8 as I do not use digital. This scanner's strong points are:
- real resolution around 3800 ppi for both 120 film and 35mm
- good Dmax
- good colour reproduction ( I use Vuescan software)

The weak point is film flatness for 35mm and unless you are very careful for 120 as well, so it is wise to get the glass carrier for it.
Google Dante Stella and Ladislav Kamarad - they publish various workarounds for this.

 

[aldobonnard]

Hi Peter,
no doubt the 9000 is a great scanner, but I'd keep it for medium format solely.
Yet, I only own the 5000 but I suspect it's similar in quality, albeit a zillion times faster for 135 format. Owning also a KM 5400 v1 and KM5400v2, I'd say that the KM5400 v1 is the best for "top" quality. It's just slower than the Nikon (say x2, x3)
When I really want top quality for B&W and slide, I always use the KM 5400 v1.
When BW negs and slides are very dense, very contrasty, I will however use the Nikon, with Vuescan + multi exposure & multi-sampling x8, because it is the fastest of all.
Note that neither the GEM - ICE's grain reduction - on Nikon, KM, Vuescan, give any good result, it creates weird patterns. Avoid using it.
For high enlargements, I will stick to the KM5400 v1, despite slower, because of its diffusion screen which reduces the grain effect. I have found the Nikon to highlight the film grain.
The ICE implementation has no real effect on the sharpness, in my experience.
To answer your question about Delta100, Across, or TMax 100/400, I'd say that M8 files will look smoother viewed at 100% - but that's not relevant for a print -. What you'll gain with film is the exposure range; to capture that, you want a good scanner like Nikon 5000/9000 and Minolta 5400, and use vuescan with multi-exposure. For correctly exposed and not so contrasty, you can still use Nikon Scan software. With slides, it's recommended to calibrate your scanner with IT8 targets. I use Wolf Faust IT8 targets and Monaco Color profile s/w. Makes a big difference. Otherwise you'll find yourself fiddling in your favourite photo editing software for a while.
Alternately, you can use a grey target each time you take pics. I carry one in my bag at all time, and use it at the start of a session. Later on, you'll get the correct white balance easily.
Hope that helps.

 

[Jamie123]

I have both. I use the 4990 for digital contact sheets and 4x5 and the 9000 for everything else. The 9000 is great and the quality is definitely better than with the 4990 but not quite on the level of the X1.

 

[mfogiel]

I have found this web site, which looks particularly useful in your enquiry:
http://www.filmscanner.info/en/NikonSuperCoolscan9000ED.html