Jamie123
Veteran
I have an Epson 4990 flatbed scanner that I use for all my scanning. I know it's not the best solution for 35mm film but I don't shoot that much 35mm these days so that's not such a big deal (might become an issue once I buy one of those things they call Leica).
While I'm happy with the results of the scanner for medium format I realize that, even for web viewing, the results don't come near to what I see on pro photographers' websites. I have, however, recently found out that I have the possibility to rent a 'digital darkroom' at the university for about 8$ a day that is equipped with a Nikon Coolscan LS-9000D.
Now, here's my question: Is the step up in quality from a flatbed to the Nikon big enough to justify going through the trouble of spending a day scanning at the uni? And more important, how does a scan from the Nikon compare to a professional drum scan?
While I'm happy with the results of the scanner for medium format I realize that, even for web viewing, the results don't come near to what I see on pro photographers' websites. I have, however, recently found out that I have the possibility to rent a 'digital darkroom' at the university for about 8$ a day that is equipped with a Nikon Coolscan LS-9000D.
Now, here's my question: Is the step up in quality from a flatbed to the Nikon big enough to justify going through the trouble of spending a day scanning at the uni? And more important, how does a scan from the Nikon compare to a professional drum scan?
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I owned an Coolscan 9000 for about a week, and if it hadn't been for its speed, I would have kept it. It scanned a 35mm frame with 4x multisamples, no ICE, etc. in about 8 minutes. But a Medium Format frame with 4x multisamples in about 4 (?!?)
If speed and money is not a factor, hands down, it is amazing. Absolutely.
But if you're only going to scan 35mm, get the Coolscan 5000. It's fast. Each frame, with ICE, set at 4x multisampling, in about 3 minutes. It's also much much smaller than the 9000, and of course the Epson flatbed.
But that's my perspective. I do own an Epson 4400, and after having tasted the sweet 9000, it's a piece of...hey.
If you're scanning a lot, spending 3 hours vs. 1 is certainly a huge difference. Ask my gf
If speed and money is not a factor, hands down, it is amazing. Absolutely.
But if you're only going to scan 35mm, get the Coolscan 5000. It's fast. Each frame, with ICE, set at 4x multisampling, in about 3 minutes. It's also much much smaller than the 9000, and of course the Epson flatbed.
But that's my perspective. I do own an Epson 4400, and after having tasted the sweet 9000, it's a piece of...hey.
If you're scanning a lot, spending 3 hours vs. 1 is certainly a huge difference. Ask my gf
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Having worked with an Imacon 949 and owning both the Epson V750 pro and the Nikon Coolscan 5000 ED - unquestionably the Imacon wins hands down - the depth of tonality is outstanding but that's costing £17,000 + 17.5% Vat.
If i really need that sort of quality i can hire one in London.
That said the Nikon 5000 for 35mm is much better than flatbed Epson - although with a little tonal control and sublte sharpening in CS2 especially with the Pixel Genius plug-in's the flatbed scans can be tweaked to look sweet.
If i had the cash and i was doing more 120 work i'd opt for the 9000 over a flatbed because the depth is there in the scans from the start so less post production work in CS2.
I think for 35mm the Nikon V and it's faster 5000 are well worth the money.
The NikonScan software is harsh for b/w and as i use Tri X i've found Vuescan to be very fexible and produces scans with a long tonal range.
However as i only work in b/w i've no experience of how these scanners handle colour film stock.
If i really need that sort of quality i can hire one in London.
That said the Nikon 5000 for 35mm is much better than flatbed Epson - although with a little tonal control and sublte sharpening in CS2 especially with the Pixel Genius plug-in's the flatbed scans can be tweaked to look sweet.
If i had the cash and i was doing more 120 work i'd opt for the 9000 over a flatbed because the depth is there in the scans from the start so less post production work in CS2.
I think for 35mm the Nikon V and it's faster 5000 are well worth the money.
The NikonScan software is harsh for b/w and as i use Tri X i've found Vuescan to be very fexible and produces scans with a long tonal range.
However as i only work in b/w i've no experience of how these scanners handle colour film stock.
Jamie123
Veteran
Thanks for the help, guys!
I might buy a Nikon 5000 somewhere down the line for my 35mm negs.
The 9000 is a little out of my league pricewise. The Imacon is on another planet
But like I said, I could have access to a Nikon 9000 for about 8$ a day. And then there's also the pro lab scan option. I can have the pro lab do a drum scan which can easily cost 50$ + (depending on the filesize).
Right now I don't have any photos that are good enough to justify spending that much money on one frame but there might come the time (at least I hope so) when it's worth it.
Apart from sharpness, which I'm sure the Nikon delivers, I'm after that depth of tonality (especially with color negative film) that the flatbed just won't give me.
From what you said, Simon, it seems like a drum scan is still the best in that area.
Like I said, I don't find the flatbed to be that bad. All the photos in my flickr gallery were scanned with the Epson and no sharpening applied at all. The only time I get doubts about its quality is when I look at a 6x6 slide and then compare it with the scan. It's simply no match!
I might buy a Nikon 5000 somewhere down the line for my 35mm negs.
The 9000 is a little out of my league pricewise. The Imacon is on another planet
But like I said, I could have access to a Nikon 9000 for about 8$ a day. And then there's also the pro lab scan option. I can have the pro lab do a drum scan which can easily cost 50$ + (depending on the filesize).
Right now I don't have any photos that are good enough to justify spending that much money on one frame but there might come the time (at least I hope so) when it's worth it.
Apart from sharpness, which I'm sure the Nikon delivers, I'm after that depth of tonality (especially with color negative film) that the flatbed just won't give me.
From what you said, Simon, it seems like a drum scan is still the best in that area.
Like I said, I don't find the flatbed to be that bad. All the photos in my flickr gallery were scanned with the Epson and no sharpening applied at all. The only time I get doubts about its quality is when I look at a 6x6 slide and then compare it with the scan. It's simply no match!
haziz
Member
Jamie12 said:
In short yes. The Nikon is a significant step up. However the bigger the film the less noticeable the difference. The Imacon is not signifcantly better. The next step up would be a drum scanner. Contrary to popular opinion the Imacon is not a drum scanner, but uses the same technology as the Nikon and other CCD scanners. The lens and film are just held at a fixed position with a gentle curve to the film. The sensor is CCD unlike the photomultiplier tube of a drum scanner. Several testers have seen only marginal improvement if any compared to the Nikon, and it is definitely inferior to most drum scanners. The skill of the person doing the scan however is very important.
If convenient then yes by all means gain access to the Nikon 9000 scanner.
Sincerely,
Hany.
Last edited:
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
haziz said:
Not wanting to get too far OT :
For 35mm based on scans i've made on the Nikon 5000 and the Imacon 949 (which i know isn't a drum scanner
) i'd say there is a noticable difference at least to my eyes. And by its design it also holds the film much flatter. It's in another universe price-wise but i know a few people here in Bangkok who own the smaller models and when you see the files the difference is there.xvvvz
Established
Hi Jamie -
Since you can dial in your film to the optimum height with your 4990, your scans would be very hard to distinquish from a V series' scans. If you look at the comparison scans that Vincent made with between the 4870 and the V series here (and remember that the 4870's film height had NOT been optimized like you have done) http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_12.htm, you can see the difference is very slight. That leads in to my recommendation that you look at Vincent's test of the 750 vs the 9000 right here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm AND AND here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_6.htm. This should give you an indication of the difference you will see with the INITIAL output. You can see the difference starts to narrow once post processing is done. Fluid mounting on the flatbed could bring the results even closer.
The 9000 is a great scanner and I wish I could afford one No doubt about it. At $2200+ in the U.S. (most everyone says you need the optional Nikon glass holder for 120 film) it should be though! You are very fortunate to have the opportunity to have access to one for $8 a day. I think you should take advantage of this and go make some test scans of your most prized images and then see if the differences in your final prints justify the efforts.
Just my $.02,
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
Since you can dial in your film to the optimum height with your 4990, your scans would be very hard to distinquish from a V series' scans. If you look at the comparison scans that Vincent made with between the 4870 and the V series here (and remember that the 4870's film height had NOT been optimized like you have done) http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V700/page_12.htm, you can see the difference is very slight. That leads in to my recommendation that you look at Vincent's test of the 750 vs the 9000 right here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_5.htm AND AND here: http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20V750/page_6.htm. This should give you an indication of the difference you will see with the INITIAL output. You can see the difference starts to narrow once post processing is done. Fluid mounting on the flatbed could bring the results even closer.
The 9000 is a great scanner and I wish I could afford one
No doubt about it. At $2200+ in the U.S. (most everyone says you need the optional Nikon glass holder for 120 film) it should be though! You are very fortunate to have the opportunity to have access to one for $8 a day. I think you should take advantage of this and go make some test scans of your most prized images and then see if the differences in your final prints justify the efforts.Just my $.02,
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Hi Doug
last time i looked the Nikon 9000 was £2,500 in the UK which would make it around $5K so it would seem a steal at $2200!
OT to Doug
BTW I will be ordering that MF holder of yours when i'm back in the UK
so i'll email you begining of December.
Simon
last time i looked the Nikon 9000 was £2,500 in the UK which would make it around $5K so it would seem a steal at $2200!
OT to Doug
BTW I will be ordering that MF holder of yours when i'm back in the UK
so i'll email you begining of December.
Simon