Nikon 9000 CoolScan

[Honu-Hugger]

I REALLY like my LS8000. Does a perfect job for me. Even had I continued to shoot MF, I doubt I would have upgraded to the 9000... it is that good.

Also, a contrarian view here: I never needed the glass carrier either. Now, the films I shot and scanned, Provia, Reala, NPS and NPH are NOT "curly" films so that may have been one reason I never needed the glass.

Some people swear you cannot get a descent scan without the glass carrier and I have found that is not the case. When your scanner arrives, try it and see before springing for Nikon's glass carrier.

Tom

Thanks, Tom. That is all very reassuring to read. This is brand new territory for me so I'm not committing to anything more until I get my feet wet with what I've bought so far. How about paper -- any recommendations? I usually print B&W conventionally with an eggshell or pearl type sheen (sorry -- I got a little ahead of myself: an Epson R2400 is also coming. I posted this question on another thread).

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I have my photos printed at a lab by the guy who *owns* the lab and he always gives me back pristine negatives. I actually specify that the photos be held until he can actually do them himself. It's not that the people who work there aren't good at their jobs because they are. I've had them give me back pristine negatives as well. I just really like the prints I get when I get them from this guy. The crops are almost always right on for whatever size I get. They're where I'm getting the prints I'm selling. Also, so you know, it's a small, locally owned lab. I give them my business *because* they're locally owned. I've never had a problem with them.

As an aside, while he uses a digital machine for printing and developing, he does still use a decent old film camera himself, IIRC. 🙂

 

[Honu-Hugger]

Here's another perspective:

I scan my 35mm negatives at 3200 dpi, and my 6x6 negatives at either 3200 or 4800 dpi, depending on whether it's color or B&W. The reasons? I like to spend my time scanning only once, and archive the negative as soon as possible;

The other one is (most important one), I like my negatives: most labs have high turnout, and the operators could care less if the negative they're handling is from Aunt Pat or Henri Cartier-Bresson ("Henry who?" they'll say), will give them back with fingerprints and scratches galore. If I'm going to have the lab print a picture, I resize my file, and put it in a memory card (I gave up with CD-RWs after I got them back with --you guessed it-- fingerprints and scratches) and have them print the files from there if their kiosks are a pain to use (some of them are).

I realize not everybody can do this; I put together my own system and have four harddrives, and have room to expand for two more, all rather "cheap" because I guess being a closet geek pays off.

So scanning big files can have its benefits. I just hope I don't have to begin building a backup storage rack next year!!

This is precisely why I decided to start doing my own. My local guy claimed the neg scratches were coming from my camera, an easy try for him because he knows I use relics, but when I pointed to the same scratch location on negs coming from two different cameras I suggested he check his scanner. Also, his equipment is in a carpeted room with no division from the customer area; it was a sad joke every time I got something back to see the unbelievable number of specks and fibers. Storage should not be a problem here -- I have three 500GB external hard drives. If more are needed (unlikely) they're relatively cheap.

 

[phototone]

I have a Nikon 9000ed, and I have problems getting edge-to-edge grain sharpness on 35mm b/w negatives, no matter how hard I try. It seems that the lens used in the scanner, is very shallow depth-of-field and won't compensate for even a tiny bit of negative curling. The film holder holds two strips of 35mm, and it seems to hold them as flat as other brands of scanners, but still not flat enought for this particular scanner. I am picky. It does a much better job with medium-format, as the stock supplied negative carrier allows you to put tension on the film, kinda stretch it flat. This works like a charm. I have had better result with 35mm using the Artixscan 120f. While its negative carrier does not hold the film any flatter, it seems to have more depth-of-field to its scanning lens, and it will hold sharpness from center to edge of the negative better. I have seldom had an issue with sharpness with the Artixscan.

 

[DerekF]

Storage should not be a problem here -- I have three 500GB external hard drives. If more are needed (unlikely) they're relatively cheap.

One other thing to consider when you have this much storage is to get at least a RAID 1 setup. That way, when (not if) one of your hard drives goes under, your data will be mirrored to the other drive in the array until you can get a replacement drive. This way, the chances of losing data are greatly minimized.

 

[sf]

Why is silverfast useful? I currently use Photoshop, and scan with my 3170 through the twain support in Photoshop. Is silverfast really that great?

I am considering buying a 9000ED to scan the many many pounds of 120 I have in boxes around the house. Want the best I can afford (or not afford) without ending my chances of financial independence. 1600 bucks seems reasonable for a new scanner.