Nikon 9000 CoolScan

[Honu-Hugger]

I'm ready to push the "Checkout" button on a CoolScan 9000ED -- any advice/complaints/suggestions from members? I need a 35mm/120 scanner and this seems to fill the bill...would love to hear from others with experience before I commit. Thanks!!!

 

[erudolph]

Hi.... there is a Yahoo group dedicated to the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners. Probably the big issue is the film holders. Some say they can get their 120 negs flat with the supplied film holder; others feel the necessity to buy one of the filmholders with glass in them (these cost 200 to 300 dollars). Still others like wetmounting. A visit to that group would be informaive.

Ed

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Whatever your decision, consider this: ICE.

Not all scanners handle it. It seems exclusive of Nikon technology.

Good luck! 🙂

 

[peter_n]

However, you don't need ICE if all you scan is silver-based B&W.

 

[JoeFriday]

I've got a Nikon Coolscan V.. not sure what the comparison is, but I love what I've got.. Nikon makes excellent scanners, so don't worry about the quality of the product

 

[Doug]

Whatever your decision, consider this: ICE.

Not all scanners handle it. It seems exclusive of Nikon technology.

An important feature for C41 and reversal color films... and all but the least expensive Minolta models feature ICE as well. Good luck with your choice! 🙂

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I decided upon the Nikon earlier today; being able to scan both 35 and 120 is important. I hope to see it early next week so that I can begin pulling my hair out learning how to run the thing!!! (why I like old mechanical cameras 😀).

 

[schaubild]

I've had the 8000 and scan now with the 9000. Two tips: you won't get decent MF results without the glass holder and if you're ordering additional toys(?), also get Silverfast for it. The scanning and color accuracy will get significantly better.
I still can't understand why it was delivered with the 8000 but taken out of the 9000 kit.

Forget wet mounting, you'll only get dirty fingers and contrary to the common web believe it's not really good for the negatives when done repeatedly. From MF you'll get such big scans that the (very minor) quality gain from it is useless. You will have to downsize the scans even if you print 13x19. Every professional I know stopped fiddling around with wet mounting.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I need a scanner, too...probably before I think about buying another lens. Anyone know someone with a Scan Dual II or III willing to part with it at a decent price? USB, preferably. I need something, but it doesn't have to be the best out there. :/

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I've had the 8000 and scan now with the 9000. Two tips: you won't get decent MF results without the glass holder and if you're ordering additional toys(?), also get Silverfast for it. The scanning and color accuracy will get significantly better.
I still can't understand why it was delivered with the 8000 but taken out of the 9000 kit.

Forget wet mounting, you'll only get dirty fingers and contrary to the common web believe it's not really good for the negatives when done repeatedly. From MF you'll get such big scans that the (very minor) quality gain from it is useless. You will have to downsize the scans even if you print 13x19. Every professional I know stopped fiddling around with wet mounting.

Just my 2 cents.

That information was a hell of a bargain for 2 cents (do you accept PayPal? 😉). Thank you, Alpa Brother :angel:; I have soooo much to learn about this... In my ignorance just the thought of wet mounting a negative scares the hell out of me -- I'm new to scanning but have developed my own film since I was ten and I would be most reluctant to ever wet a negative once it has dried. Is Silverfast a plug-in or a stand alone program? This may have absolutely no bearing but I'll mention that I use PhotoShop CS...is this relevant to the scanning process?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

SilverFast, yes. No matter how expensive your scanner is, without SilverFast SE or Ai, might as well just get your scans from Walgreens, imho...

 

[schaubild]

Silverfast is a plugin, but there is a standalone launcher included.

 

[RObert Budding]

Silverfast is excellent - I use it with my Epson 4990. Just make sure that you get the version that matches your scanner and get the color management option.

Robert

 

[tedwhite]

I've read somewhere in this forum that the PlusTek OpticFilm 7200 35mm film & slide scanner has gotton very good reviews in Europe. New ones are available on ebay for $189-199. Comes with LaserSoft SilverFast SE 6 and other stuff and does 7200 dpi.

Anyone have experience with one of these??

Ted

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I hear it's good, but 7200 DPI is overkill. Unless you plan to print from the digital file, there's no real reason to have a scanner that scans that large.

 

[tedwhite]

Good point, Ms. Brim, but I guess you wouldn't have to use 7200 dpi all lthe time. There may be a lesser setting.

I'm a doofus when it comes to this stuff, so I don't understand your comment "unless you plan to print from the digital file." Isn't that what you do with a film scanner? How could you not print from a digital file?

Ted

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I use a film scanner to scan film for web use...I have prints made from negatives by a lab. I don't have a printer, nor would I really want to print photos on a printer unless absolutely necessary. 🙂

 

[T_om]

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

 

[RObert Budding]

There are threads on pnet describing how to make your own glass carrier for about $10. It might be woth a try before springing for the Nikon glass carrier.

Good luck! And I am envious. I've read great things about the Nikon scanners.

Robert

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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!!