So why can't people handle Nikon's 120 carrier?

[Dante_Stella]

Ok... I'm stumped.

I have no idea whether my Sprintscan 120 is ever coming back from service. I got a great deal on an 8000ED that included the FH-869G glass carrier.

But why do people complain about the standard, glassless 120/220 FH-869? It has a tensioner that actually works quite well. Is it a failure to follow directions? A failure to figure out how it works? Or am I just lucky?!

 

[benmacphoto]

Not sure, I never use the glass carrier. I found that it never wants to get completely clean. So I just use the standard carrier and have never had a problem with film flatness.

 

[Rayt]

The standard carrier does not like film curl. It is really a PITA to load curly film into the standard carrier. Also the film requires a bit of handling to load into the rails perfectly and I prefer less handling if possible. The glass carrier flattens curly film of course. I process my own b/w and they come out curly and need a day or more under some heavy books to get flat. If I want to scan them right away then I need the glass carrier. People in a hurry always must pay for it!

 

[Jamie123]

The standard carrier is fine for film that is already flat but curled film can give some problems. The tensioner is good but doesn't do wonders.

Personally, I didn't buy an original glass carrier for my Nikon 9000. I just use a piece of ANR glass in the regular carrier.

 

[mfogiel]

Dante, do the same scan 6x6 or 6x9 with and without the glass holder, zoom in at 100% and look at the corners, you will see that without the glass carrier you do not resolve the grain anymore.

 

[historicist]

The standard holder just doesn't hold the film flat. Plus the tensioning feature in my experience doesn't work too well - either the film is taut one end and really curled at the other, or not very taut along the whole length.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Maybe there's a difference in humidity level between where you are and where I am, but I haven't experienced a problem with 120 curl for some years now. That was a huge problem with Verichrome Pan, but after so many years all of my VP negs are dead flat. Kodak did change its film bases about 5 years ago (seem to be a lot stiffer now), and significant curl seems to be a thing of the past.

Dante

The standard carrier does not like film curl. It is really a PITA to load curly film into the standard carrier. Also the film requires a bit of handling to load into the rails perfectly and I prefer less handling if possible. The glass carrier flattens curly film of course. I process my own b/w and they come out curly and need a day or more under some heavy books to get flat. If I want to scan them right away then I need the glass carrier. People in a hurry always must pay for it!

 

[literiter]

Maybe there's a difference in humidity level between where you are and where I am, but I haven't experienced a problem with 120 curl for some years now. That was a huge problem with Verichrome Pan, but after so many years all of my VP negs are dead flat. Kodak did change its film bases about 5 years ago (seem to be a lot stiffer now), and significant curl seems to be a thing of the past.

Dante

I have had my Coolscan 9000 for about 2 months now, and have these observations. For the most part I find this to be a marvelous machine and I suspect any issues I have with it are likely my issues.

I have scanned some ancient B&W negs with my CS 9000. These negs were Verichrome and some others (which I can't tell) from as far back as the 1940s. These negatives were stored flat for so long they lie perfectly flat in the carrier and I have no problem.

Some new stuff, like XP2 and Fuji Reala and Fuji Pro 160S do not seem to lie as flat in the carrier for some reason, no matter how carefully I tension it between the grippers. The film shows slight ripples down the length of the carrier, not the width. There is some softness in the scan.

I was under the impression the scanner would automatically focus on the film, but perhaps not. In the Nikon software is a focus feature which I do not understand yet. Perhaps someone can clue me in. Is this where the problem really is??

I feel that a scan from a glassless carrier should be the best because nothing is in the way of the scanning lenses or the scanning light source.

At any rate, I've ordered a glass carrier to try and correct this issue and when I've had a chance to try it out I'll post here.

 

[Dante_Stella]

My experience with glass carriers (if your negatives are in good shape) is that you get slightly flatter film (if you need it) and more uniform scans at a cost of contrast and resolution (yes, you get more pronounced grain in the corners, but everything is compromised). This, I think, is due to the AN glass used in the carriers, which keeps film from adhering to the carrier but tends to diffuse light. Remember also that glass carriers are rarely, if ever, AR coated.

Dante

The standard holder just doesn't hold the film flat. Plus the tensioning feature in my experience doesn't work too well - either the film is taut one end and really curled at the other, or not very taut along the whole length.