the Vuescan book says non LED scanner is better for BW..

[TRIODEROB]

in the Vuescan book there is a statement about LED scanners being good for color - but not so good for black and white.....

he indicated that old school Fluorescent lighting systems are what is needed.


any comments ???

 

[Film Shooter AZ]

If you can't be with the one you love honey, Love the one you're with.

 

[sevo]

It certainly was true for the Minolta slide scanners, where the LED lighting on later models aggravated some other factors into a pretty drastic problem with black and white - for a while, the net was ripe with DIY diffuser recipes to make them fit for black and white work.

But that really was a singular case - Minolta obviously screwed up with their light source and may have hit the Tri-X grain aliasing maximum with their native resolution. The Nikon scanners never had that issue to such a severe degree, and it is entirely absent on all desktop size flatbed scanners I've ever used.

 

[ath]

It's more about directed light vs. diffused light.
My Coolscan V is marvelous with slides and colour neg but the grain is exaggerated with b/w films compared to wet prints.
Somewhere I read that inserting a diffusor under the neg helps but I didn't bother to try since I use my b/w scans only as index.

 

[starless]

Yes, that's my experience too.
A diffused light source is generally considered to give better results for B/W film. LEDs give out more concentrated light which emphasizes the grain.

Some people went as far as opening their Nikon 9000 and installing a DIY diffuser. I can't find the link at the moment with the step by step tutorial for this though.

That being said, in my opinion (after using Imacons, Nikons, Minoltas and flatbeds) DMAX is more important that the light source.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Some people went as far as opening their Nikon 9000 and installing a DIY diffuser. I can't find the link at the moment with the step by step tutorial for this though.

I know people (and I myself considered it, strongly) have installed DIY diffusers on their Coolscan 5000, but not the 9000. The Coolscan 9000 light source is already diffused, whereas from the 5000 it is not. This is specially visible in silver-halide (i.e. traditional B&W) high-ISO films.

 

[ReeRay]

I use the ScanHancer diffusers on my Minolta Multi Pro and the difference is very obvious in the control of highlight clipping and exaggeration of grain.

 

[starless]

Yes, Nikon 5000!

9000 was pretty good for b/w - for both 35mm and medium format film from what I remember.

 

[Bobfrance]

I use the ScanHancer diffusers on my Minolta Multi Pro and the difference is very obvious in the control of highlight clipping and exaggeration of grain.

I find this very interesting. thanks for mentioning it ReeRay.
I have recently acquired a Multi-Pro, and whilst it is clearly a very good scanner, I have been dogged by pronounced grain and highlight clipping I never had when using my Epson Perfection.

It came with a ScanHancer. I'll give it a go tonight.


Bob.

 

[aldobonnard]

It certainly was true for the Minolta slide scanners, where the LED lighting on later models aggravated some other factors into a pretty drastic problem with black and white - for a while, the net was ripe with DIY diffuser recipes to make them fit for black and white work.

But that really was a singular case - Minolta obviously screwed up with their light source and may have hit the Tri-X grain aliasing maximum with their native resolution. The Nikon scanners never had that issue to such a severe degree, and it is entirely absent on all desktop size flatbed scanners I've ever used.

Nope, sorry but your opinion is proven wrong by experience.
I have on my desk side by side both 5400 v1, 5400 v2, Nikon 5000, and I can confirm the exact opposite, based on real life user experience and side by side comparisons.
What matters more than light source is consistency of light, DRange&Dmax, focus accuracy. On those terms, the Minolta 5400v1&v2 should be the best, and they are in practice. I use the Nikon when I want quick scans, Minolta when I need extra quality. The light source light does not make a difference, apart from the need for a cold cathode to warm-up for some minutes before scanning.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I believe people are confusing the Minolta 5400 with the Scan Multi PRO when stating the pros of diffused "vs" direct, and further muddling the issue.

 

[BobYIL]

Nope, sorry but your opinion is proven wrong by experience.
I have on my desk side by side both 5400 v1, 5400 v2, Nikon 5000, and I can confirm the exact opposite, based on real life user experience and side by side comparisons.
What matters more than light source is consistency of light, DRange&Dmax, focus accuracy. On those terms, the Minolta 5400v1&v2 should be the best, and they are in practice. I use the Nikon when I want quick scans, Minolta when I need extra quality. The light source light does not make a difference, apart from the need for a cold cathode to warm-up for some minutes before scanning.

+1.. Using both 5400-V1 and V2 since years. I would not state anything about Nikon 5000 series however there is a very detailed comparison and discussion in this site and I really recommend to read to the end:

http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00SCs7