You really don't need a $20k+ scanner

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been really pleased with my Nikon 9000ED - the scans have actually far surpassed my expectations, and as I said in another thread, to my eye the results are far more dimensional and definitely more atmospheric than images taken on my M8*.

 

At the weekend I was looking at some random links on Flickr, and happened across this link - which was something of an informal comparison of the 9000ED with a LinoHell Tango Drum Scan - and my impression was that the 9000 comes out pretty well.

 

I note that in the end the photographer chose to go with the Tango scanner for his own work (at over $30 per image), but the Nikon output is at the very least comparable in quality.

 

So if you're an amateur and hesitating, then I'd say don't be put off by people saying that nothing but a drumscan or a Flextight scanner (at $20,000+) will be good enough for your images!

 

*I hasten to add that I love the M8, and don't in any way mean this to be a direct film/digital discussion (yet again). Just that I find the scanned film images to be more to my taste, and aesthetically more pleasing. Please note though: digital images will almost always be sharper and less grainy. If these two criteria are your main measure of 'quality', then digital will always be better for you!

[redbaron]

A $200 enlarger beats them both. ;-)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

A $200 enlarger beats them both. ;-)

 

My point was really about lowering the bar of entry. Many people (including myself) have neither the interest or time to set-up our own darkroom and mess around with chemicals in our own homes.

 

While I don't doubt what you say is true, for me the results shooting film and then converting the images to a digital workflow works far, far better than I'd dared to hope, and now I wish someone had told me this earlier (which is why I'm posting this thread now).

 

I sold an M6 and a new M7 at a considerable loss last year, because I'd become convinced that scanning was difficult and impractical - and moreover supposedly gave poor results. When I finally realized my mistake, the 9000ED was both harder to find new, and considerably more expensive. I've also missed a year of shooting film.

 

We can put up any number of obstacles to trying film - that a drum-scanner is better than a Coolscan, that a cheap enlarger is better than both - but in the end, in my opinion the best thing to do is encourage everyone to try their best within the means and methods that are realistically available to them.

[atlfoto]

I have its younger brother (5000) and It seems to be quite good. BTW let me ask you a question.

Do you use a special method to ensure film flatnes when you are scaning it?

I think this issue is key to obtain good results with film scanners.

Regards.

[chrism]

I haven't found flatness of 35mm film to be an issue with the 9000ED: the negative carrier does a pretty good job. For 120 film using the glass carriers makes an enormous difference.

 

Chris

[atlfoto]

That's the problem. The Coolscan 9000 includes all short of film supports while the 5000 does not. I am considering (if I can find one) to get it.

All in all I complety agree with your statement.

Thanks

[erl]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Plasticman, I agree with you on the virtues of a well executed scan. More important than a good scanner, just as a well exposed image is more important than a good camera.

 

Atlfoto, I have no problem with film flatness on my 5000, but my 8000 (9000) needs careful handling to maintain film flatness. Because I use it for MF film, I scan each image individually and I mount them in neg holders cannibalized from an old enlarger which is in turn mounted in the Nikon FH-869M holder. This ensures the film is held at least as flat as the enlarger would. Works perfectly for me. The standard Nikon 8000/9000 film holder is a joke.

[plasticman]

I have its younger brother (5000) and It seems to be quite good. BTW let me ask you a question.

Do you use a special method to ensure film flatnes when you are scaning it?

I think this issue is key to obtain good results with film scanners.

 

I have my films processed by a really great guy here in Stockholm (TEAM Framkallning on Söder), and the film is always already remarkably flat from the beginning, but in any case the 9000ED uses a preview focus function that I've found works amazingly well. Sharp details are as sharp as I can ever expect them to be from 35mm film, and the standard 35mm holder keeps the negs really flat.

 

As far as I can see, the big problems with film flatness only really begin to arise with medium format - the much larger negative can't be focussed in the same way over its entire surface unless it is totally flat, so then I've read a combination of glass film holders and even handmade holders are the only possible solution.

 

I'd love to find out for myself how difficult this can be - but in spite of the much-advertised 'death' of film, I'm finding that really nice used Hasselblads are just getting more and more expensive every day...

 

PS: I see Erl has posted while I was taking my time writing this answer.

Crikey - now I saw that chrism has also gone over the same ground before me. My only excuse is that I was multi-tasking while writing this darn post.

Edited September 6, 2010 by plasticman

[noah_addis]

...

 

I sold an M6 and a new M7 at a considerable loss last year, because I'd become convinced that scanning was difficult and impractical - and moreover supposedly gave poor results. When I finally realized my mistake, the 9000ED was both harder to find new, and considerably more expensive. I've also missed a year of shooting film....

 

I feel your pain. I sold an LS 9000 and bought two M8s followed by two M9s since I was convinced I couldn't be productive and work sucessfully with film.

 

Now I've come to my senses. Luckily I sold my M9s without losing much since I sold them before they became readily available. And I found a brand new LS 9000 for a decent price. My Mamiya 7II kit wasn't super-cheap but two bodies and 50/65/80/150 lenses were much, much less than one M9.

 

I'm very happy with my scans, though as others have mentioned film flatness can be a problem with 120 film, though it can be solved with some creativity. I make 40x50in. prints that look great. A drum scanner may provide slightly better quality, but it doubt the difference would make up for the cost and the ability to scan at home.

 

And while I appreciate an analog print as much as anyone, I'll put one of my 50" color prints up against any prints made on a $200 enlarger .

 

My only regret is not going back to film sooner. I also lost a year of shooting film, and while I'm not making value judgements about which is better, I personally prefer the look of my film prints and the process of working with film, and I have a whole year of work shot digitally that I wish was shot on film:(.

[plasticman]

I feel your pain. I sold an LS 9000 and bought two M8s followed by two M9s since I was convinced I couldn't be productive and work sucessfully with film...

My only regret is not going back to film sooner. I also lost a year of shooting film, and while I'm not making value judgements about which is better, I personally prefer the look of my film prints and the process of working with film, and I have a whole year of work shot digitally that I wish was shot on film:(.

 

There's really so much FUD about film and particularly scanning. With my previous film cameras I was so scared of messing-up (something which seemed inevitable, after everything I'd read on the net) that I simply allowed a local (very expensive) lab do all the printing for me.

 

When I've re-scanned those images now, I can see how much better I could actually do for myself, by getting a (much cheaper but) more conscientious developer, and then carefully controlling the entire scanning process instead of the auto-settings that the lab were using.

 

The 9000ED is simply the best investment I ever made, along with the black paint M6 that I bought when I also came to my senses! I bought the scanner new even though the online consensus was that Nikon had long-since discontinued it - and it's still available for pre-order! So to anyone sitting on the fence, I seriously urge you to trust your feelings, forget the naysayers, and give film a try.

[erl]

It seems to me the only 'real' downside to shooting film is in the context of international travel. Xrays still persist to be a concern. I know a lot of photographers carry film through xrays successfully, but I was seriously brought undone earlier this year, travelling to the Antarctic. I deliberately took a stack of film (and M7 & XPan) to backup my M8 & 9. Strangely, all the B&W film seemed to survive the xraying, but all the colour film was seriously affected. I know the problem is cumulative and I was subjected to many scannings at ports etc., so I assume the 'multi-layering' of the colour emulsion makes it more sensitive.

 

I can't see that will I ever travel with film again.

[rob_x2004]

all the colour film was seriously affected.(

 

That would be interesting Erl. Ive only once seen damaged film and that was done deliberately to a bloke. Have you ruled out everything else, and can we see some examples? Was it done in one trip or was it out of your freezer, and had travelled with you before?

[rob_x2004]

...........

[noah_addis]

It seems to me the only 'real' downside to shooting film is in the context of international travel. Xrays still persist to be a concern. I know a lot of photographers carry film through xrays successfully, but I was seriously brought undone earlier this year, travelling to the Antarctic. I deliberately took a stack of film (and M7 & XPan) to backup my M8 & 9. Strangely, all the B&W film seemed to survive the xraying, but all the colour film was seriously affected. I know the problem is cumulative and I was subjected to many scannings at ports etc., so I assume the 'multi-layering' of the colour emulsion makes it more sensitive.

 

I can't see that will I ever travel with film again.

 

It's a real concern to be sure. I've not had any adverse affects from x-rays. I try to minimize my film's exposure as much as possible though just to be safe. In the US we still have a right to a hand-check, so I often arrive early and politely ask for a hand-check, which I've never been refused. (I shoot portra 160NC and 400NC, but I throw a few rolls of 800 in each bag and point out that the tsa website says film 800 or faster should be hand-checked. Sometimes I tell them that I push process my film). I put my film in gallon ziploc bags so it can be easily hand-checked.

 

If I make connecting flights I try to avoid additional checkpoints if at all possible. In other countries I've had worse luck being granted hand-checks, but on many trips my film only gets x-rayed once when for my flight home.

 

I do have a roll of 400NC that has had two or three doses, I think I'll carry it on a few more flights then get it processed to see if it has been fogged.

[erl]

Rob, here is a typical effect I suffered. At first I thought it was processing marks, but I am pretty confident now that it is not. Note the 'stain on top and bottom edges show sprocket hole marks, as though some 'exposure' has occurred through them.

 

The film was processed (by me) in a JOBO auto processor. I have every confidence in it for consistency.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rob_x2004]

I am really not experienced in colour development, Ive only seen that effect in B&W films from either surge tiger stripes or under fix or something. How is it that you think these are from Xrays? I dont know any Xray that would be frisked by sprocket holes?

[erl]

Frankly I can't really explain it, I only theorize that xrays ( a waveform, same as visible light) can penetrate more easily through multiple layers of a roll of film via the sprocket holes. A long theory? Yes! But light does it if there are any cassette leaks. I can't figure beyond that (simple brain).

[cd95]

Coolscan scanner is a great machine, I own a LS-40ED for my 135 film.

I have been looking for a IMCAON 343 for few days because I was told I can expect much more greater image form this machine. Now I stopped finding IMACON because I found I can got a image form my IV-ED like this:

 

and here is a 1:1 crop

 

I was really satisfy with this output and I will keep my Coolscan IV-ED forever.

[aesop]

Frankly I can't really explain it, I only theorize that xrays ( a waveform, same as visible light) can penetrate more easily through multiple layers of a roll of film via the sprocket holes. A long theory? Yes! But light does it if there are any cassette leaks. I can't figure beyond that (simple brain).

 

 

...Erl, I noticed this phenomenon after an extended X-ray session with our good friends at CDG (yes, they flatly refused a hand search). Fraternité indeed.

 

Two questions:

 

1) What speed was the film?

2) What part of the roll(s) do you see the most impact - inner or outer frames?

 

Bigger airports suck, IMHO. Avoid them if you can.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[rob_x2004]

A long theory?

 

I think I'd sleep on it Erl.