Jump to content

Nikon CoolScan


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been asked to shoot a project for a non-profit educational institution in Harlem. I will have to scan a tremendous amount of 35 mm B&W film. I need to purchase a used scanner, as the budget i so low I can't even believe it. I looked o Ebay & saw a variety of models: 2000, 4000, 5000, 8000, 9000. Can I get some advice about the relative merits & what the difference would be in quality & time? Thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

x

Ben,

8000 and 9000 are overkill for 35mm. They are able to scan medium format and are therefore expensive.

(I have an 8000 and the quality in 35mm is indistinguishable from that of the 4000 which I used to have)

The 4000 gives excellent results and allows you to batch scan strips of 6 negatives B&W or color. It is also excellent for slides.

Here in Holland it is possible to rent Nikon scanners, and I imagine it must be possible in NYC.

By the way, are these existing negatives - if not why not shoot digital and convert to B&W using one of the excellent programs available like NIK software's Silver Efex?

The 4000 gives files with 4000 dpi, the 2000 gives 2750 as I remember.

My 8000, contrary to what I have often read, works perfectly well on my Intel iMac under Snow Leopard with Nikon Scan 4 upgraded to 4.2 as long as I disconnected all other fire wire hardware and the 8000 is the only fire wire hardware. I guess that would apply to the 4000 as well.

maurice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maurice, thanks. 90% will be 35 B&W. No drugstore is gonna get my negs to scan. I probablly will use my Blads to do some portrait work, so the 8000 maybe my best solution, if I can find a used one at a reasonable price. Also, Portraits of those students that excel beyond standard achievement might also be done in MF-Blad so they have something not only tangible but memorable. Thanks for the advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

Although theoretically the 9000 is faster, it seems according to my dealer that in actual practice there is little difference with the 8000 which has the advantage that the intake opening has a better cover.

I used to adjust prescans in the Nikon and Silverfast Software but found that if I batch scan in the Nikon software with only autofocus and autoexposure checked I get files (either TIFF or NEF) much faster that I can perfectly PP in Lightroom. 5 35mm slides in the 8000 take about 7 minutes.

The GetDPI Photography Forums - Search Results

I remember seeing scanners for sale at the above site.

maurice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben I have scanned a ton of B & W on my Coolscan LS5000. In fact, I am still scanning a good number of images these days too. The quality is exemplary (16 bit @ 4000 ppi) and with the film strip attachment my process is relatively fast. However, if you have a requirement for film sizes larger than 35mm then the 9000 (also 16 bit @ 4000 ppi) would be the one to consider. I had the LS 2000 but the 5000 is way ahead in terms of dynamic range and detail rendering.

 

Cheers,

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Conrad & Maurice, thanks. Have either of you used Vuescan with any of the Nikon scanners? If so, what is the difference? I use Vuescan with mu Epson V700 & love the results. The Epson is just to slow for this project & my wife will probably appropriate it for scanning her watercolors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ben,I have used vuescan on my 8000 but I find Nikon Scan gives me just as good results if I batch scan with no adjustments as mentioned before. I don't get the thumbnails and don't do a prescan but batch scan "blind". This gives me well exposed sharp scans with a flat curve and a very wide tonal range.

Results with VueScan were no better and with difficult Kodachrome slides in spite of really trying a lot of adjustments showed blotchy shadows.

I

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... I will have to scan a tremendous amount of 35 mm B&W film. I need to purchase a used scanner, as the budget i so low....

 

Ben - Scanning has it's art, and a learning curve. Nikon scanner holders are not without their faults [i have a 9000], Nikon Scan drove me nuts, Vuescan was a better option for me - but it is not very user friendly in it's design.

 

The problem here is one that everyone involved in photography knows; a desire for a hell of a lot of work to be done without an appropriate budget [and the two usually go hand in hand with little respect for what is needed to produce good photography]. I'd steer you away from your proposed route unless you are prepared to pour energy into it as a personal Art project. In your shoes I would cost film/process/low res.scans from a good film processing house; ............. and then I'd probably shoot it digitally. Photography done on-the-cheap is never respected and I really think you might be making a 'rod for your own back'.

 

Good luck though.

 

............ Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a terrific project!

 

IF you can get away with ISO 400, I might point out that Nikon's scanner software can remove dust digitally from chromogenic B&W films (the ones that use C41 processing like Ilford XP2 or TMax 400 CN). But it cannot remove dust from true silver film. And the point-light-source LEDs Nikon uses tend to really emphasize dust. Alternatively, you could shoot color negs at 800 or 1600 and just scan them as B&W and also use the dust removal software.

 

"Spotting" out dust manually, while easier in digital than on paper, can be a real time consumer.

 

In any event, the 5000ED is substantially (3x) faster than the 2000 (I went from 1000 to 2000 to 5000 over 12 years). Also, the 2000 used SCSI connections - a bit antique today. And does not allow for digital dust removal.

 

I have heard that some people got banding using the 8000 for 6x6 film, which was fixed in the 9000. But I'll defer to 8000 users on that - it seemed to be one of those random things that happened in some cases and not others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I bought a used 4000 and made 2 terrific scans on my XP machine. On the third image, the scanner locked up & reports having an error to the device manager. Now the adapter/feeder is locked & it's got my film and my emotions. Any idea if there's a way to separate the adapter from the scanner? This not waht I had in mind. I may be back to using my Epson. BTW, has anyone used the 4000ED on an Mac running Leopard? That might make more sense. I understand it doesn't word with "snow."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ben,

Have you got it eject yet. I had it happen, and disconnecting all cables and then reconnecting only the power and ejecting manually worked. Also my firewire 8000 has to be the only firewire device connected. Connecting a firewire drive will cause errors.

I am running the Nikon software on Snow Leopard with no problems whatsoever but maybe I am only being lucky. I scanned 250 slides yesterday without any problems,

maurice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone scanning film and saving TIFFS should also seriously consider using Lightroom for post. Obviously, get the best WB you can and ensure you're not clipping blacks or whites in the scanning - but after this, LR gives you fantastic, non-destructive workflow and (IMHO) the best output I've ever had from scanned film. 2.5 is good, but 3 is going to be even more fun!

 

Give it a try... you can download a free trial. Really worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I returned the Coolscan 4000. Too temperamental & unreliable. The Epson V700 does appear to give a more even scan, just not as contrasty or sharpened, which is fine for me. I like to create my own look & the V700 gives me that latitude. Thanks for all the comments & advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I returned the Coolscan 4000. Too temperamental & unreliable. The Epson V700 does appear to give a more even scan, just not as contrasty or sharpened, which is fine for me.

 

I think you should have played around with the black and white points before deciding that a scanner was too contrasty. The same applies to the sharpness. I suspect the problem lay in the scanning software you were using, and its settings.

 

How was it unreliable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

..... I suspect the problem lay in the scanning software you were using.....

 

Ben - I think Steve is probably right. If you were scanning a neg. there would be plenty of histogram room - unless you were using an auto scan which might give a too contrasty scan. As someone who just couldn't get a near usable scan of an old B&W neg with Nikon Scan, I gave up on the software and bought Vuescan and the negative scanned just how I expected it to. Nikon scanners have their faults, but they should scan a negative well, which will sharpen nicely for your chosen output. Some scanners have unsharp masking hidden under the hood to give the illusion of scanning more detail than other makes. As I suggested in an earlier post; scanning has a learning curve.

 

Best wishes with the project.

 

............... Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...