Epson V700 vs. Nikon Coolscan V vs. Coolscan 8000

[drums1977]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By the way, I succesfully intalled Nikon Scan in Windows 7.

[nhabedi]

drums1977, I've gone the same route (first Epson V750, then Coolscan V ED) and I've had similar experiences. With traditional B/W film like Tri-X, the Nikon is really a PITA. You suddenly see grain and scratches you never saw with the Epson and you spend a lot more time cleaning your scans in post. The fact remains, though, that the Coolscan simply is the better scanner. Don't judge your scans by the 100% view on the monitor, but look at your prints - and look at large prints. I've done some side-by-side comparisons with A3 prints and the Nikon scans were simply better in a way that was immediately apparent.

 

If I know that I only need the scan for the web or for small prints, I don't bother to do the extra work with the Nikon and use the Epson instead. But for large prints, I grudgingly use the Nikon and invest some time. And, as I've said before, one day I'll find a reasonably-priced Imacon Flextight and dump the Nikon.

 

(Note that most of this doesn't apply to slides, color negatives, or C41 B/W films where you can use ICE. With these source formats, the Coolscan is much more convenient.)

[drums1977]

drums1977, I've gone the same route (first Epson V750, then Coolscan V ED) and I've had similar experiences. With traditional B/W film like Tri-X, the Nikon is really a PITA. You suddenly see grain and scratches you never saw with the Epson and you spend a lot more time cleaning your scans in post. The fact remains, though, that the Coolscan simply is the better scanner. Don't judge your scans by the 100% view on the monitor, but look at your prints - and look at large prints. I've done some side-by-side comparisons with A3 prints and the Nikon scans were simply better in a way that was immediately apparent.

 

If I know that I only need the scan for the web or for small prints, I don't bother to do the extra work with the Nikon and use the Epson instead. But for large prints, I grudgingly use the Nikon and invest some time. And, as I've said before, one day I'll find a reasonably-priced Imacon Flextight and dump the Nikon.

 

(Note that most of this doesn't apply to slides, color negatives, or C41 B/W films where you can use ICE. With these source formats, the Coolscan is much more convenient.)

 

Thanks so much for the support, I must admit that after yesterday (a free day when I spent 12 hours performing scan tests, cleaning filthy negatives on PS, etc...) I seriously considered reselling the Nikon that I just bought. But yes, it must be said that despite the heavy grain and the -enormous- amount of dust, the images DO look better, specially in the shadows. I am sure that with colour negatives, being able to turn the ICE on, things must be different altogether. May I ask, how do you use your Nikon? Do you use Nikon Scan? Do you apply any image enhancement tool (grain reduction, for instance)? Do you scan at max. resolution? Do you scan as BW neg or Colour?

 

Thanks again!

[nhabedi]

May I ask, how do you use your Nikon? Do you use Nikon Scan? Do you apply any image enhancement tool (grain reduction, for instance)? Do you scan at max. resolution? Do you scan as BW neg or Colour?

 

I use NikonScan. I think I wrote somewhere that I like Epson's software better (and even more so Hasselblad's FWIW), but for me NikonScan's UI is at least better as that of VueScan or SilverFast. (And I don't see a relevant difference in the results for B/W.) Having said that, NikonScan is kind of unstable on my Mac and certainly has its quirks.

 

I turn all image enhancements in NikonScan off and scan in B/W at maximum resolution. I know there are lots of websites which recommend scanning B/W negatives in color, but the results didn't convince me so far. I don't think it makes sense to use something other than the maximum resolution offered by NikonScan - as I understand that would simply mean that the image is downsampled in software which is something you can always do (and probably better) in Photoshop.

[MPJMP]

I have the Coolscan V and use NikonScan 4 software. Been with this combination for about 6 years now. Scanning traditional B&W is a huge pain, so much so that I often go for extended periods where I prefer to use a C-41 B&W like Ilford XP2 just so that I can use Digital ICE. This can literally save me hours spotting in Photoshop or Lightroom. This type of scanner picks up every little spec of dust and scratch, whereas the flatbeds with their back-lit flourescent bulbs tend to be much more forgiving, in my experience at least (owned an Epson 2400 before the Nikon). Then there's the issue of the Printfile plastic sleeves I use for storage putting horizontal scratches on the film! If I have the time, I try to scan as soon as the film is done drying and before I've sleeved the negs. As much as I like the look of traditional B&W, the extra time and effort required to assure that it looks its best is often more than I am able to commit to.

 

If my Coolscan ever goes down (and I suppose it will one day) I think I would be perfectly happy with a flatbed scanner like the V700.

[nhabedi]

Then there's the issue of the Printfile plastic sleeves I use for storage putting horizontal scratches on the film!

 

Yeah. I'm also using PrintFile sleeves and I've also noticed the horizontal scratches since I started to scan with the Nikon - although I think I'm pretty careful with my negs.

 

Any recommendations for better sleeves? Parchment maybe? Or isn't this specific to a certain brand/material? I mean, if all sleeves left scratches on the negatives, somebody would have come up with a better solution by now, right?

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Never ever use plastic sleeves. Apart scratching, they might stick to the gelatine of your negatives. Only parchment or special grainy paper, that won't scratch or glue with time.

And change it anyway every other year or so depending of your environment.

[nhabedi]

Never ever use plastic sleeves. Apart scratching, they might stick to the gelatine of your negatives. Only parchment or special grainy paper, that won't scratch or glue with time.

 

So, you don't see scratches with parchment? (Or is it because of your scanner? Note that I only started noticing the scratches when I got the Nikon. Maybe the Scanhancer you're using hides the scratches?)

 

And change it anyway every other year or so depending of your environment.

 

Why that?

[JHAG]

I have negs 20 years old which are scratched only by mishandling them, not because of the sleeves.

I used to give my negs to a lab who works for pros only and he always advised me against plastic sleeves — with some reason.

Why changing sleeves every two years or so ? Because with time parchment loses some of its propriety (suppleness, cleanness), same with so-called cristal paper.

And I also use carton black boxes by Monochrom (never plastic boxes, that gather moist and static).

[menos I M6]

Thats an interesting off topic - I do use plastic boxes with a small bag of silica gel, living here in the summer humidity of Shanghai.

 

Is there anything, to improve over the plastic boxes here? If you leave a standard office document laying on the table, it feels like a towel the next day, so wet it is in times.

[JHAG]

How to store gear in tropical climate - Photo.net Leica and Rangefinders Forum

 

Monochrom

[drums1977]

I have the Coolscan V and use NikonScan 4 software. Been with this combination for about 6 years now. Scanning traditional B&W is a huge pain, so much so that I often go for extended periods where I prefer to use a C-41 B&W like Ilford XP2 just so that I can use Digital ICE. This can literally save me hours spotting in Photoshop or Lightroom. This type of scanner picks up every little spec of dust and scratch, whereas the flatbeds with their back-lit flourescent bulbs tend to be much more forgiving, in my experience at least (owned an Epson 2400 before the Nikon). Then there's the issue of the Printfile plastic sleeves I use for storage putting horizontal scratches on the film! If I have the time, I try to scan as soon as the film is done drying and before I've sleeved the negs. As much as I like the look of traditional B&W, the extra time and effort required to assure that it looks its best is often more than I am able to commit to.

 

If my Coolscan ever goes down (and I suppose it will one day) I think I would be perfectly happy with a flatbed scanner like the V700.

 

Hi again,

 

I spent a few more intense scanning hours yesterday with the new beast, on the phone at the same time with a friend of mine who's got another coolscan and whose work in BW I consider to be good. Anyway, first of all I scanned in Grayscale and Monochrome negative, instead of RGB and colour negative. Well, the files are A LITTLE BIT less grainy, but not much. Detail and sharpness is equal. I asked my friend to send me a file scanned in his scanner (also TriX 400), and I saw that the grain was considerably smaller and not at all "too much", like in my scans, which give me an idea of the answer: my negatives are too grainy. I remembered then that I had a couple of rolls developped by a professional shop in Berlin (I normally develop them myself), and I had the V700 files also, so I decided to scan some frames with the Nikon. Two conclusions here:

 

1. The files were far less grainy than the ones I developped (maybe Xtol is not the best developper for fine grain with TriX, maybe I agitate too much or too firmly, I don't know...). The files were still filthy with dust, though.

 

2. My friends, there is NOT so much difference between the Epson files and the Nikon ones. Maybe a tiny bit more shadow detail in the nikon, but you REALLY have to look for it to notice. I could post the two raw files so you can see and judge.

 

So, I must either change my developping technique in order to achieve finer grain, either shoot C41 BW film, which I'm not a big fan of. OR, well, scan them in the old V700, where they look clean and nice.

 

I scanned some colour and that is something else, Digital ICE works like a dream and the files are razor sharp.

 

And, about the scratches, yes, I've noticed the same with plastic sleeves: it doesn't matter how careful you are, you will live horizontal scratches on the film that in most cases, by the way, are shown in the Nikon files but NOT in the Epson's.

 

Well, these are my views so far. I look forward to yours,

 

J.

[menos I M6]

Some people swear on XTol on TX400 push development, as it does pull more shadow detail as D-76.

 

The times I got X-Tol developed TX400 from the lab, I really didn't like it at all.

The shadows were lifted slightly, but the WHOLE negative was much more grainy, which looked after scanning almost as high ISO digital blobs from a cheap digicam.

 

I switched back to D-76 from the lab and develop TX400, pushed to ISO1600 − 6400 with Kodak TMax developer in the bathroom - much, much nicer grain!

 

If you really want to feel run over by a truck, scan some negs with your Coolscan, the EPSON and then get some scans from a Flextight from the lab!

Since I saw these files, I am cursed!

 

I don't know the Nikon scan software, but I always scan for a very, very flat, unsharpened file and process later.

This also holds down the grain a lot, until I push curves, contrast and sharpen in PP.

 

With EPSON Scan, I scan TX400 with only 8bit BW negative @ 3200.

If I have a difficult neg with deep shadows, which have to be pulled, I switch over to a higher bit rate, as it gives slightly smoother shadow transitions.

[Simon Baker]

And, as I've said before, one day I'll find a reasonably-priced Imacon Flextight and dump the Nikon.

 

nhabedi,

 

Ffordes have one for sale at £1999.00 , sounds reasonable to me, what do you think ?

Take a look at ffordes photographic : Main Index "second hand" - scanner/printers - scanners

 

Regards Simon

[zk_diq]

Gentleman, I have been train in scanner for more then 25 years. Most of them are drum, except Scitex (Hell/Crossfield/Dainippon/Linotype Paul/Scitex), oil mount can reduce scratch and flare/dust, most of them using 3 PMT (Photomultiplier Tube) as a light sensor (RGB) Scitex use CCD. If you look at your old publication, Nikon annual / Pentax family / Linhof .. and many others photography books, all pictures are wonderful. How they do it?

The scanner you are using is consumer grade. How excellent you think it can go? What is you scanner Density dynamic range? Optical resolution? What type of pickup lens you have with your scanner?

Scanning with such a gadget is not an issue. Just please learn and understand the process and the limitation of your equipment/instrument.

To capture the most from your slide/neg/print, you need the best instrument and skill.

[Austinite]

I'm putting my 35mm negs into 120 sleeves now. Some of the print files 35mm sleeves were way too tight and leaving scratches. I'm not getting them with the loose 120 sleeves.

[nhabedi]

Ffordes have one for sale at £1999.00 , sounds reasonable to me, what do you think?

 

Thanks for the info. Sounds reasonable, right. But unfortunately it's an old one without FireWire and I don't want to fiddle with adapters and stuff. I've recently seen a used 343 offered for 3500 Euros. For 2500, I would have taken it immediately, for 3500 I'm still thinking about it...

[andybarton]

I scan with a Coolscan V via Vuescan and I don't have any problem with dust or scratches

[nhabedi]

I scan with a Coolscan V via Vuescan and I don't have any problem with dust or scratches

 

Which films?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[andybarton]

Any film.

 

I shoot both silver b&w, C41 and E6. The only scratches on films I have come from the commercial processors. All my E6 and b&w films are pretty much scratch free because I am careful with them.

 

I just turn off the ICE in the Coolscan when scanning the b&w and don't have a problem at all.

 

If you have clean negs or slides to start with, then scanning is easy.