imacon Precision II or Nikon 9000ED

[fatihayoglu]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Which one for scan quality only. I know the connection, speed etc can be problem but I’m looking to get an idea which one can offer me the best possible scan quality for MF films.

 

[fotomas]

I worked with both. But the Nikon was a 8000 instead of the 9000. Guess the Imacon would be slightly better. But the Nikon is very close. The Nikon is slower than the newer Imacon's. In case of the Precision II it could be about equal.

[Advertisement]

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

[fatihayoglu]

Thank you very much for your reply. Could you also remember if it is possible to scan the whole film with Nikon, I mean film rebate, where it says stock name etc?

[Einst_Stein]

I Have you tried digital camera? Leica full frame, for example. 

I have leaf scan 45, one of the best image quality scanner,  I have also used a Nikon 9900 in the local community college when I took the photo class. In terms of image quality and post processing, Leafscan is better than Nikon 9000. But I don’t like leafscan’s film carrier. It is hard to align the orientation. 

Now I use Digital camera with Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 75mm f4 enlarger lens, Much better IQ and far easier to handle, not to mention the scan speed. It’s night and day. 

When I use film scanner, it requires good film profile for each films, it is particular important for negatives. But with digital camera to scan, it turns out not necessary as long as I have a grey card reference. It might be a little problem for old films if it lacks of the neutral grey. In such cases, I use Phocus. The one click negative to positive conversion is very friendly.

Edited September 3, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[fotomas]

vor 19 Stunden schrieb fatihayoglu:

Thank you very much for your reply. Could you also remember if it is possible to scan the whole film with Nikon, I mean film rebate, where it says stock name etc?

As far as I remember even with the Nikon film carrier it was not possible to have the whole frame with the edges. Maybe a bit more then with the Imacon but also not all. 

But from the handling point of view the Imacon film holder is much more pleasant to use.

[250swb]

It's equivalent to searching for the Holy Grail finding a film scanner that can do film edges. I once had a Minolta Multi Pro that could do it by using the glass carrier, but you couldn't just press 'Scan' because the blank emulsion area fooled the scanner into thinking the subject had more highlight (or shadow for slide film)than it really did. So exposure was always manual.

Einst_Stein's idea of using a full frame camera is perhaps best, and definitely easiest. With something like the Lomo DigitaLIZA 35mm scanning mask that holds a film strip and even allows you to scan the sprocket holes as well, which would hopefully be enough!

[Ouroboros]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

I Have you tried digital camera? Leica full frame, for example. 

I have leaf scan 45, one of the best image quality scanner,  I have also used a Nikon 9900 in the local community college when I took the photo class. In terms of image quality and post processing, Leafscan is better than Nikon 9000. But I don’t like leafscan’s film carrier. It is hard to align the orientation. 

Now I use Digital camera with Rodenstock Apo Rodagon 75mm f4 enlarger lens, Much better IQ and far easier to handle, not to mention the scan speed. It’s night and day. 

When I use film scanner, it requires good film profile for each films, it is particular important for negatives. But with digital camera to scan, it turns out not necessary as long as I have a grey card reference. It might be a little problem for old films if it lacks of the neutral grey. In such cases, I use Phocus. The one click negative to positive conversion is very friendly.

I'm inclined to agree with this.  I've used an Imacon since 2007 and made thousands of negative and transparency scans without any kind of problem in the past 13 years.  However, if I were looking around for scanning solutions now given the fact that Nikon no longer support their long-obsolete scanners and Hasselblad no longer manufacture theirs and offer no guarantee of long-term support, I'd seriously consider scanning with a Nikon D850 or Z7 digital camera.

[fatihayoglu]

Thank you guys, much appreciated.

I scan my films currently with D750 and Nikon macro lens. I use ES2 film holder for 35mm films, scanning them at 1:1, really pleased with my results.

For MF films, I use Lomography Digitisa and either take 1 shot and then crop or do multiple shots to stitch. Again I am pleased with my results.

I have just received an ANR glass and a standard glass to sandwich the film to be able to scan with borders. I haven't tested it yet to see if there is any IQ image scanning through ANR glass or standard glass.

The reason why I asked was, there were multiple Nikon 9000 scanners and an Imacon on eBay and was thinking to get one for a good price if they'd offer me better scanning outcomes but I guess, it's better to get my films scanned if I want to print them really big.

[plasticman]

4 hours ago, Ouroboros said:

given the fact that Nikon no longer support their long-obsolete scanners 

Whenever this discussion comes up pretty much anywhere on the internet this sort of statement gets thrown around, and I believe it’s damaging to the film cause in general, and not completely accurate in any case. 

Some things are still fixed by Nikon, some others are fixed by third-party repairers, and a lot of faults can be fixed by any user themselves. Quite apart from the fact that these machines are very reliable - they used to be used in production houses, running all day every day. Personal users will never get close to that.

And calling them “long obsolete” just plays into the hands of the anti-film crowd, and helps to scare away people who might potentially try analog film. I know this is true as it happened to me, with all the online scare-stories of equipment breaking down, and difficult workflows. 

[Ouroboros]

I feel your pain, but like it or not, Nikon scanners are obsolete and there is no guarantee that they’ll repair then.

The rest of your rant about being detrimental to film use is simply your opinion and not one so agree with. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Ouroboros

[plasticman]

49 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

I feel your pain, but like it or not, Nikon scanners are obsolete and there is no guarantee that they’ll repair then.

The rest of your rant about being detrimental to film use is simply your opinion and not one so agree with. 

I was one of those people that was scared away from film by statements like yours. So not just a “rant”.
And I think my post was polite enough not to be characterized in that insulting way. 

[fatihayoglu]

I have multiple film cameras and I am not going back on this. I just thought a dedicated MF film scanner might give me a better digital files but the question is, should I spend nearly £2000 on an obsolete scanner or get my films scanner (if I see the need) by a lab.

Each day, repair of these items are more difficult due to spare parts are not getting produced anymore, so totally understand the reasonings not to get them.

[plasticman]

Ok I'm not going to even try to convince people to not use the word "obsolete" (it doesn't only mean 'no longer produced' but also 'no longer used or useful').

But anyway, if you're nervous about buying a scanner that's no longer produced then either use a digital camera to take captures of your negatives, or you can get something like the brand new Plustek 120 Pro.

I informally tried the camera-capture way, but without a really good flat-field lens and a dedicated light-table and stand setup, the results weren't as good as my scans. But I've thought about trying again sometime - so I have nothing against that method either. 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2020 by plasticman

[250swb]

Well the 'old' Plustek 120 was a very good medium format and 35mm film scanner, the new 120 Pro is even better. I compared my 'old' 120 against a Nikon 9000 and there was no difference worth noting, but there is no way I'd buy a Nikon 9000 these days. It's just that a small light pad, a copy stand and a macro lens for your DSLR (or a with an adapter for an M), and also a negative holder, will do either a good job, or a very good job depending on the amount of megapixels you can throw at it. What it won't do however is increase the size of the file according to the size of the negative, so a 35mm scan with a DSLR will be the same file size as a scan from a 6x9 negative, a 6x6 will be less because of the crop down from the rectangle. A dedicated film scanner will scan at the highest settings in proportion to the negative size, so if a 35mm scan on my 47mp camera makes a .TIFF of 250mb, my Plustek at high quality will do 550mb for a 6x9. But there is another argument for another day whether a lot of that is digital noise or interpolation.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I ahve a thing about used unsupported scanners I bought 3 on Ebay a while back, each one was destroyed in shipping, UPS made good on all but it was a pain. One had been poked through by a fork lift and UPS tried to tell me it was my fork lift that did it. Huh?

Anyway, my CL I am using on an old Beseler slide duplicator works well for 35, as an intact unit, and OK for my 6x6 Rollei images for online using my macro lenses on a copy stand, but I figure I am getting 14-16mp for a 6x6 image. I have some older Rollei images I had done on a lab's Nikon which are excellent. I bought the original Minolta Multi-Scan but was disappointed that you couldn't get decent resolution on 2 1/4. For 35 it was excellent. Not sure if 2 1/4 is that much in my future to invest in a new Plustek 120. I do have a lot of old 120 images. But I am thinking my V700 does OK and would be better with a Betterscanning holder.

Edited September 3, 2020 by tommonego@gmail.com

[Ouroboros]

1 hour ago, plasticman said:

I was one of those people that was scared away from film by statements like yours.....

 

Allowing yourself to be 'scared away from film' simply because Nikon (or Imacon, Canon & Minolta et al) desktop scanners are all on the way to becoming a potential liability is not something I personally can relate to.

I suggested going with the digital camera option because obsolescence is not going to be an immediate problem when the camera is officially discontinued by the manufacturer.

Nikon offer their own self-contained solution for  scanning 35mm film in the D850, but there are many more ways to use a digital camera to digitise film. 

I see no logical reason for being 'scared away' from using film simply because most desktop scanners are now obsolete, or discontinued if that makes the reality more palatable.

I'm sure you'll compose another indignant reply, but I'll leave you with it here. 

[plasticman]

11 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

 

Allowing yourself to be 'scared away from film' simply because Nikon (or Imacon, Canon & Minolta et al) desktop scanners are all on the way to becoming a potential liability is not something I personally can relate to.

I suggested going with the digital camera option because obsolescence is not going to be an immediate problem when the camera is officially discontinued by the manufacturer.

Nikon offer their own self-contained solution for  scanning 35mm film in the D850, but there are many more ways to use a digital camera to digitise film. 

I see no logical reason for being 'scared away' from using film simply because most desktop scanners are now obsolete, or discontinued if that makes the reality more palatable.

I'm sure you'll compose another indignant reply, but I'll leave you with it here. 

Whatever. 

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, plasticman said:

I informally tried the camera-capture way, but without a really good flat-field lens and a dedicated light-table and stand setup, the results weren't as good as my scans. But I've thought about trying again sometime - so I have nothing against that method either. 

A: For lens:

     I use enlarger lens, it's generally (relatively) cheap.I happend to have a Rodenstock Apo-Rodagon 75mm f4. It is optimized for 1:1 and good for 120 or smaller. The best price might be to get a Leafscan 45 and just use this lens. I've seen ebay listing for $400. Of course you can search for this lens alone but the price could be lower or higher. If you only need to scan 135, looking for the best 50mm enlarger lens. It could be just a couple of hundred US$.

B: For light source:

     I use this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07VF42DDB/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

C : For film holder:

     I use this: https://www.amazon.com/SimbaLux-Magnetic-Protection-Frameless-Floating/dp/B07TTJZ3GQ/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=2WJ381VY6464E&dchild=1&keywords=acrylic+frame+8x10&qid=1599156965&sprefix=acrylic+frame+%2Caps%2C227&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExUUFZSFlJSVk3UFE1JmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwOTQwODQxOVkyU0E3STRUVUFJJmVuY3J5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTAzNzUxNjAyNEFKQkhUQlgwOTBIJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==

D : Some note about the light source:

     Some light panel has a grid pattern (like  your phone), you don't want that. It must be absolutely pattern-less.

E: Some note about the acrylic film holder:

     Cleaning the acrylic or glass surface is a nightmare. You don't want to do that on the inner surface. Outer surface is OK since the acrylic is so thick and far out of focus. To keep the inner surface clean,  never scratch it and never expose it to air or touch it, except changing the film. Always wear proper gloves. I made s spacer about the thickness of the film by taping a electrical tape on the edge of the inner surface. This way, the center area of the inner surface is more free from scratching each other. I actually also made a spacer on the outer surface by the same thing. This is so to prevent the outer surface scratched by the light panel. though it is less necessary.  

***** By the way, on the digitizing exposure, color reversal, white balance, and color adjust.

I found the camera auto exposure is no good for color negatives.  My practice is to calibrate the exposure on the first picture of that film type.  

Method 1: Take a shot, check the exposure histogram. If it is not centered, redo it by changing the exposure (shutter speed). 

Method 2: Take a shot, convert to positive, check the exposure histogram. If it is not centered, redo it by changing the exposure (shutter speed). 

Depends on the film, you should find one of the two methods more favorable. Once you are happy, stick to that exposure value. In my case, the raw negative exposure usually looks very thin. 

After the reversal, I find just a simple white balance by clicking on the grey or white area (a white clothes or a paved road, for example) does an excellent job. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Einst_Stein

[fatihayoglu]

Thanks for that. I use a Kaiser light pad and Nikon ES2 for 35mm films and following your previous advice, with a small change, I have bough ANR and normal glass panels, 10x10 and similar to yours, did a spacing with electric tape. I have done some tests and it looks like, they give me good results. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

6 minutes ago, fatihayoglu said:

Thanks for that. I use a Kaiser light pad and Nikon ES2 for 35mm films and following your previous advice, with a small change, I have bough ANR and normal glass panels, 10x10 and similar to yours, did a spacing with electric tape. I have done some tests and it looks like, they give me good results. 

Enjoy!