Any Nikon CoolScan 8000/9000 users here?

Don't be misled by "mint" and "60 day warranty", they mean nothing if the electronic chips or capacitors are about to go south. "Serviced" means cleaning and not much more. "Mint" means a shiny outer case with no scratches, but a shiny case doesn't do the scanning. Two components to keep in mind for failure are the Power Supply and the Motherboard. Both are boards with lots of electronic bits and pieces on them and are under stress when the full 4000 dpi is used constantly. Your best bet is an 8000 that has had an easy life, but just how you can determine that without the seller ensuring you of such with proof, is next to impossible. That's why I suggested finding out the history of a proposed purchase before buying. Don't be put off though, you've just got to keep certain things in mind when buying second hand goods. You need an escape plan, a way of fixing things if and when problems raise their ugly heads

 

Yes the lens is under the film and the light is above the glass. The light finds its way through the glass, through the film, down on to the mirror and then through the lens and into the sensor. There's nothing to worry about, but the mirror and lens must be kept clean for maximum sharpness

EDIT: A Flickr album of mine.

Check out this Carmencita blog post for example, the colors here are gorgeous:

Martin Condomines: 5 Months Away - Carmencita Film Lab

There are reasons why a minilab scanner (Frontier, Noritsu) cost that much but it's output - by any measure of quality, pales by comparison to a Coolscan.

 

This is from a plain well exposed Kodak Gold 100 automatically scanned from my Coolscan and Noritsu. Given the results, you would think the Noritsu scan was of a different frame of film but they are one and the same.

How do you explain the examples in the link I sent? They usually scan with a Frontier and get a quality and feel that I cant seem to figure out how to pull off on any other scanner. Here's the link again: Martin Condomines: 5 Months Away - Carmencita Film Lab

For the anti-newton ring glass, if I put it on top of the film, is the scanner going to scan through the glass using it's lens? Or is the lens underneath the film tray, on the opposite side of the glass?

I think of "bottom" as the side closest to the scanner lens.

In the FH-869G, the bottom glass has an anti-reflection coating, much like a camera lens. The emulsion side of film has relatively matte finish, and is usually cupped upwards (away from the lower glass). These elements combine to make the formation of Newton's Rings unlikely on that surface.

The upper glass has a slightly etched finish. There is nothing to prevent the film from touching the upper glass, especially since the back of the film is shiny and cupped upwards in the middle. AN glass prevents the film from touching except in minute spots. While the scanner could resolve this etched surface, it is spaced about 2 mm from the lower glass, and somewhat out of focus. it doesn't matter, and may help that light through the AN glass is somewhat diffused.

I don't know about the "big labs" since I have always scanned my own images. Mini-labs are another matter. Unless you request otherwise, their scans have exaggerated contrast and saturation, and relatively low resolution (4x6' quality). Lab prints are done digitally on light sensitive paper and processed wet. Colors are more intense on a wet print than from an inkjet, and more glossy. However a dye-sublimation (more accurately, dye-transfer) printer comes very close to wet print quality and intensity. My big Kodak dye-sub is no longer supported, but I have an inexpensive Canon 4x6 printer that does an excellent job, and works through my home Wi-Fi network.

I have done a comparison of the Nikon with the Canon film scanners. Search and you will find some of these with links to others (e.g., LINK).

The CanoScan 4000FS is nearly as good, maybe equal, to the Nikon 9000, but it has only antique and slow connections (so-called "fast SCSI").

true, I missed that by the time I got around to posting. Medium format is one reason I spent the money on the Nikon.

I have used both and think that automatic dust/scratch processing is not so hot period.

I created a new gallery, "Medium Format Scans" and added a few photos. These are basically raw scans other than cropping while scanning. Including the border may affect the exposure, After adopting Lightroom, I generally included the border while scanning, since adjustments are easy and non-destructive. All photos in this gallery are scans of negative film.

Photo.net - Discover, Develop and Discuss Photography

When scanning, devise some scheme whereby you can refer to the original negative easily. I give each roll a date/subject code and name the image accordingly, appending the frame number. The film strips are stored in clear archival pages, in binders. Derivative images are saved in sub-folders. In general, I don't name photos, but that can be done in LR, and pointers to the original added to collections, etc.

The OP asked if a scanner profile improved accuracy. Unfortunately it does not work that well with negative film. However calibrating your monitor, adjusting the images to taste, then printing with a print profile works fairly reliably. I find that prints are darker than on the screen, but a half stop adjustment is usually sufficient. I use a default value (80%) when printing from LR, and it works well enough for most purposes.

Ed would you mind fixing the link? Its currently linked to the user's profile

Photo.net - Discover, Develop and Discuss Photography

I created a new gallery, "Medium Format Scans" and added a few photos. These are basically raw scans other than cropping while scanning. Including the border may affect the exposure, After adopting Lightroom, I generally included the border while scanning, since adjustments are easy and non-destructive. All photos in this gallery are scans of negative film.

 

Photo.net - Discover, Develop and Discuss Photography

 

When scanning, devise some scheme whereby you can refer to the original negative easily. I give each roll a date/subject code and name the image accordingly, appending the frame number. The film strips are stored in clear archival pages, in binders. Derivative images are saved in sub-folders. In general, I don't name photos, but that can be done in LR, and pointers to the original added to collections, etc.

 

The OP asked if a scanner profile improved accuracy. Unfortunately it does not work that well with negative film. However calibrating your monitor, adjusting the images to taste, then printing with a print profile works fairly reliably. I find that prints are darker than on the screen, but a half stop adjustment is usually sufficient. I use a default value (80%) when printing from LR, and it works well enough for most purposes.

My galleries are public. PNET's links are broken. This one takes you the right gallery, "Medium Format Scans."

18373123

Les Sarile (LessDMess) is probably the scanning expert in this forum. I'm a fussy tech geek, retired engineer.

Ed, are these photos in the medium format scans gallery all from the CoolScan 8000? The detail and color is amazing!

My galleries are public. PNET's links are broken. This one takes you the right gallery, "Medium Format Scans."

 

18373123

 

Les Sarile (LessDMess) is probably the scanning expert in this forum. I'm a fussy tech geek, retired engineer.

I realize this thread is a couple of months old but in case anyone is looking at it down the road I have some insight from the novice perspective. I just started shooting film last summer. Concepts such as "Depth of Field" were new to me. Back then I picked up a used Epson V500 for $40 or something. I've been satisfied with it but kept hearing how much better an actual film scanner would be.

A few weeks ago as chance would have it, I saw an add for a non-working Coolscan 8000 ED for $100. Figuring the film holders alone were worth more than that, I snapped it up as quick as I could. All it took was some cleaning and re-lubrication to get it working again. I've tried vuescan and silverfast. Vuescan doesn't do thumbnails on this scanner from what I can tell and in general just operates it slowly. It took a lot of messing around with settings to get a scan that would compare favorably what I'd get with minimal adjustment from the same negatives in Epson Scan and the V500.

SilverFast does do thumbnails (it calls it an overview or something like that) and seems to work faster but costs major $$$$.

So I found and old G5 to run Nikon Scan on. It did again, take me awhile but I've gotten it to the point now where I can actually get pleasing results and see more detail in the scans than what I was getting before. All this makes me wonder whether it would really be worth it to spend $1,000 on an 8000. It all depends on your needs I suppose. I may end up being a big fan in the long run but so far it's been a fair amount of work for a modest improvement.

I've wondered that too. Maybe I didn't clean the mirror or lens as well as I thought or maybe something got on it when I was reassembling it.

The other real possibility is user error and unrealistic expectations. I'm still very much a novice at this stuff. Even in the last few days I've managed to get some better results. Someone with more skills and a more discerning eye may have noticed right away. I was expecting more of clear and obvious improvement in every way. What I was forgetting is that some of images I'm comparing didn't turn out so well on the epson either the first time through.

Well, after a couple of weeks with it, I'm pretty confident that if my photos were of resolution test targets taken under ideal conditions, I could notice the difference in favor of my 8000. ;)

But my photos aren't either ideal or designed to show resolution differences. My initial reaction was that I was actually getting more pleasing scans from the Epson.

Later I realized that I wasn't comparing apples to apples. I was comparing an image that I'd done a fair amount of post processing to after scanning a couple of different times on the Epson. It was a picture of a bike on the beach that I like and it was my first attempt at using Caffenol as a developer. I screwed it up, - left it in the developer too long. The Nikon did an excellent job of showing me how flawed the image was. :)

That was a B&W photo. I also wasn't pleased with how the colors came out in VueScan on my first scan of a color photo using the 8000. Just seemed really flat. But all this has to do with software and not the ability of the scanner itself.

I'm now remembering that my out of the box experience with the Epson wasn't so great either. I got some horrible scans at first because I'd left ICE on while scanning a B&W photo.

Anyway, I've become convinced that I'm getting more detail out of the 8000 (as I should) but still not clear in the end how much that really matters with the photos I'm taking. I'll have to try some larger prints and see. On the one hand, given the choice I want as much detail in my scans as I can possibly get, but for where the majority of my photos will end up getting viewed, the Epson does a good enough job most of the time.

Well, I look at that and not wonder whether or not there is something wrong with my 8000 but whether there is something wrong with the V500 used above. :)

To me the biggest problem with that Epson scan is that it seems to be out of focus relative to the 8000. I just haven't experienced that with my Epson. One thing that I have experienced that these scans show is that ICE functions better on the Nikon.

And of course the other question I have regarding both scans is which colors are correct? Are the ribbons on the wreaths red or does the sun give them an orange hue? Again, that's probably more of software thing.

I had a lightly used 9000 and sold it; now just recently decided to get back to medium format and bought a used 8000 from the seller the OP mentioned. Results seem every bit as good as the 9000 I had. Just not sure if there's any difference in scanning time since it's been a few years since I scanned with the 9000.

The FH-869S glassless holder works pretty well now that I've learned how to use it properly this time. I'm still planning on getting the glass holder though for film that insists on not laying flat, and for occasional prints.

I'm also not an especially great technician as far as really knowing the technicalities of color space etc. I guess I'm lucky in that scans- whether they be from negative film like Portra, or slide film- always seem to come out spot on, with sky hues being much more reliably accurate than with any digital camera I've owned. Maybe it has something to do with the Zeiss lens on the Hasselblad, I don't know.

Does anyone know where I can buy a glass 120 film holder for a CoolScan 8000? I just bought one off eBay sans any film holders. I see a few non-glass types for about as much as I paid for the machine! Hoping I can find something cheaper and with glass

Link .... Nikon film holder with glass FH-869G: approx. 20cm long glass plate for LS-9000 scanner for 35mm and medium format positives or negatives - ScanDig GmbH - It's quite expensive at US$1,042

An alternative way is to buy a normal glassless 120 holder and use a piece of picture frame non-reflective glass cut to size to hold the film flat, or, buy an anti-Newton Ring glass from here, Link ..... Glass Anti Newton Ring Insert for Medium Format Film Epson Scanner 3200 4180 3170 4490 4870 4990 V700 v750