Seeking a bit more knowledge - Scanning 35mm vs Digitizing - month+ of research but hesitant buyer

As I noted, less than 1% of my negatives have persistent dust. However you cannot blow off dust which is smaller than the boundary layer described by fluid dynamics. I use a brush with conductive fibers for cleaning if a blowing isn't sufficient.

 

Dust which collects inside Nikon scanners (which were discontinued in 2004) affects the mirrors, causing a loss of contrast, and the line-array sensors, causing diffuse longitudinal bands in the image. In 2004 the handwriting was on the wall for film photography, even though digital cameras had 12 MP resolution or less at that time. Cameras have come a long way since then, not only in resolution but color quality. Lenses have evolved too, but my favorite for digitizing film is still the Nikon 55/2.8 Micro.

As I mentioned, please let's agree to disagree but please don't tell people on a public forum that your digitizing method is superior both in quality and in speed, cause this is false and at best subjective. Enjoy your Nikon 55/2.8's.

As I mentioned, please let's agree to disagree but please don't tell people on a public forum that your digitizing method is superior both in quality and in speed, cause this is false and at best subjective. Enjoy your Nikon 55/2.8's.

I'm being honest and objective. If your results with a camera are unsatisfactory, let's see the results and a dexcription of your method.

The top file (N1400923_25) was scanned in an LS-4000 (24 MP) using Silverfast. The bottom file (A7R9122) was "scanned" with an A7Rii (42 MP). Neither was subjected to post processing. The original image was taken with a Leica M3 and a Summicron 50/2 lens. The film was Ektacolor.

The LS-4000 has one lens, one aperture and one exposure. All corrections are made in software. The Sony A7Rii has automatic exposure and the white balance was set to the empty ES-1, using a strip film holder for the LS-4000.

Here is the original A7Rii image in negative format.

I'm being honest and objective. If your results with a camera are unsatisfactory, let's see the results and a dexcription of your method.

Seriously I would rather not participate in these - and similar - amateurish time-wasting incomplete uncomprehensive "tests" used as "evidence" to prove or disprove something. This kind of attempts contain too many uncontrolled variables. I never like to do so nor would I want to spend my precious time to engage in such pointless activity. I would rather spend my time making good images. I leave reviews to the recognized experts who have a proven track record. While there may be room for error or bias, the experienced reviewers know their stuff better than many.

By the way, I kept mentioning that I was referring to LS-5000 - not the lower models. I do hear you though - you have experience with the other Coolscan models that are not LS-5000.

To bring us back to topic, perhaps you would like to read Thom Hogan's review of the LS-5000. He has a credible record in reviewing Nikon hardware. In the article he mentions a reader comment about jamming of the batch processing attachment but did not cite the model. I had used the older model (SF-200) with LS-4000 (the one you have experience with) years ago, it did jam every now and then but still beat not using it. The newer model is SF-210 has shown huge improvement over the old one as it allows uneven thickness.

Seriously I would rather not participate in these - and similar - amateurish time-wasting incomplete uncomprehensive "tests" used as "evidence" to prove or disprove something. This kind of attempts contain too many uncontrolled variables. I never like to do so nor would I want to spend my precious time to engage in such pointless activity. I would rather spend my time making good images. I leave reviews to the recognized experts who have a proven track record. While there may be room for error or bias, the experienced reviewers know their stuff better than many.

You have tried "scanning" with a camera and are not satisfied with the results. Perhaps you could share your experience in more detail, you setup, and example or two.

My purpose is not to beat anyone down, but to share experience that others may find useful. Nikon scanners were discontinued in 2004, and Hasselblad scanners more recently, and no one has stepped up with anything close to their quality. At the same time, nearly everyone interested in photography has a digital camera, and many have unscanned film they would like to archive and share. Anyone can assemble an effective copy station for a few hundred dollars, which to me is better than spending a thousand dollars on technology best seen in the rear view mirror.

The photos above were taken in 2014, side by side, with a Leica M3 and a (new to me) Leica M9 (example below), same subject, same light, same lens. Coincidentally, it was the last time I bothered using 35 mm film. I like the colors of the M9, but wouldn't necessarily say they're accurate. Colors from my Sony cameras are accurate and perhaps boring, which is probably why many people say they're bad. Truth is often not the most popular position.

Rock, meet immovable object

Shouldn't it be rock, meet unstoppable force? I think the rock would be the immovable object. Or, are you proposing a selfie? :cool:

The top file (N1400923_25) was scanned in an LS-4000 (24 MP) using Silverfast.

Not very well... Sorry.

I've been using Sliverfast and way too many scanner drivers for decades (where is LinoColor driving a good drum scanner when you need it)? Not all products and users are equal.

I have no dog in this fight, scanner or camera, whatever works best for you and again, the lens in a good Imacon scanner (Rodenstock) probably cost more than an entire Nikon scanner, and that's not even taking into account the scanning software (negs are tough) and the user running it.

My purpose is not to beat anyone down, but to share experience that others may find useful.

Good for you. hwvr, please stop insisting that your ES-2 one-by-one method is superior to the quality and speed of LS-5000 (which you never tried) as you did. I have been insistent only because some people read these forums for advice. I have no desire to "win" a "fight". What for?

Seriously I would rather not participate in these - and similar - amateurish time-wasting incomplete uncomprehensive "tests" used as "evidence" to prove or disprove something. This kind of attempts contain too many uncontrolled variables. I never like to do so nor would I want to spend my precious time to engage in such pointless activity.

That sounds like a complete cop-out to me.

Or "I can't be bothered to illustrate my point-of-view with any actual pictures". Words is easy. Visual evidence - that takes a bit more effort.

That sounds like a complete cop-out to me.

Or "I can't be bothered to illustrate my point-of-view with any actual pictures". Words is easy. Visual evidence - that takes a bit more effort.

LOL. I understand you love to do this type of "tests" with your snapshots. I on the other hand, prefer comprehensive tests by qualified professionals. It takes much thought, time, and skills to complete a reliable test. I simply have no interest to specialize in this type of tasks.

I question whether it qualifies as sound advice to purchase a used LS-5000, discontinued in 2007 along with its operating software, with no available parts, no factory service, and often hard to find accessories which automate the scanning process.

On the other hand the same task can be accomplished with a digital camera, closeup lens, and a film holder or copy stand. In this age nearly everyone interested in photography has a digital camera, and could purchase and assemble a kit equivalent to the LS-5000 at the same cost or less, and have a future-proof setup. With a modicum of care and manual dexterity, the process is fast and effective.

question whether it qualifies as sound advice to ...

The same way I questioned your assertions, when you have not even had any experience with the LS-5000? As mentioned multiple times, LS-4000 is a lower model, yet time and again you used it to justify your contention.

Ultimately it's up to the user to decide his/her need and want, such as how many slides are involved and how much time and care one wishes to dispense, how much to spend and, more importantly, the level of quality one would be happy with.

If there is volume and quality and ease are desired, LS-5000 is surely the front-runner. I cited Thom Hogan's review - but at this point I am not sure if you cared to read it at all. Here it is again. Coolscan 5000 Review | byThom Filmbodies | Thom Hogan

If you still think your advice and knowledge (without credible proof) is better than his - which supports others' experience with LS-5000, then I have no word. Ed, I remember you gave excellent advices on video production and drones, but you seem stuck on this one. :)

This thread was intended to simply be a compendium of all the different means by which a film-image could be digitised. There are pros and cons to all of the methods in terms of convenience, quality, availability and cost.

In this context a statement like -

Search no more, stop wasting time and heart burns. Seriously. Just buy Nikon Coolscan 5000 (LS-5000) with batch attachment if you have a lot of slides.

is quite contentious, and certainly adds no hard information, nor an unbiased view of said equipment.

That others have jumped in with an attempt to point out the drawbacks is in no way 'amateurish'. Neither was it meant to create a fight.

The cons of the LS5000 are its slowness on a per-frame basis, its cost and the fact that it's an obsolete piece of equipment. Nobody needs to own one to find that out.

The pro points are that it can work unattended and that it provides 'better quality', but no results have been shown to support that.

What's 'amateurish', is to make a claim of superior quality with no supporting evidence. Surely it costs little (certainly less than the time wasted on posting thus far) to post an example? Snapshot or masterpiece.

The review by Thom Hogan was written in 2013, 8 years ago. In photography, that can be expressed in terms of "doggie years." It really doesn't matter how good or convenient a device is if it is no longer manufactured nor supported by Nikon. By all reports the LS-5000 is twice as fast, has a USB interface rather than FireWire of the LS-4000. Otherwise it has the same transport mechanism, the same lens, the same light source, and a slightly improved linear array. There are no attributions of significantly improved results. In it's time the Coolscan had twice the resolution of even high-end digital cameras, and a substantial number of photographers used film. I would spend the better part of three days to render one evening of shooting at an event.

Earlier this year I worked with my son to scan over 250 slides, one at a time, from several Kodak Carousels. The attached image shows 150 of those images, without adjustments, as a contact sheet. The example shows the consistency of the process, using a Sony A7Riii, Nikon 55/2.8 Micro, and ES-1 film holder. The entire set took about 1:45 minutes, including selecting, cleaning, loading and scanning, equivalent to over seven 36 exposure rolls of film. Only a few (about 1%) required dust spotting. None required re-scanning. If you have hundreds or thousands of unscanned (or poorly scanned) images, there are better methods than the legendary (and largely unobtainable) Coolscan film scanners.

In this project, the camera was connected to a high-resolution monitor (Atomos Ninja V) for previewing and focusing. Using the magnification feature of the A7, focusing was on the dye clouds. I used a small Lume Cube panel as the light source. The resolution of 42 MP is largely wasted on film, but better too much than too little.