Imacon Flextight Photo or Nikon Coolscan

I know this has been asked before, but there weren't any adequate answers so

please allow me to ask again.

 

Which scanner would yield better results from 120 film? Flextight Photo or

Coolscan 9000 (with a glass holder). For both color print film and b/w film.

 

The Flextight is in mint condition, whereas the Nikon is brand new.

 

Thanks!

Is that a question? It's like asking whether a Toyota is as good as a Porsche. For racing.

and even if it is used, the Porsche will still win any competition. You should scan a piece of film with deep blacks. The Nikon will exhibit noise, the Imacon will exhibit deep black.

luminous landscape has a <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/nikon-8000.shtml">review</a> of Nikon 8000ED where the author compares it to Imacon Flextight scanner. The 9000ED is better than the 8000 from what i heard. i'll be getting my 9000ED next week.

in regard to comparing porsche to toyota- toyota has a F1 team and F1 engine that will knock the socks off Porsche when it comes to racing.

Imacon scanner, but which one ?

 

I have an Imacon Flextight 646 which is equivalent to the current Hasselblad X1. I paid a

hugh extra for the Imacon instead of a Japanese scanner only because it is able to do what

others can't.

 

When you look at the prints from the Japanese scanner, the bright areas are very close to

the Imacon scanner. The major difference is in the dark. Very often it is a total darkness.

Whereas an Imacon preserves significant details. This leads to a result which is a lot more

"film like" with a natural look. The other scanners are more harsh with a "digital" look.

 

Yes, you could compensate by scanning in different exposures and paste them in layers,

but it takes time. Imacon could do it all in one goal.

 

When you have a good scanner, you have a lot more freedom. You don't have to spend a

lot in staying digital. Owning film gears become more meaningful.

$10.000.00 scanner vs less than $2.000.00 scanner. which one is better? duh!

I have no experience with an Imacon though I have no doubt that it is a better scanner as befits its price. But the thing you want to be thinking about is fitness for purpose. Your purpose. You don't tell us what you want to do with the scans and that makes an enormous difference. How big enlargements do you want? Certainly I have 16" sq LightJet prints here that I've had made from Nikon 9000 scans and you'd find it hard pressed to tell from prints from a drum scan. On the other hand I would still send work to be drum scanned if I wanted prints a lot bigger than that.

 

The other thing you want to set alongside quality is workflow over the quantity of scans you want to make. Again I can only speak for the 9000 where I expect to make maybe 100-200 scans per year. So if its a bit slow it is no worry for me - and it is slow especially if you're going to use manual focus. Most of the issues I see here on the 9000 seem to relate to batch scanning or strip scanning or volume scanning of some nature. Maybe the Imacon will save you a lot of time and sngst- hope someone else can comment on that.

The Flextight Photo model is quite old now (I think it came out in 1999). So now it sells used for roughly the same price as a new Nikon 9000 (plus glass carrier).

 

Thanks for everyone's input!

David has provided excellent points to consider.

 

Here is an opinion from a owner/user of Imacon's very best scanner, the 949 (now called

the Hasselblad X-5 or something like that).

 

If you shoot mostly color films and chromogenic B&W, and you are more of a casual

shooter, get the Nikon because I believe it offers Digital ICE.

 

Imacon's are dead serious scanners, even older ones. They are built like a tank for long

term frequent use, eliminate any film flatness issue without the aggrivation of a glass

holder ( question: can Digital ICE be used whan scanning with a glass holder?), and share

the same software that is used for the Imacon/Hasselblad Medium Format digital backs ...

which is constantly improving.

 

MY experience with MF scanners has been: Polaroid Printscan 120 and glass holders then a

MF Minolta Dimage Scan Pro. Both were excellent scanners and the Minolta has reached

cult status among it's owners ...many of which have altered the light source to diffuse it

for better scans.

 

Then the dealer that sold me my Hasselblad digital back loaned me an Imacon 848. Sold

me after the first scan ... and I upgraded to the 949 for increased performance and

especially scan speed including huge batch scanning abilities.... but the Flextight isn't a

848 or a 949.

 

Get the Nikon, unless you are super critical of your images, shoot lots of low light stuff,

and make really large blow-ups.

Thanks for the reply. Actually I do not care about DigitalICE, I am just looking for the best quality for my money.

 

My only worries are that th Flextight Photo is quite an older model and my not be quite comparable to the newer Imacons or the newer Coolscan 9000.

One thing that just occurred to me is that the Flextight Photo uses a SCSI interface. The new versions of Flexcolor do not support SCSI. I didn't see this as an issue for the foreseeable future but I would keep a spare SCSI card around as they are getting less common.

Digital ICE works perfectly well with a glass holder. You should take reasonable care to clean the film and inner glass surfaces (I wear lint-free photo gloves too). Dust on the outer surfaces of the glass is out of focus, and does not appear in the image.

 

A Nikon 8000/9000 is grain-sharp. More resolution simply means "sharper grain". The real advantage of an Imacon is two-fold - there is no glass or mirror between the film and the (Schneider) lens. This results in better contrast. Secondly, the DMax rating is much higher, so the Imacon gives better shadow detail. The downside is that the Imacon does not have Digital ICE, so you can spend a lot of time spotting dust in Photoshop.

 

Like everything else "photographics", you have to spend three times as much to get noticeably better performance.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001Yhe">This</a> might help.

You said you don't care about ICE. Is that because you have never tried it or? I doubt anyone who has ever used a scanner with and without ICE would say that 'they don't care about ICE'. Of course, it can not be used on silver based film.

Thanks for the replies everyone.

 

About DigitalICE: yes you cannot use it with b/w negatives and I also prefer to spot the scans myself. I have also heard reports that using DigitalICE slightly decreases the sharpness of the scan.

I couldn't borrow a Coolscan 9000 to test, but I got the new Epson V750 which I put against the Imacon Flextight. Here are some scans of an old picture.

<br>

The Imacon was set at its maximum of 3200dpi, the Epson at 4800 and then the image scaled down to match the Imacon dimensions.

<br>

Imacon is on the left, Epson on the right:<br>

 

 

<a href="http://www.purelook.com/scans1.jpg">Imacon-Epson100%crop</a><br>

<a href="http://www.purelook.com/scans2.jpg">Imacon-Epson12.5%image</a><br>

 

At least now I know the flatbeds scanners are out of the question.

Anastas, I have been using a Nikon 9000 for around three years. Images are from a Rollei 6008i with the best glass they offer - mostly the 90mm Schneider. I shoot Kodak GX or Velvia. I work the images in CS2 and print (mostly) on Crane Silver Rag on an Epson 7800. Because I crop in the composition, I generally print 24"x24" images. I can report after scanning, processing and printing hundreds of images that the obvious weak link in my work flow is me. If I get it right, and the image is properly exposed and focused, the Nikon can create a file that can be enlarged well beyond the capacity of my printer and my needs. But if the slide is junk, the Nikon will faithfully reproduce that too. Simply put, the Nikon with the glass holder is a wonderful machine. If there is detail in the highlights or shadows, it will capture it. I have had one of my favorite images drum scanned by A&I. Printed at 24"x24," the Nikon and drum scans scans are indistiguishable. Perhaps if I was printing multiple feet the drum image might have an advantage, but so what. The bigger the image, the further back you are from it. No one sticks their eyeball on a 4'x4' image unless you are a nut like me. So here is what I learned after walking down the path you are on. You need to have the Photoshop skills to make something of that 450 meg file. A Adams used to say that the negative was just the composition - it is the (human) printer that makes it sing. You will not get better images from a better scanner if you do not become a better printer. And you can not become a better printer until you know how to use Photoshop or some other program to get your vision out of the image. My advise - get the Nikon for two thousand, and the glass holder too. The one that comes with the rig is junk and a pain in the ass to use. Get yourself a fast computer with a 20" screen (I use Dell Ultrasharp). And spend your last pennies on an Epson 7800. Then lock yourself in your "darkroom" and work those images till yours eyes bleed. Then you will start to make images that will make your heart sing. By the way, none of my clients (and I am an "amateur") has ever asked me whether I used a Nikon or Imacon scanner or drum scan. Once an image is under glass whatever difference you think you see evaporates. Or as Red Fox observed, when the lights go out, it does not matter if you are black or white. It just comes down to who washed. Not sure exactly how that applies, but I just love that guy. Best of luck.

PS: Anistas, I just posted an image to my personal page. It was a Kodak slide that I scanned with the Nikon and desaturated before printing. I took the shot literally with the sun over head in the worst possible lighting of the day. The original slide is at least two stops overexposed in some places and one stop under in the shadows. You can see some patches of blind light. I was able to make something of the slide because the Nikon captured the faintest detail in the light and dark, and could be teased out in CS2.

David, thank you for your answer. Can you post a link to your website where I could see the photo. I have acutally decided if I am getting a Nikon 9000, I will get a brand new one, not used on ebay. Would you advise against the Coolscan 8000?

Anastas,I have never used the 8000. However, I understand that there had been some issues with banding unless you scanned in the UltraFine mode, or whatever it is called. I think there are posts on this subject.

As for my image, try clicking on my name. When I do it, it takes me to my page and the image. If that does not do it, check out the post above on moving water pics. My post and image is the last one.

Good luck. You will be amazed at waht you can do in the comfort of your own home, and it will make you a better photographer, and person.BY the way, I got my 9000 on Amazon. Back then, they had the best price and a rock solid return policy.

David, looks good. How big can you print it out? Will the 9000 let me print 24x24 inches?

A Toyota will run longer and with less grief than a Porsche. Perhaps relevant, certainly undeniable.

I've used the Flextight for about four years with no problems, it's built to be used daily and

simple to operate, the d-max is real as stated by Imacon not some fuzzy mumber most of

the other makers seem to come up with.

 

One thing to think about is your computer set up, if you are using a newer Mac with OSx your

older Flextight's are not firewire.

Dermot is right about the quality of the Imacon. I had one for a few years and had superb scans. The Dmax figures are more accurate tna most others and the images quality is excellent. The Imacon uses a cold cathode light source that produces superior results to the LED system of most other scanners like the coolscan. The Imacon software is designed for a pro lab and delivers top quality but with ease. I sold my Imacon because I needed to scan 11x14 negs and purchased a Fuji finescan 5000. The finescan 5000 is a crossfield and is top of the line. In close comparison with the Imacon the Imacon images were 99% as good as the Fuji.

 

As Dermot said the older Imacons are SCSI and won't work on the newer OS platforms. The newer firewire units are no problem.