nikon 9000 glass holder

Im close to deciding to purchase the nikon 9000. Based on all the responses i received on my earlier post i believe

this is what i need. I would love to see someone post some color pics that were scanned using the 9000 and the

glass holder. Im still hung up on the IQ. In my mind im saying that a darkroom developed pic is going to look better

but I have no way of getting that done. Is this true or am I underestimating the power of the scanner. I , of course,

have access to a lab if necessary. I want to give really good scans to my magazine editor. Others have told me to

stick with digital for color prints, i have a Ids Mark 2. Im using a RZ67 and from what ive seen online, the pics appear

to be better. As you can tell im brand new to MF and for the investment i made in the camera i want to get the best i

can afford.

Also i cant figure out what is the part number for the glass holder, I dont know what it looks like. anyone have a link?

There is no comparison between the RZ and the 1DsII.

 

Here is the rZ67, Coolscan 9000, glass holder:

 

Velvia 100,

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#277080521_Ya2Xn-X3-LB

 

TMX 100

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/3639504_X4XUj#382039618_mcLcC-X3-LB

Thanks Mauro, ive been studying different comparison made on sites like the luminous landscape who conclude that the 1ds2 is better. I can see by looking at these pics that you and i are right, theres just something richer about a MF scan. i guess my biggest hangup is how difficult it is to process using the nikon 9000. I have digital editing down to a science but could never produce some of those pics. is the 9000 easy to figure out.

It takes a little practice, but is easy.<br>The only thing is that it takes time. Lots of time. But there's a return for that, that makes it worth it.

<i> I would love to see someone post some color pics that were scanned using the 9000 and the glass holder.</i><p>

A picture on the web will not bring out the full quality of a scan made with a 9000 but the ones on my web-pages were scanned

with a 9000 so you are welcome to take a look. I used rather basic settings in the scanning software and PS.<p>

<a href="http://www.stutterheim.nl/rolleigraphy/rolleiflex_gallery.htm" target="_blank">Images</a><p>Ferdi.

Anthony, the link will connect you to an image I made with a Rollei 6008i with the 90mm Schneider, on Kodak G100,

scanned on the 9000 w/ glass holder. I worked it in PS3 and printed it 24" square on an Epson 7800. The chrome

was a real bear with the contrast from highlight to shadow well beyond what I could have reasonable expected from

any film. But with some aggressive PS work, it came out passable. Ther was a fair amount of shadow detail that I

could tease out only becasue the Nikon captured it.

I have used the Nikon for about four years now - all with the glass holder. Scanning without that holder is maddening.

It is a wonderful machine. I regularly make and sell 10x enlargements. Some particularly well shot images could be

pushed well beyond that. I now have a Scitex Pro II which is a $20k plus flatbed scanner. Granted, it does do a

better job pulling out shadow and highlight detail, and it produces better detail. But I would have to say that the real

world distinctions in an actual print up to an 8-10x enlargement are undetectable to any sensible person. Now

understand that when I scan with the Nikon, I use the most optimal settings that create a 460mb file. Your computer

will have to be able to handle this to make it work. And I do virtually no adjustment in NikonScan, preferring to do any

editing in CS3. Hope this helps.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6033650

Dave your explanation makes sense to me. In reality about how big a pic could i make from a well exposed image. I would imagine i would rarely , if ever, print bigger then 16x20. I would let a lab handle that. I have a new mac os so i think a 460 mb file would be fine. I like the fact that you do it all in cs3, that would be my preferred method.

Anthony,

 

The post above is correct, from a web image it is difficult to see the quality of an MF scan. While I switched to digital

this year, almost all of my photographs on my website (http://www.jecxz.com) are 645 scans using a Nikon 9000

with the glass tray carrier - about 1/3 of them wet scanned. I hope this helps. Good luck.

 

Kind regards,

 

Derek Jecxz

 

http://www.jecxz.com