Nikon Coolscan IV still worthy?

<p>So, in an effort to take a lot more pictures (but without going digital) I've decided to spend some time shooting only B+W - bulk loading my own canisters and developing at home to bring down costs. Obviously this will leave me with a bunch of negs, which, being darkroom-less, won't be a great deal of use... Hence I'm planning on acquiring a scanner.<br>

Obviously if I now go out and spend $700 on a scanner my savings are largely negated, so I'm looking at cheap over quality- if I ever want a print done the negative will be taken to a pro lab.</p>

<p>I see that I have two options, buying a bottom rung scanner (ie http://cgi.ebay.com.au/35mm-Negative-Film-Slide-Digital-Scanner-for-PC-Mac-NEW_W0QQitemZ280473951850QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item414d8cde6a) for not a lot of money, or trying to coax my stepmother to 'borrow' my fathers coolscan IV when she visits Australia from England in April (some hassle, and despite hardly using it since purchase it might be hard to convince him to let it go).</p>

<p>Hence, this question- does a several years old Nikon stand up against todays consumer cheapys?<br>

Three key points I'm concerned over are:</p>

<p>1. Will the scan image quality be comparable? most of the cheap ones advertise 3,900 dpi or so, but some seem more honest with 1,800 dpi that can be 'enhanced' to 3,900, whereas the coolscan does 2,900 dpi I think and can possibly be 'enhanced' to 4,000</p>

<p>2. Has throughput time reduced significantly? I'd accept a slightly lower quality scan if it was done in a quarter the time...</p>

<p>3. Is film transport with the newer scanners (which all seem to have snap shut negative carriers) safer or less safe than the coolscans 'swallow up your bare negatives, make some grinding noises, and hopefully spit them out again' process? The inability to digital ice out any damage with B+W has me slightly more paranoid...</p>

<p>Based on observing sample scans over the years, any good dedicated film scanner will produce superior results over most hybrid flatbed scanners with film adapters.</p>

<p>Over the past couple of years I've looked at hundreds of high resolution scans produced by various popular Epson Vxxx scanners and most of them show odd, chunky patterns where there should be smooth continuous gradation, and the results are worse with grainy negatives.</p>

<p>I'm still using a relatively ancient Minolta Scan Dual and my next step will be a Nikon film scanner. Based on the results I'm seeing with hybrid flatbeds, those would be a step down from my old Minolta.</p>

<p>Regarding ICE and related features, I haven't really missed that. The main trick is clean handling during processing and storage of b&w negatives. Especially processing - anything stuck to the film when it's wet tends to remain embedded. And while digital retouching may seem tedious, it's a breeze compared with the painstaking spotting with brushes and dyes on prints, or pencil retouching of negatives.</p>

<p>Hey Lex, thanks for the response :)<br>

I should specify I'm not looking at a hybrid, just a very cheap dedicated film scanner- the variety where the negative holder passes through the body.</p>

<p>No, those things like the one you linked to on Ebay are nowhere near the quality of a Coolscan IV. They're not even anywhere near the quality of a new Epson flatbed. They're suitable only for Facebook resolution images.</p>

<p>I missed your link the first go 'round. I'm not familiar with that particular model. I have heard mixed reports about some low priced film scanners - especially those that appear to be digital cameras in a box with a flash opposite the negatives/slides. On the other hand, some of those types are pretty inexpensive so it might be worth the risk.</p>

<p>What Lex wrote, and For 35mm any Nikon dedicated film scanner will provide very good quality, with perhaps the best coming out of the Super CoolScan 5000 ED and 9000 ED scanners (the latest and last models). For 35mm I would avoid any and all flatbed scanners. By the way, when you scan film negatives, you've gone digital ;-) This picture out of my Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED:</p><div></div>

<p>I've got: a Coolscan IV, an Epson v500, and an old HP Photosmart. Here is my experience based on using only the vendor SW (Nikon Scan 4.1.3, Epson 3.24A):</p>

<ul>

<li>I love the Coolscan for color & c41 B&W, don't use it for conventional B&W. The highly collimated light source will outline every dust particle and surface defect. Unless you are meticulous about cleanliness, it's a royal PITA to spot all this stuff out. Grain is also enhanced (which may be good or bad depending on what you like.)</li>

<li>If you don't like the motorized insert/eject on the Coolscan you can use the slide holder and the FH-3 film holder. However, you will have to manually reposition for each frame rather than being able to feed 6 at a time. I've never had a problem with the motorized feed. </li>

<li>I prefer the Epson for B&W. In practice, there seems to be little or no benefit going over 2400dpi with this scanner. Be careful using it's non-ICE dust & grain tools as they can sometimes produce strange artifacts. If your negatives are curly, get a piece of anti-Newton glass and skip the film holder. If using the film holders, the Epson can scan two strips of 6 at a time: this makes it faster than the IV at some cost in sharpness depending on curl.</li>

<li>The epson with AN-glass can also scan unusual formats like 127, 828, 126, 110, and 16mm full frame and/or 35mm with sprocket holes. You can do 828 & 126 in the Coolscan with the FH3 and some cropping (also 110 with a paper mask and more work.)</li>

<li>If you get an old Coolscan, you will undoubtedly want to clean the internal mirror of dust to limit blooming/ghosting.</li>

<li>The old HP is not quite as good as the others, but not that far behind for B&W. I'm not sure of the current SW support - I have an old Win2k machine for it. The SW is too simple though.</li>

<li>Lies, damn lies, and scanner specifications: don't believe any DPI or dMAX number you see. </li>

<li>If you are particular, it will take time & experimentation to develop a workflow you like. There are too many combinations of techniques and SW and settings. </li>

<li>A simplistic comparison set of (color) comparison images: http://www.pbase.com/maderik/scan I need to update this to add some B&W samples and better color negative conversion. </li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>So, in an effort to take a lot more pictures (but without going digital) I've decided to spend some time shooting only B+W ... I see that I have two options, buying a bottom rung scanner (ie <a rel="nofollow" href="http://cgi.ebay.com.au/35mm-Negative-Film-Slide-Digital-Scanner-for-PC-Mac-NEW_W0QQitemZ280473951850QQcmdZViewItemQQptZAU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories?hash=item414d8cde6a" target="_blank">(link)</a> ) for not a lot of money, or trying to coax my stepmother to 'borrow' my fathers coolscan IV</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's actually a third option: change film format. MF and larger has enough film area that a cheap flatbed scan yields enough pixels for decently large prints.</p>

<p>The Nikon IV and 4000 are good performers. The problem is finding one that doesn't blow the bank account. With the recent discontinuation of the Nikon 5000, prices of dedicated 135 format scanners seemingly haven risen to astronomical and perhaps irrational levels.</p>

<p>I use a Nikon 5000. It essentially has twice the linear resolution of consumer flatbed scanners. 6x7 MF, however, is about twice as large linearly as 135 film. A 6x7 frame scanned on a $50USD refurbished Epson V500 yields a real 20MP file. Considering only the resolution aspect of things, this is on par with what the Nikon small format scanners can provide (and only when with images shot on high resolution film emulsions.)</p>

<p>MF photographs have a different look, obviously. However, I do believe that the MF system and cheap flatbed combination is the new sweet spot for film aficionados. If you are interested in going this route, start the perusal at the Mamiya RB-67 system. A complete kit (RB-67 Pro-S, 90mm lens and film back) is about $300 USD.</p>

<p>Thanks for the good advice guys. Currently I'm thinking there is no reason not to try and 'procure' the coolscan... except maybe this:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I love the Coolscan for color & c41 B&W, don't use it for conventional B&W. The highly collimated light source will outline every dust particle and surface defect. Unless you are meticulous about cleanliness, it's a royal PITA to spot all this stuff out. Grain is also enhanced (which may be good or bad depending on what you like.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it a really serious issue? Would you happen to have an example shot? And if I ventured away from the stock software and used something to automatically clean problem negatives (I think epsons ship with something called silverfast?) would I get a good result?</p>

 

<p>No, it's not a serious issue <em>given that you develop B&W material yourself</em> . Of course, dragging the strip of film on the floor on the way to your scanner doesn't count.</p>

<p>The automatic dust removal feature (ICE) uses an infrared light channel to detect dust and scratches on the film. This doesn't work with traditional B&W emulsions at all, regardless of whose software. So the best way to defeat having to dust is to not get dust on the film.</p>

I use a Minolta Dimage Elite II, which is the Minolta-equivalent of the Coolscan IV (my father has a Coolscan V, by the way, which is also great), and I get great B&W scans out of it.

 

One tip: Invest in Vuescan, the auto-contrast/exposure of that software will save you a LOT of time compared to the supplied software.

 

For info, I use it with Neopan 400, which I develop myself. Dust and scratches are no problem, provided you handle the negs with care, and blow them clean with a bulb blower before inserting them in the scanner.

<p>Maybe I'm just a slob. Here is a worst case example: from TMAX-400 from a Canon Dial 35 1/2 frame camera. Coolscan IV on the left @ 2900 DPI, Epson on the right @ 2400 dpi. Screen capture of 100% crops. Notice the difference of the outline of lint mark by the "No trespassing" sign. To me it's similar to the difference between a condenser and diffuser on an enlarger.</p><div></div>

<p>Let me summarize: the Coolscan IV is worthy. However,<em> if you are primarily interested in scanning 35mm B&W</em> <strong>and </strong>you were given the choice between the Coolscan and the Epson forsimilar prices, <em>my</em> advice would be the Epson. The minor theoretical resolution advantage of the Coolscan is more than offset by the format flexibility and less collimated light source of the Epson. For color, my opinion is reversed: the exposure, ICE, and color recovery options on the Coolscan are noticeably better. As with everything, YMMV depending on taste and workflow.</p>

<p>What software were you using? The Nikon software isn't known for being great with B&W, try a trial copy of Vuescan.</p>

<p>I did prefix my first comment with "based on using only the vendor SW". Trying Vuescan again and some downstream processing are on the "todo" list but I've got a decent workflow on the Epson and need it for larger than 35mm anyway. (Using AN glass to flatten the negatives helps the Epson resolution vs. the Nikon. That's what changed my opinion on the Epson.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let me summarize: the Coolscan IV is worthy. However,<em> if you are primarily interested in scanning 35mm B&W</em> <strong>and </strong>you were given the choice between the Coolscan and the Epson forsimilar prices, <em>my</em> advice would be the Epson. The minor theoretical resolution advantage of the Coolscan is more than offset by the format flexibility and less collimated light source of the Epson. For color, my opinion is reversed: the exposure, ICE, and color recovery options on the Coolscan are noticeably better. As with everything, YMMV depending on taste and workflow.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't disagree more... a true 35mm dedicated scanner such as the Nikon CoolScan models will beat any and all flatbed scanners made by anyone for quality. Dust is never a problem with my B&W film 35mm scanning because I am very careful about keeping dust off my negatives, and I develop my own film too. I think the dust issue is way over-rated here. Also, my Nikon CoolScan 5000ED treats grain very nicely; it renders into the computer file very well, very beautiful. And in fact a lot of my Super-X ISO 100 and Tri-X ISO 400 scans nearly grain free.</p>

<p>This picture is Tri-X ISO 400 35mm shot with a fisheye...the grain looks wonderful, not too much and not too little...scanned on my Nikon Super CoolScan 5000 ED and frankly a flat bed cannot give you this quality:</p>

<p>Flat bed scanners will never outdo any dedicated 35mm film scanner...now if you want to go medium or large format, then yes a flatbed scanner can work well.</p><div></div>

<p>Lex:<br>

What film do you mostly use when your intention is to scan and print after development? </p>

<p>Lex:<br>

What film do you mostly use when your intention is to scan and print after development? </p>

<p>Bruce, (I know I'm not Lex) but just want to say that what is more important for scanning is how the film is exposed and developed, more then the type of film. Now you could scan with C-41 B&W, but you lose the look of film and grain...although with C-41 B&W you can use ICE to de-speckle the negatives, however if you use traditional B&W film and are very careful to keep them clean, dust should never be a problem.</p>

<p>I'm sure Lex will have an excellent, if not better answer....</p><div></div>

<p>Bruce, the best "true" b&w film I've personally tried for scanning is T-Max 100. It scans about as easily as C-41 process monochrome films like Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak 400Whateverthey'recallingitthisweekCN. It's been easy to scan the negatives to approximate the look of my prints from TMX - well, other than the artful dodging, burning, etc. And no exaggerated grain.</p>

<p>TMY scans pretty well too, even when I've pushed the dickens out of the stuff. In fact, I've gotten better results scanning TMY pushed to 6400 (ridiculous, I know) than trying to enlarge those ghostly thin negs conventionally. And, again, no problems with exaggerated grain.</p>

<p>Grain is usually what defies getting satisfactory results from scanning Tri-X and most other films I've tried. I love Tri-X but it's not quite as well suited to scanning as TMX and TMY. Like many b&w films when scanned it tends to produce odd looking, unappealing chunkiness where there should be smooth gradation.</p>

<p>There may be other more modern "thin" emulsion films, such as Neopan or Acros, that are equally well suited to scanning but I haven't tried 'em. I bought some Fuji films several years ago and never got around to trying 'em out. I was content with the results I was getting from TMX, TMY, Tri-X and Delta 3200 and pretty much gave up experimenting around 2005.</p>

<p>And these were all with an early Minolta Dimage Scan Dual. I'm planning to acquire a Nikon Coolscan while they're still available, so we'll see whether the Nikon exposes flaws in my technique and/or opinions - the latter is always subject to change at whim.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't disagree more... a true 35mm dedicated scanner such as the Nikon CoolScan models will beat any and all flatbed scanners made by anyone for quality. [...] my Nikon CoolScan 5000ED treats grain very nicely</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Coolscan 5000 is both a newer and a higher end model than the IV -- much less the Epson. (My Epson was $150 - what was the cost of the 5000ED?). I'm just expressing my experience: I bought a CoolScan IV shortly after it came out 8+ years ago and have used it for thousand of scans of color & B&W. Just two months after getting the Epson, I switched to using it all my B&W. But I freely admit that others may have different experiences. Since the OP is trying to minimize expenditures, the Epson is likely much better than the cheapie he linked to. Is it better than a free Coolscan IV? No. Is it better than a $350 IV? I think so for B&W. And with the cost difference, you can buy a used 6x6 TLR and perhaps go even better than the 5000ED scanning 35mm.</p>

<p>I don't have an 8 year old Nikon but I do have an 8 year old Minolta. It was $80 on Craigslist. I also have a V500, and I've compared them side by side and with B&W and Vuescan the Epson makes scans I'd print at 5x7 and one of the Minolta scans I printed at close to 13x19 is on my wall. I can't imagine the Nikon is worse than the Minolta, since at the time it was much better...</p>

<p>Erik, looking at your comparison image I think the Nikon scan is much better. Look at the detail in the door boards.</p>

<p>I just upgraded to a 6-year-old Minolta for $75 on Craigslist, now given how nuts the people on Ebay have become about film scanners I'm curious what the older one will go for, when I post it with the caveats that it needs cleaning and gets tired and needs to be rested after each roll :)</p>

<p>You do realize that looking at a 2400 dpi image on a 100dpi monitor means you are looking at a 24x enlargement. That's a lot from half-frame 35mm. As to whether the Nikon is /much/ better, you and I seem to have different thresholds of /much/. The Nikon does give a little more detail in the center but the sharpness also falls off to the edges (that's because of the flatness advantage from the AN glass I use with the Epson.) But if you'd like, contact me offline and we can do a print exchange - I'll make you some 13x19" images scanned with my Epson & Nikon scanners and we'll see if you can tell which scanner made which prints. You can do the same with your Minolta/Epson and send them to me. Perhaps we'll both learn something.</p>

<p>Erik, I suspect the fall off at the edges is more from the lens and not the scanner. The CoolScan V is a fantastic machine.</p>

<p>And although our screens are 72 or 100 dpi, at 100% viewing one can still see the quality of a scan. I realize the 8 bit jpgs will show blocking and other artifacts that are not in the full resolutioned file, 100% online viewing can still be telling. Of course the best way to compare is from a print made by a printer that can handle 16 bit graduations.</p>

<p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Erik, I suspect the fall off at the edges is more from the lens and not the scanner.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Except I'm referring to the same negative and only the scanners are different.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The CoolScan V is a fantastic machine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, it is. So is the older Coolscan IV although possibly somewhat less so. I just like the Epson better for B&W. It could be my workflow or my personal tastes.</p>

<p>Rather than a print exchange, how about a negative exchange instead (much less postage.) Who ever wishes to participate sends me a conventional B&W negative strip (something from a test roll, nothing valuable, newspaper shots even) and I'll send them one of mine. We'll each have scanned our negatives and now we will scan the other persons. Then we can compare results directly (and return the negatives if requested.) If we have 3 or more who want to do this, we can do it as a circle. </p>

 

</p>