Getting the best performance from Super Coolscan 9000 ED

[tomsperduto]

I recently purchased a Nikon Super Coolscan 9000 ED. My initial 6x7 scans (scanned at

default factory settings) looked wonderful. However, when I attempted to scan some

35mm wedding negs they looked horrible, very, very grainy. They looked like a very bad

flatbed scan. Prints from the neg look great so I know it's the scanner not the shot. I spent

the day searching online and trying different settings but could not

get the 35mm scans to look good. I find the manual to be very limited.

Has anyone else had this problem scanning 35mm negs with the Cool scan 9000 ED and

found a solution?

I purchased the FH-869GR with glass holder for my 6x7 negs and noticed when I placed

my negs in the scanner it reads as 6x9 negs. Should they be reading as 6x7 or is 6x9 by

the default for this holder?

I was also hoping to find some online resources on the 9000 but find they are very limited.

I did find a Coolscan 9000 Yahoo Group but limited members and even 0 responses.

[eric friedemann]

"I purchased the FH-869GR with glass holder for my 6x7 negs and noticed when I placed my negs in the scanner it reads as 6x9 negs. Should they be reading as 6x7 or is 6x9 by the default for this holder?"

 

 

You have been provided with a set of size-specific masks for different sizes of film:

 

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=233914&is=REG

 

 

The masks have coded cut-outs at the end that tell the scanner what size film you are trying to scan, not unlike DX film coding. Are you using the 6x7cm mask with your 6x7cm film?

 

 

To put a finer point on it, you cannot scan into a film's borders on a Nikon scanner without totally screwing up the scanner's exposure and color balance. You must mask off all film borders.

 

 

"I find the manual to be very limited."

 

 

You, sir, are The Master of Understatement. Nikon provides no useful instruction whatsoever with its scanners. You basically have to guess what each feature does, and a number of the scanner's features are not intuitive.

[Ed_Ingold]

I have a Nikon LS-8000, which is comparable in most respects to the LS-9000, and produces high-quality scans from both 35mm and 6x6 negatives. 35mm scans are as sharp as with my LS-4000, but with fewer problems with scratches and dust owing to the more diffuse light source. If you have a problem, it is with your negatives or, more likely, the way in which you operate the LS-9000.

 

Commercial prints are not necessarily a good indication of the quality of the negative. If you do your own printing, you learn to read the quality of the negatives, but most people are isolated from that step. A Fuji Frontier operator has a lot of choices in scanning the negative, and several tools to reduce grain and noise and "liven" up the print without your knowledge.

 

As noted above, you MUST use correct mask with the GR holder. The mask is coded, whereas other holders are coded directly, for recognition by the scanner.

 

Excessive grain can result from several conditions: underexposure, excessive sharpening, or low resolution. Flatbed scanners do not have enough resolution to show grain, but the LS-9000 does. Even so, I only notice grain in NPH400 or faster film, but there are aliasing effects with Reala which can be mistaken for "grain."

 

Sharpening should generally be done in post-processing, and as the last step after resizing an image for printing. With negative film, it is a good practice to mask open sky before sharpening, because grain is particularly noticeable in open sky.

 

The resolution in NikonScan is given for the output size. You can achieve the maximum resolution simply by setting a high number, which will appear in red. When you move to another field, the resolution will default to the maximum optical resolution.

 

It is possible that the texture in the upper, Anti-Newton glass of the holder would show as grain. I have not observed that with 6x6 film using the non-rotating glass holder, which does not accept 35mm film. I scan 35mm with the open holder provided with the kit. You might try that to see if the A/N glass is at fault.

 

It would help if you could post a image showing the problems you describe.

[joshua daniels]

I have a Coolscan V and when first starting to work with I was appalled by the grain. Doing some reading, I discovered that this is pretty common for the Coolscans, because of the LED light source. You do get very sharp scans though, right down to the grain edges - which really stand out!

 

The solution? Use a small to moderate GEM setting (try 2 at first). I find that this does the trick.

[tomsperduto]

Here's an example of a poor scan. I have had some limited success tweaking the GEM

setting.

As for the FH-869GR glass holder, I am using the appropriate mask and it is still reading

as 6x9.

Thanks for all the feedback.<div></div>

[tomsperduto]

Well ... I did finally found the 6x7 Mask. Things are looking up.<div></div>

[Ed_Ingold]

The picture looks underexposed, especially evident in the dark jacket. What may have happened is that the camera is disproportionately affected by the white of the bride's gown, causing underexposure. At the same time, the scanner sees all that black and boosts the "exposure" to pull detail out of the basement. The saturation level is low, also a symptom of underexposure.

 

For now, I'd suggest opening up a preview, and work with the levels to get control of the mid-range, so that R, G and B all are reasonably centered, then fine-tune the red/blue balance.

 

This shot represents a surprisingly difficult exposure situation, and a pretty common situation at that. The best solution I've found is to get some background illumination, by pulling the shutter, or by putting a monolight on a pole in a corner of the room with a radio trigger.

 

What you want is an ideal density in the flesh tones, letting the white and black fall where they may. How does the negative look to you, especially in the facial areas (compared to those in more balanced lighting situations)?

 

Here, I've tweaked the r/b balance, and used the (pathetic) de-speckling tool in Photoshop. Noise Ninja is probably a better product for reducing the grain.

[Ed_Ingold]

If my corrections seem over the top, I used a laptop rather than my calibrated CRT. Overconfidence in toys is a hazard. Color balance was a side issue in any extent, other than is possible origin.

[tomsperduto]

Edward - Thanks for the useful info. The negative looks OK to me. Also, the print I had done from my lab looks great. I purchased the 9000 so I did not have to use the lab all the time when I shoot film.

Based on what your saying, it looks like I may have to use the lab for those pics with tricky exposures.