B&W scans with Nikon coolscan V ED

[mehmetsaygin]

Hello,

 

After a long money saving and thinking period, I decided to buy a

Nikon coolscan V ED.It costs $1000 here and this is big money, so I

want to hear last few words about it, just to feel safer :)

 

I am only shooting B&W 35mm film, Trix400 mostly. I get 12*18 prints.

 

Sometimes, I read complaints about monochrome scans with V ED, what

are your experiences?

 

And it is written that DigitalICE is not recommended with monochrome

scans, what are your experiences?

 

Thank you for your time to answer this "many-times-asked" question.

[walterh]

Mehmet congratulations to your new toy. Yes it is completely illegal to use ICE with monocrome film ^^

 

If nobody looks - nobody can tell - and you will not go to jail. If you use BW film based on silver grain ICE will generally not work. If you shoot BW film based on C41 process you can use ICE and Nikon ICE is very good. If you shoot new film and develop you will not need ICE because film is clean and has no scratches ( at least should). If you want to scan older BW film with dust and scratches get a graphic tablett for retouching.

[emre]

It is not a matter of recommendation; ICE simply does not work with silver halide B&W film! For this reason, I always used XP2, which scans beautifully (see my portfolio).

[timothy_nelson]

If you are printing from scans, you can also consider color negative as source material, not

just C41 B&W negatives. Many ways to convert to B&W, including the option of virtual

filtering. I have 30 years-worth of TriX negs that I also scan, but it's a pleasure by

comparison to scan the C41 material, because the IR scratch and dust elimination works

so well. Not so with the conventional silver negs. Fujicolor NPH looks a lot like TriX when

converted, at least to me.

[websterforrest]

I find the V ED is lousy at some films, such as Fuji Neopan Acros, which is unfortunately my favourite film. I get the same bad results with with T-Max (which like Acros is a 'T-Grain' film). With 'traditional non-T-Grain Black and White' films on the other hand, such as Delta 100 etc., the scanner does a better job. It's harder to get these now though. With Fuji Neopan 400CN (or Ilford XP2) C-41 B&W films it's fantastic - because they're color film with all the colours coloured black(-ish). Remember that the C-41 B&W films are radically different from actual B&W film - it's monochromatic dye, not silver oxide, that's making your pictures. This means the grain looks very different (they are tiny clouds, rather than tiny specks) - you may or may not like how it looks.

 

My advice is to start to like it!

 

Like colour negative film, the C-41 B&W films may fade over the scale of decades (so start scanning!) Real B&W film doesn't fade for something like over 100 years (I'll be dead by then anyway).

 

At the end of the day, it's a great scanner, and to get the most out of it, you really have to use a C-41 film, either colour or pseudo-black and white. (I leave slide films out for the time being...) That way as well, if your three year old decides to make a fence for his sand-castle with strips of your beloved negatives and invite all the kids in the neighbourhood to jump up and down on them in the sand, all you have to do is give it a bath and let the ICE do the rest!

 

Webster

[stevoi]

I own the coolscan and i think this is not a good choice for your need. The coolscan use LED as lightsource and this bring out grain much more than other scanners. While the coolscan is in my opinion the best scanner (sharpness, speed) for fine grained films like Fuji Provia or Velvia or Astia in his segment, film with grain like 400 iso color negativ and particularly all BW Films with little or more grain scan not really good. I think the coolscan is the worst choice for your Trix negatives and too bad about your money.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

Using the 4000ED and scanning a range of ONLY B&W film. Infrared (ICE) and silver dont mix so spoting marks off after the scan is a pain but again I prefer the medium (...its a choice).

 

As far as the results go, I find they are excellent (using Vuescan, all options off) and never find a need to use any grain reduction software. The only caveat I'd make is dont expect "good" B&W out of the scanner - its usually rather tonally flat but thats easily adjusted in PS. I use one Vuescan profile for all B&W film and it seems to work.

 

However, when the tonality is just not there in your neg, forcing the contrast in software much more than how you exposed and developed WILL begin to produce obvious and unattractive grain ...but thats not the scanner!

[mehmetsaygin]

Thank you all for your answers.

 

I first decided to get a Epson 2870 flatbed, after all the negative comments, I searched more and came with the V ED and just before buying it, I am at the starting point again.

Your answers are not much motivating :)

 

I like the feel of TriX, like to develop my film and never think of using a C41 B&W film, so we can pass this option at the moment.

 

Since I will not use ICE and other options because I will keep using silver based film, it is not important to buy a scanner that has the latest software.

 

So, what do you recommend, which scanner is a good choice for me, to scan B&W film, mostly TriX again?

 

Thanks for your interest.

[erik scanhancer]

"So, what do you recommend, which scanner is a good choice for me, to scan B&W film,

mostly TriX again?"

 

The "old" Minolta Elite 5400 is probably the best choice for scanning 35mm B&W

silverbased negative film only. Especially because of the Grain Dissolver. Minolta admits

that the new 5400II (with LED light source) cannot be guaranteed with silverbased films to

work satisfactory.

 

Have a look at my website (www.scanhancer.com) in case you want to know more about

the history of the Scanhancer, that was copied by Minolta into the 5400 under the name

Grain Dissolver.

[johnclinch]

Or how about a dual scan IV. Alot less mainly because it has no ice, which you don't need. My hunch is its better than many flat beds and cheaper.

 

You really need to try a few scanners....

[bobmichaels]

I have to agree with John Clinch. Buy a Scan Dual IV. Then buy 200 rolls of Tri-X and chemistry with the extra money left over. Shoot the 200 rolls of film, scan the best with your lower priced (but 98% as good scanner) and you'll end up with better photos.

 

FWIW, I'd have to say that my old Scan Dual II did 99% as good as job on 35mm b&w negs as my $1,900 MultiPro. But it couldn't do MF which was the only reason I bought the MultiPro.

 

There is no magic camera, no magic lens, no magic film, no magic developer, no magic scanner, or no magic printer. Only your experience and skill that delivers better photos.

[tom_halfhill]

Mehmet, I am looking for a good 35mm b&w film scanner, too. Haven't found one yet.

 

I tested the Nikon CoolScan V with an Ilford Delta 400 Pro negative and compared the results with a darkroom print I made. The Nikon scan was horrible. The LED light source brings out every film grain, scratch, and dust spot. Scratches that were invisible in the sharp darkroom print were so obvious in the CoolScan image that the picture was virtually unusable. It would take an hour's work in Photoshop to clean it up. The CoolScan image was contrasty, too.

 

The apparent problem is the CoolScan LED light source. It is highly collimated light, even worse than a condenser enlarger. I made my darkroom prints with a diffusion enlarger, and it makes a huge difference. If anyone recommends the CoolScan for silver b&w, ask if they have ever printed the same negative with a diffusion enlarger. My guess is they haven't, so they don't know the difference.

 

Some people have recommended the Minolta 5400 Elite (original model, not Elite II) because its light source is diffused. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to test that scanner. Whenever I visit the local camera store, their Minolta 5400 is either jammed with a film holder, or else they can't find the film holder. (I suspect they hide the film holder because it keeps jamming.) This makes me believe the Minolta scanner isn't as well made as Nikon scanners.

 

I did scan my test negative with a Minolta Scan Dual IV. It didn't suffer from the contrast and surface-defect problems of the CoolScan, but the image wasn't as sharp as my darkroom print. So I'm not sure whether to take a chance on the Minolta 5400 or not.

[jack paradise]

"I tested the Nikon CoolScan V with an Ilford Delta 400 Pro negative and compared the results with a darkroom print I made. The Nikon scan was horrible. The LED light source brings out every film grain, scratch, and dust spot. Scratches that were invisible in the sharp darkroom print were so obvious in the CoolScan image that the picture was virtually unusable. It would take an hour's work in Photoshop to clean it up. The CoolScan image was contrasty, too."

 

So you tested the scanner with one negative. That's make you an expert on film scanning.

 

"The apparent problem is the CoolScan LED light source. It is highly collimated light, even worse than a condenser enlarger. I made my darkroom prints with a diffusion enlarger, and it makes a huge difference. If anyone recommends the CoolScan for silver b&w, ask if they have ever printed the same negative with a diffusion enlarger. My guess is they haven't, so they don't know the difference."

 

Thank you for that highly significant scientific report. You know what, it doesnt make one bit of difference. It's all about the quality of the negative. It is this part that you do not seem to understand. Loosy negative make for lousy scans.

 

"Some people have recommended the Minolta 5400 Elite (original model, not Elite II) because its light source is diffused. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to test that scanner. Whenever I visit the local camera store, their Minolta 5400 is either jammed with a film holder, or else they can't find the film holder. (I suspect they hide the film holder because it keeps jamming.)"

 

Have you ever considered going to another store ?

 

 

"I did scan my test negative with a Minolta Scan Dual IV. It didn't suffer from the contrast and surface-defect problems of the CoolScan, but the image wasn't as sharp as my darkroom print. So I'm not sure whether to take a chance on the Minolta 5400 or not."

 

Dont take any chances. Better stay in your darkroom.

[jtk]

Nikon's weakness with B&W films vanishes totally with Vuescan. The problem is Nikonscan, not the scanner. It's a great B&W scanner with Vuescan, and probably with Silverfast as well.

 

If you insist on using Nikonscan for B&W you'll probably get better results if you scan to negative, that is if you scan negative to negative on your monitor. Then invert the scan (keeping everything in TIFF to avoid data loss) and adjust contrast and brightness in Photoshop. That works fine, but Vuescan is better.

 

Minolta's OEM application is better than Nikon's, but many serious Minolta owners use Vuescan as well.

 

This is old news.

 

Djon

[joshua daniels]

After much trial and error, I have found that the Coolscan V will do very nice bw scans IF you a) scan as color negative (black and white mode in the software just does not give a wide tonal scale) and b) use a modest amount of GEM (setting level 2). I compared extensively with Vuescan and results using this method were more consistently satisfying.

[mehmetsaygin]

Thank you all again,

 

It is more clear now, I will go for the Dual Scan IV or Elite 5400, I am reading about their specs now.

It is also hard to find those items here, I just found a dualscan III, still searching for others.

 

It is clear that one of the most important thing is the software but it is better I search about it later when I get the scanner.

 

Best,

[mehmetsaygin]

Thanks Joshua, I noticed your reply after I post.

Actually, I prefer thinking about a Minolta after so much negative responces about the Nikon.Minolta is also cheaper, the Dual scan IV.

I am still in search.

Best,

[tom_halfhill]

My responses to Jack:

 

"So you tested the scanner with one negative. That's make you an expert on film scanning."

 

I have scanned more than 1,500 silver b&w negatives with other scanners, so I am well qualified to judge the quality of a b&w scan. In addition, I have been developing and printing all my own b&w film in the darkroom for more than 30 years. I know good b&w image quality when I see it.

 

"Thank you for that highly significant scientific report. You know what, it doesnt make one bit of difference. It's all about the quality of the negative. It is this part that you do not seem to understand. Loosy negative make for lousy scans."

 

It was not a lousy negative. On the contrary, it was a perfectly exposed and developed negative that made a high-quality b&w darkroom print on #2 paper with no manipulation. I selected this negative specifically because it has wide dynamic range, good contrast, and is very sharp. When I scanned the same negative on an Epson flatbed, the result was superior to the Nikon scan in terms of local contrast, grain, scratches, and dust. Of course, the Epson scan wasn't as sharp, which is to be expected with a flatbed scanner. That's why I'm in the market for a film scanner.

 

"Have you ever considered going to another store?"

 

Yes, but I haven't found another store that allows customers to bring in their own negatives, scan them on the store's equipment, save the files on removable media, and bring the files home for analysis. Other stores usually just have the scanners in boxes.

 

My response to others: Yes, I tested the CoolScan V using only Nikon's software and Nikon's recommended workflow for silver b&w negatives. So my conclusions don't apply to a CoolScan V with VueScan or Silverfast, or to using alternative techniques such as scanning to a negative file and inverting in Photoshop, or scanning as a color negative and desaturating in Photoshop, etc. Even the store that let me test the CoolScan V doesn't have the patience to let me install new software on their computers and experiment with all those different techniques.

 

Rather than gamble nearly a thousand dollars that I can make the CoolScan V work with alternative software and methods, I would rather find a film scanner that produces good b&w scans as advertised, using the standard software and workflow.

[mehmetsaygin]

Thanks Tom,

 

"Rather than gamble nearly a thousand dollars that I can make the CoolScan V work with alternative software and methods, I would rather find a film scanner that produces good b&w scans as advertised, using the standard software and workflow."

 

This is exactly what I am thinking at the moment.

I tried to contact Minolta importers but they were closed for weekend.

I guess I will go for DualScan IV if I can find one here.

Dualscan III is around 550$ here, I wonder how much will they ask for IV :(

[mehmetsaygin]

Thank you all for your help and saving my $500, I ordered the Dual Scan IV today :)

Best,

[mehmetsaygin]

I got the scanner yesterday, I was expecting a huge, metal cased scanner, but a toy come with the cargo :)

First few scans was horrible but I didn't have a chance to spend some time with it yet, I guess I will find the best way to use it.

 

Best,