A return to film..

[nick_england]

I had bronchitis this week. Still have it, and was laid up in bed for the better

part of 5 days.

 

I'm behind on editing, accounting, preparing for shoots, and I even had to

cancel two shoots, which as a freelancer, sucks.

 

However, it did give me time to think about using my Mamiya RB67 again. I've

been exclusively digital almost two years now with a Canon 1dmk2, but want to

explore a couple of new avenues of photography (interiors and portraits), which

may or may not help diversify from the events driven work I'm doing now. This

time though, I want to use film, and take advantage of the lovely Mamiya glass

and medium format detail that I have sitting redundant in my office.

 

There's a perfectly good developing lab near me that still does E6, film stocks

are good (there's always ordering off the net) but one thing that I'd like to do

myself is my own scanning.

 

Can anyone recommend a good, affordable film scanner? I'd probably look at

budgeting around US$ 2, 000. I read the Nikon 9000 is nice, but quirky. I don't

really know what else is good, bad or ugly, as I haven't needed to scan anything

for years.

 

Any suggestions?

 

Cheers,

 

Nick

[eric friedemann]

Despite the quirks, the Nikon 9000 ED is the best reasonably-priced medium format scanner left on the market. It took me a while to get used to my 8000 ED scanner, but it was still the best value for the money.

 

 

If you weren't going to enlarge over, say, 8x10, you could use a flatbed scanner. However, for serious enlarging, the 9000 ED's 4,000 p.p.i. resolution would be desireable.

[kparratt]

G'day Nick

 

I bought an Epson V700, which although a flatbed, is the best in it's class for film scanning. It takes formats from 35mm up to 8x10 inch. There are many discussions here at photo.net

 

I slight upgrade is the V750, which is still within your budget, leaving a bundle to buy a whole lot more film.

 

Debates over the Epson V series vs dedicated film scanners take on theological dimensions, but it is well established that to get anything significantly 'better' than the Epson, you need to spend a whole lot more, up into the Imacon range.

 

Anyway, load up that Mamiya and have some fun. The bronchitis will hopefully slip into the background until it goes altogether.

 

Keep warm.

 

Kevin.

[Ed_Ingold]

How is the LS-9000 quirky? It is an excellent scanner, and at least twice as sharp as the V700. What's the point of using a medium format camera if the results are no better than 35mm (on a dedicated film scanner)?

 

Be more critical of what you read and consider the source. There are more complaints on the web than praises just as newspapers report mostly bad news.

[nick_england]

Cool it Edward, it was just a comment I read. I admit I know nothing about the Nikon or the other film scanners available at the moment as I've been using digital for the least 2 years. That's why I'm asking.

[mikeseb]

Nick, I'd second the motion for the Nikons, either the 8000 or the 9000. I've used an 8000

for several years with stellar results. The 9000 is reportedly faster, but they are otherwise

quite similar.

 

one caveat: if you are a Mac user running Leopard, there are as yet no Nikon drivers

available for the nikon scanners. They are promised, but with no delivery date announced

as yet. As a workaround on my Mac system, I am in the midst of configuring a dual-boot

with Tiger and Leopard OS's so I can run the scanner under the older OS.

 

There is a Vista driver for the scanners available on the Nikon website (at least in the US.)

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

You may need to be patient if you go the Nikon route - they are out of stock pretty much everywhere.

[erie_patsellis]

Nick, if the end result is a digital file, you may find C41 film scans with less issues regarding blocked highlights or shadows, at least in my experience 160S and 160C are now my films of choice for scanning.

 

 

erie

[Ed_Ingold]

Cool it, Nick! Don't start out with a mistatement of fact then object to the rebuttal.

[mauro_franic]

Here you can compare the Epson V500 vs the Coolscan 9000:

 

(move the mouse over the image and choose "Original" to see at 100%)

 

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4509304_envFS#265754755

[alan_higgins]

Hi mate

 

never really used digital, but welcome back to your roots

[mharris]

I've read that the Nikon is an extremely nice scanner but since film scanning won't be your bread and butter I would look long and hard at the V700 or 750. I bought the 700 and can't be more happy with it.

 

Don't get in a fight over the 9000 with a guy who fails to research what you said:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009sLM

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AyiR

 

It's not worth it, you did your research, he didn't.

[mharris]

forgot to add, I'm in my 6th bed day with pneumonia and jacked up on cold medicines so I feel for you. With the money saved getting the V700/750 you could get the one or two drum scans of the keepers that came up every now and then.

[thomas_janik]

Mauro:

 

Interesting comparison, thanks for posting.

 

Nick:

 

I use a 9000 all the time and find nothing quirky in its operation. The only negative (pun intended) is the standard 120 film holder is useless and Nikon should be ashamed to include it. You must buy an optional glass holder(or build your own from the standard holder)to get sharp scans. Otherwise it's a great scanner and very easy to use.

[ronald_moravec1]

Neg are easier to scan than slides and you get better quality.

 

The real choices are the Nikon, Epson V700 or 750, or a big jump to an Imacon or a drun scanner at 20000 and up.

 

Maybe a digi back for the RB?

[Kent Shafer]

The Nikon 9000 may be better in some ways, but I'm very, very happy with V700 scans from 6x6 transparencies for up to 16x20 inch prints. If you go that route, I highly recommend the betterscanning.com adjustable holder - it makes a big difference.

[ken_hagler]

I have the 9000 and have been quite happy with it (and its non-quirkiness ;-). As noted by Thomas, you'll probably want to get the glass holder for medium format scanning.

 

I would recommend that you just ignore the Nikon software that comes with it and use Vuescan instead.

[charles_hess2]

Another vote for the V700. Edward's comment about the Nikon being "twice as sharp" as the

Epson is a bit silly...if an image is sharp, what exactly is "twice as sharp"?

[rich815]

No doubt you cannot go wrong with a Nikon 9000. I have one and it is a truly phenominal machine. Yes, quirky and fiddly to use but perhaps as best as you can get short of a drum scan (ir if you can find a Leafscan 45). That said though I get tremendous results using my Epson 4990 as well (pre-cursor to the latest V700 and V750). People who categorically state that using a flatbed for your medium format is to get 35mm results are flat wrong. I scan my 35mm with a Nikon 4000 and even with my 4990 my medium format scans have much better tonality and a clear "medium format" look to them.

 

Here are some examples of scans from my Epson 4990 (and with the stock holders too):

 

This one shot with my Fuji GA645 with Fuji Acros:

 

http://www.fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=3829&full=1

 

This one with my Rollei SL66 and 80 Planar lens:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/AlbanymacroBenRolleiSL66180Plana-1.jpg

 

this a 100% crop of the latter one:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/AlbanymacroBenRolleiSL66180PlanarSC.jpg

 

This one, color, taken with my Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar on Fuji Pro 400H:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/BenchinesenewyearparadeSolanoAveAlb.jpg

 

100% crop of the one above:

 

http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/rich815/BenchinesenewyearparadeSolanoAve-1.jpg

 

All print beautifully up to 12'' wide and should do ok larger too (though I have not tried). The Epson's are easier to use and while perhaps you can squeeze a little more sharpness from the negs using the 9000 with proper post scan sharpening you will get most of the way there.

 

Get a 9000 is money is not such a big deal and you indeed want or need the absolute best. But do not hesitate to consider the Epson flatbeds either as only a slight compromise.

[Kent Shafer]

Hard to judge from a small jpeg of course, but here's a scan from a 6x6 Ektachrome.<div></div>

[Kent Shafer]

There's a larger version in my portfolio.

[mharris]

Kent that is a wonderful photo. Beautiful dog.

[mauro_franic]

You are welcomed Thomas.

 

That's a great photo Kent.

 

I have the V500 and the Coolscan 9000.

- For the price you can't beat the Epson.

- Compared to the Coolscan though, shadows lack detail and are noisy.

- The Coolscan captures 3-4 times more detail (the Epson has aprox 40% the resolution in one direction and 60% in the other when compared to the Coolscan.

- The Epson scan is soft and there is a limit on how much you can sharpen depending on print size.

 

Here you can see the difference in detailed captured:

http://shutterclick.smugmug.com/gallery/4073993_xsuVC#252298250

 

(the Epson scan is sharpened as optimally as I could).

[mauro_franic]

PS: As Rich said, a 6x6 or 6x7 scan on the Epson will be far superior in detail to a 35mm on the Coolscan. By Far. And, as a plus, you won't be able to resolve the grain.

[john_elder1]

That shots a dog!