Coolscan or Epson better for MY needs

[philip_wilson]

<p>The 9000 is actally more than double - i paid $990 for the 5000 and $2200 for the 9000 which I really bought for MF. To scan MF I was another $300 out of pocket as you need one of the Glass holders which is an option. I run 32 bit Vista on one of the Machines but find it very unstable with the scanner. This is likely to be a Vista system not a Nikon issue and maybe due to some other things that run in background on the machine. As an aside the 9000 is marginally better quality than the 5000 but this is only really apparent if I select "super fine scan" which is very slow. </p>

[rsriram]

<p>Damien, you intend to archive your negatives, which means the scans need to be of the highest quality. When I scan for archival, it is not quick or painless. My workflow is pretty much the same as Christopher Hanlon's, with a few additional steps. The exposure in some of my older slides is all over the place. Chris' workflow works if the exposure is consistent. In my case I often have to preview each frame, manually adjust R/G/B gain, colour balance, black/white points, and curve settings for each frame or lock exposure if the preview looks decent, and scan each one.<br>

If you can find a lab that does it for you, think of the time and effort you save.</p>

[mattb1]

<p>Well, I would suggest not getting a scanner. with 2,000 images it is a very good option to have them scanned by a service. For several reasons: First, they have some experience. No matter what there is a steep learning curve with scanning and it will take a long time to learn. You will get 'bad' advice and it will take a while to realize it. Second, they have good equipment. Third, 2,000 images will take a lot of time editing and doing whatever you want with them, such as building a good on-line gallery. IMO your time is better spent in these last two steps which may not get done if you are spending your time on scanning. And lastly your project will get done faster, so you can spend time on taking photos yourself.</p>

<p>IMO if you go the Epson route you will spend 10x the time per image in total scanning and editing. IMO the quality will not be close, you will be limited to what you can do with the scans. IMO the Nikon's quality makes post process work much easier and faster and gets more out of the film. I'd not suggest the Epson route, just my take on them.</p>

[robert lee]

<blockquote>

<p>No matter what there is a steep learning curve with scanning and it will take a long time to learn.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This seems a popular and often repeated sentiment. Scanning (with reasonable equipment) is not hard, nor is there a Himalayan learning curve.</p>

<p>If the project intent really is to archive, meaning to digitize at a high enough quality so that it doesn't matter if the original negatives disintegrate after this effort, then there is little choice but to do the scanning yourself. What you do end up trading off is a couple months of leisure time. The same project at a commercial lab for equivalent quality will exceed the stated monetary budget.</p>

<p>As I've mentioned previously, it is likely that a Nikon 5000 can be resold for basically the purchase price. The Nikon 9000 will have higher throughput for this use case, however, because it simultaneously accommodates two film strips of up to 6 frames. Note that Nikon has already raised prices for this scanner by 10%, to $2200USD. A 9000 bought new few months ago can probably be sold for the same money a few months hence.</p>

<p>As for the scanning workflow, first blow off dust on the negative with a bulb blower. Nikonscan works well on full auto - autoexposure and autofocus. Load up the film carrier / strip feeder and go.</p>

<p>Don't bother with any image adjustments in the scanning software. The goal is to simply capture all there is on the film with the highest possible spatial and tonal resolution. The resulting files are the digital equivalent of the physical negatives. Don't touch it again; work on copies of it for frames of specific interest. A scan might need digital darkroom work before it's nicely printable, but this is independent of the scanning process itself.</p>

[damien_adams]

 

<p >Hi everyone</p>

<p >Ive been following this thread with interest and given all the advice I have opted for a coolscan 5000 as which I managed to pick up 7 months old for £900. This seemed reasonable to me given they are hard to find and generally go for around £1000 on ebay. I did consider the 9000 but rather than $2200 they go for £2300 (almost $3700). Given that the 5000 is discontinued and with no signs of Nikon releasing a new range I believe I should make my money back.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I was considering the import route as BH would deliver the 5000 for £940 ($1500) and the 9000 for £1750 ($2800). I probably would have made my money back on either of these, but usually by the time I get the in-stock email they are already gone and the initial outlay for the 9000 is beyond my means at present.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As for the time and effort, well atm I have the time and as mentioned I think I can take a big chunk out of them before the end of January and I believe I will enjoy the learning process (I’m sure some people are thinking “wait until you start, then you’ll learn!”)</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Now I just have to decide on my work flow. My laptop is reasonable with 3gb of RAM and a core2duo with vista 32, and my desktop has 8gb of RAM and a quad-core q6600, but is currently running vista 64. I'm sure there are many threads about this including those already posted here.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Once again, thank you for all the advice</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Damien</p>

[photozone1]

<p>Hello<br>

If it is not for commercial purpose but just some family archive you want to scan, what do you think of this "cheap" solution ?<br>

<a href="http://www.gentec-intl.com/Default.asp?mode=prd&div_id=&prod_id=DIGISCAN1">http://www.gentec-intl.com/Default.asp?mode=prd&div_id=&prod_id=DIGISCAN1</a> </p>

<p>J.B.P.</p>

 

[roger_smith4]

<p>Jacques, I would avoid that product. If you want similar results get one of the copy stands for your digital camera. Expect poor resolution, poor dmax, no dust cleaning and manual film transport. <br>

Due to these factors I would not consider it for slide scans. I wouldn't consider it for negative scans without serious reservations (if Vuescan doesn't support it, forget it- the quality of scanner software with negative film is important and I'm guessing it doesn't come with anything good).</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Robert - I completely agree with you but I find that (especially with older slides) carefully claning the slide with PEC 12 and a PEC PAD works very well. Obviously touching the emulsion requires care but over the years some of my older slides have got very dusty and here in Alberta the air is very dry so dust doe snot always come off with a blower. PEC 12 is also supposed to reduce the potential for fungus to grow on the emulsion. I got this tip from the guy who does the drum scanning at a local pro store and have found it works very well.</p>

<p>Damien - good luck, scanning is not to hard to learn but interfacing with Vista is beyond my technology level!</p>