Can you get full frame 6x6 scans from Nikon 8000/9000

[ben_grisso]

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I shoot medium format (6x6) B+W negs, and I'm trying to figure out how to get full frame scans of my negs. I've read different things online, including here, but wasn't able to find definite answers.<br>

Can I get full frame scans on the Nikon 8000/9000 using the FH-869G or FH-869GR ? Is one or the other better in regards to full frame? I'm not doing a lot of volume, and don't mind working slowly one frame at a time, getting the quality and full frame is more important to me than speed.<br>

I usually shoot multiple exposures and so my neg density is often not optimal. This seems to further aggravate flare issues around the clear edges of the film on the 9000 (particularly if the negs are pretty dense).<br>

I don't have one myself but I have paid for someone to scan them on a 9000, and they were not able to get full frame. I don't know what film holder they were using, or if they just didn't have the skill or if it wasn't possible.<br>

If it can't be done on the 8000/9000, is there else comparable to consider?<br>

I used to have a 5000 and we modified the neg carrier (grinding it out) to make it scan full frame, and it works quite well for 35mm. If the 8000/9000 doesn't work for full frame on 6x6 out of the box, maybe there is a mod that would work?<br>

Any feedback is much appreciated.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>Multiple film formats (120/220, 35mm, etc.)....And, the 8000 will do 16mm film.</p>

<p>Pasted from Nikon site - 8000/9000</p>

<p>Les</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

You can. Full frame 6x6 with some rebate along all edges.<br><br><img src="http://www.qnu.nl/foto/manas/images/MNS1.jpg">

[ben_grisso]

<p>thx for the example. What neg carrier are you using to get rebate on all 4 sides? Can it be done with the stock carrier or does it require the 869?<br>

Is there any way to fix the "fogging" that appears around the outside edge, I have been experiencing that as well.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>The entire frame is visible in the B-896G (non-rotating) glass holder, but the standard holder may crop the image slightly. The glassless holder grips the edges and moves slightly to stretch the film flat. The glass holder* comes with masks for various formats, coded to limit the amount of overscan. I put the film emulsion side down with the mask on bottom, and a small strip of tape (provided) on the upper glass to prevent contact by the shiny (and usually convex) back of the film. With this setup, Newton's Rings are not a problem.</p>

<p>I never found a need for the rotating holder. The glass has enough space (about 0.5 mm) that the film can move. Once closed, I tap the holder to align the film with the mask and frame dividers.<br /> <br>

The strip feeder in the 5000 does not crop the frame, however the 3+3 holder does crop a little. The only time I needed that was when the camera shop returned film cut into onesies and twosies. (I always requested the film uncut, but some people have short memories.)</p>

<p>* Only the upper glass has A-N treatment (light frosting). The lower glass is clear, with an anti-reflective coating. Even A-N glass will show Newton's Rings if the film is in direct contact, hence the tape strip spacer.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ben, the fogging along the outside edge in my example image is not produced by the scanner at all, but in post.<br>The standard, glassless stretch type holder can also scan with a rebate along the sides. It depends on how far you move the clamping side out. Whether you can do that without the film bulging too much depends on things like humidity.<br>The glass holder works much better. No bulging film and associated unsharp zones. And rebates all around. But also more dust and Newton rings. And the tapping edward mentioned appears to be part of the standard operating procedure.<br>The strip holder is fine. I wouldn't know why one would need the rotating, single frame holder.

[ben_grisso]

<p>OK, thx again for the info. I don't know why the person who scanned my negs was not able to do this, even with detailed instructions from me about what exactly I wanted and which neg carrier to use. Clearly I need to get in front of the scanner myself and see what is going on. I will try to get some time on a friends to test. Unfortunately neither of them have the glass carrier, so it sounds like I need to purchase that in order to test. And they are not cheap. Is ebay the best source at this point?</p>

[ben_grisso]

<p>in terms of purchasing a glass carrier, it sounds like the non rotating version is actually the preferred version for most people?<br>

at the moment I am only see the rotating (GR) version for sale on ebay, will keep looking.<br>

<br />Also, if I end up purchasing an 8000 or 9000 scanner, what are the major differences between the two in terms of scanning B+W 6x6 negs?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ben, I can't even remember what the differences between 8000 and 9000 are (they are few and not big), but i do know that you don't notice any using both, and that the image quality, the end result of the scanning proces, is the same.<br><br>I wouldn't spend money on a glass holder just for a test. The standard holder supplied with the machines will do fine. Though should you decide to start using one of these scanners i would certainly recommend getting one.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ben, a strip of film in the standard, stretch-to-flatten type holder.<br><br><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17954223-lg.jpg"><br><br>It may take a couple of tries to get the strip straight and such (it's the same when using the glass holders. Using the tapping technique Edward mentioned, it's a bit easier then (tapping vs releasing the clamps etc.)). <br>But yes, it can be done using the standard holder too.<br><br>P.S.<br>I dug out this holder for this demo-photo, and now i used it again i once again feel a strong urge to recommend getting the glass holder should you decide to get a 8000 or 9000.

[sfcole]

<p>"Also, if I end up purchasing an 8000 or 9000 scanner, what are the major differences between the two in terms of scanning B+W 6x6 negs?"<br>

The 8000 must be used in "fine" mode or you'll probably get some banding. I believe you don't in the 9000, so it's mostly a matter of speed.<br>

<br>

You didn't say what camera you're using, which could make a difference. A Hasselblad frame will work, but a Mamiya 6 frame is bigger, so it's harder to get the whole frame. Also, you have to be careful about exposure, because that black frame may cause the software to incorrectly expose.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

There indeed was much talk about banding, and it really happened. But i have yet to experience it. I have never seen it in the many years i have been using an 8000.<br>So you just scan in any mode you want using an 8000, and only switch to fine mode when you do see that banding issue in your scan.<br>The 9000 is a little bit faster even so. But compared to the long time it takes to scan using either (or both: using two machines speeds up things considerably), the difference really makes no difference.

[ben_grisso]

<p>I am using a Rollie integral 2 (SLR).<br>

<br />Was there ever banding on the 9000? I think I did see some banding in some of my scans, they said they were using a 9000 but it's possible they were using an 8000.<br>

and yes, the exposure/flare/fogging issue around the clear edge is something I have definitely experienced, especially with some of my multiple exposure dense negs. I guess there's not much that can be done about that?</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The banding thing was caused by the 8000 apparently only calibrating one of the three scan elements. The way round it, should one or two of the others not agree with the calibrated one, causing banding, is to switch to single element. No more banding, but cosiderably slower scans. The 9000 does calibrate all three, so the banding problem due to that single element calibration cannot occur.<br>Still, how long does the 8000 exist now? In all that time never had a banding problem.<br><br>To avoid fogging you have to mask the film, place opaque strips in the space between frames. I have seen fogging, but that was always due to the film strip not abutting the top of the holder, so light can get past the film there. Slide the strip up and that fogging is gone. The larger gaps between the frames could also cause problems. The tiny clear areas on the left and right sides of the frame are too small to cause a problem. That's why Nikon supplied masking material with their scanners i guess. (Another reason to get a glass holder: try putting masks over the gaps in the standard holder...)<br>Another cause for fogging could be dust or dirt in the optical path of the scanner. A through cleaning job will solve that.

[User_1577653]

<p>Unfortunately, I can say with certainty that at least <em>some</em> 9000's exhibit this banding problem. Mine does. If anyone is interested I can post samples of this banding, but the bottom line is that I have to use super fine mode in order to avoid banding anytime I am scanning at full resolution, just like users of the 8000.</p>

<p>Curiously though, this fogging problem people talk about is something I don't think I have ever seen! I mostly use a glass-modified standard holder now, for which I never add any masking - not rebate areas or even the empty area past the end of the strip. Yet no apparent fogging, darker/lighter lines along edges, or anything like that. So I guess I'm lucky for that at least. :)</p>

[ben_grisso]

<p>Here are a few examples of why I started this thread. First, a friend who has a 9000 (but only the strip carrier, not glass) did a test for me and this is what he got:</p>

<p><img src="http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k512/b_grisso/Ben_frame12_zpsze3sapyk.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="501" /><br>

the above image is not full frame, and shows the "fogging/flare" issue I am talking about. Why he was not able to get full frame scans with the strip carrier is not clear to me since other people in this thread have stated it is possible.<br>

<br />Next I hired a company to scan my film who said they would use the 869G (glass carrier) and could get full frame scans. But they were not able to get full frame scans (usually 2 or three edges, but never all four) and show the same flare issue. Out of the 12 rolls they scanned, this issue appeared on many frames. Here is is...<br>

<img src="http://i1113.photobucket.com/albums/k512/b_grisso/bmn_r13ak7u7fxm0012_zpshb71t7ru.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p>Again, why they were not able to get full frame is not clear to me since other people in this thread have stated it is possible with both the 869 strip and 869 glass carrier. And again, the flare issue I was hoping/assuming could be solved with masking that allowed only the smallest sliver of black to show, but I suspect even that would still cause some amount of flare.<br>

At this point, because I have never used the scanner myself and am getting conflicting info, I feel like I'm going to have to purchase a 9000 scanner and 869glass carrier and resolve this issue for myself.<br>

ongoing feedback is much appreciated.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The flare along the top and bottom edge of the last image is typical for light getting to the scan element, i.e. would be better if maskes were used. Notice how it is on all three sides were the clear part longside the negative is included, but not on the right where they didn't get the clear part 'in the frame'.<br>In my experience, this isn't such a big problem as present here, and could perhaps point to a dirty scan element or other part in the optical path in need of cleaning.<br><br>Scott has a point when he mentioned that not all 6x6 frames are created equal and some are bigger than others. Maybe that is why you don't get the edge along all sides. (That, or not taking time to align the negative so that the edge shows on all four sides. There is plenty on the left in the second image and with a bit less there maybe the edge would show up on the right side too?)

[sfcole]

<p>"Again, why they were not able to get full frame is not clear to me since other people in this thread have stated it is possible with both the 869 strip and 869 glass carrier."<br>

You still haven't said what camera you use, because there is a difference is frame size. Most are NOT actually 6x6, but some are bigger and some are smaller. Also, it takes some amount of time-consuming tweaking to get the frame just right to get the edge all the way around. As I've said before, the Nikon glass carrier is overpriced and not necessary. If you use the standard carrier and a $30 piece of ANR glass you will be better off. You can tweak the position of the neg to get the edges, as long as the image isn't too large.</p><div></div>

[sfcole]

<p>Note in the previous that the ANR glass fits perfectly. The tape is so it won't move during scanning. Next to the holder are the grippers that are easily removed. They are no longer necessary. Note also that the film will now be flatter. Below is an example of a smaller frame size that works well for scanning: A Bronica. The Bronica S2 had the smallest frame size of the MF cameras I've had so it was never a problem getting the whole thing in. The Hasselblad is next biggest and usually works, and the Mamiya is the largest and will not.</p><div></div>

[ben_grisso]

<p>Hi Scott and QG,<br>

thx for the ongoing feedback. I mentioned in an earlier post, that I am using a Rollie Integral 2 (SLR).<br>

Scott, do you have any take on the flare issue on the examples I posted? Also do you have any thoughts between the 8000 and 9000, I will probably purchase one soon.<br>

<br />Good points about using the standard carrier, although most people I have read online express that the negs must be sandwiched between two pieces of glass to get maximum flatness and therefore sharpness. In your mod on the standard carrier, is there one piece of glass or two? I've never handled the carriers before, so not very familiar with them.</p>

[User_1577653]

<p>Les wrote:</p>

<blockquote>That is unfortunate Jeff. Did you get a chance to have that banding fixed while under warrant? Was that something that developed over time?</blockquote>

<p>Oh heck no - I bought the scanner used (and long after the warranty expired anyway)! But as far as I recall it had banding from the start. Banding with the 9000 is apparently less common than for the 8000 (the problem was supposed to have been solved in the 9000), but it does happen and I have heard of at least a couple others that have experienced it. In any event I hope no one will construe my comments as denigrating the scanner. I enjoy mine a lot and can highly recommend it!</p>

<p>Ben, the images you posted tell the story I think. This kind of flare is almost certainly due to dusty/dirty optics in the scanner, which for the 8000/9000 usually means the fold mirror in the middle of the light path. It is a rather common issue for scanners in general, and you will find a fair amount of material written about it online. It is possible to clean the 8000/9000, and in many cases it can make for a huge improvement.</p>

<p>Back to the question of scanning the full frame (including some rebate area), I think the comments above about frame size are probably the answer. The image sizes produced by different 6x6 cameras vary somewhat, and it may just be that yours are on the large end of that scale, at or near the limit of what the holders can accommodate. One thing that is curious though is the first image you posted – are you sure that wasn’t scanned with the rotating glass holder? I only ask because it looks just like what I remember you would get from the masks that are used with that holder. Specifically, the dark rectangle at the top due to the open notch in all of the masks.</p>

<p>I'm not sure which is the most popular of the medium format holders, but if you end up trying to purchase one separately, you will find that the rotating glass holder (FH-869GR) is crazy expensive (if you can find one for sale at all), and the "regular" glass holder (FH-869G) only a little less so. If you want a glass holder, the most economical route is probably to upgrade the standard holder (FH-869S) by purchasing glass from <a href="http://fpointinc.com/nikon.htm">Focal Point</a> and installing it into the standard holder.</p>

<p> </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Scott, thanks for the follow-up on using glass in the glassless holder.<br>Just wondering: you haven't noticed any problems due to using AN glass - slightly frosted glass - between film and scan element? Nikon only uses it on top, between light and film, and has plain glass below in their glas holder.

[sfcole]

<p>Ben,<br>

I have had the flare issue occasionally, usually when there is a light area such as sky. Apparently there is some kind of spillover from the light source or something. I wonder if these were really designed with getting the frame in to begin with. I suspect not, and it seems to be a fairly recent aesthetic. If you go back in history, most photographers don't include the frame. Perhaps we film photographers now have the need to tell the world "hey, it's film!"<br>

Masking off is probably the best answer for a critical scan. I doubt two pieces of glass would help with flatness, and anyway there's not room. Something might catch upon insertion. I don't think it's necessary, though--I just make sure my negatives are flat to begin with. I don't scan them immediately after development but flatten them in a book or something.<br>

So far I don't remember any difference in sharpness with the ANR glass on top or flipped over (versus none at all). As far as 8000 vs 9000, I'd probably get the newer 9000, but it's like 3 times more expensive. Maybe if I were using it day-in and day-out and wanted faster scans and it would pay for itself...So far everything I've read has suggested that there is no difference in image quality, only speed.</p>

[User_1577653]

<p>By the way Scott, I can't stop staring at your picture of the horses. Super composition and a beautiful image!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Thanks for the info, Scott.