Your words of wisdom when using Nikon 9000 scanner?

ornate_wrasse · 05-04-2010

I just bought a Niikon 9000 scanner. Do any of you who have used this scanner have any words of wisdom you'd like to share before I unbox it and start using it? Any tips or advice based on your experience would be most appreciated. I'm also interested to know whether I should buy the glass carrier for the negatives. I've heard the one provided with the scanner is flimsy and does not hold the film flat enough.

Thanks!

Ellen

Lovesong · 05-04-2010

While I can't speak for the LS 9000 directly, I recently got my hands on a Coolscan 8000, which uses the same carriers as the 9000. The mounted slide and 35mm film strip are OK- they work, the film one is a bit flimsy, but can certainly get the job done.

The 120 holder, on the other hand, is utterly useless. I simply can't believe that a machine that at the time cost some $3k would ship with something like this. Your films, regardless of how straight or flat they may be invariably will bow, and, given the narrow DOF of the Coolscan lens, you will get soft scans. I knew about this issue before I bought the scanner, but I thought I'd test it- trust me, it's ridiculous.

The glass holder is better- I got the G (not the GR-rotating) version, and for the most part, it holds the negatives flat and in the plane of focus. Using the masks takes some getting used to, but once you figure it out, it's not that bad. Still, coming from the 5000, which is really a plug and play scanner, I have found the 8000 to be more of a pain.

Another bit of advice, and I'm sure you'll hear this from others, is to get Vuescan (or Silverfast, if you can afford it). I spent quite a bit of time working with Nikon Scan (on a mac), and found it to be limiting, buggy and rather useless as it would invariably crash as it pleased.

Enjoy your new scanner.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 05-04-2010

Everything Lovesong said is 110% true. I've had my 8000ED for 8 years, and I love it. As Lovesong said, the 120 carrier is less than worthless. You simply MUST buy a glass carrier, non-negotiable. I even use it for 35mm film because the 35 carrier never holds film truly flat for me either. I use Viewscan; on my mac, Nikon Scan crashes constantly. These are great scanners though. Look at my website; virtually everything on it is from film scans with my 8000 (there are also a number of photos from digital cameras, but my work is mostly film, all scanned with the 8000)

historicist · 05-04-2010

You definitely need the glass holder for medium format, but personally I like Nikon Scan. It does sometimes crash or do something weird, but it's pretty rare. Why not try it and see if it works well on your computer before you spend money on something else?

semrich · 05-04-2010

I have both the 5000 and the 9000 and I'll bump the ante on Christopher's percentage. I use the rotating glass carrier with the ANR glass and have scanned 35mm negs that I couldn't get a good scan with on the 5000 that came out beautiful with the 9000.

Armoured · 05-05-2010

Nikon Scan software is worse than useless on a mac - crashes too much.

srtiwari · 05-05-2010

I am able to use Nikon Software on a Mac, and it does NOT crash (Old Power PC, 2.1GHz, 2.5GB RAM). On the other hand, the batchscan feature is no good, as it requires adjusting settings for each frame repeatedly.
I find Vuescan "fiddly", and do not see any improvement over Nikon Scan.
I managed to buy some Anti Newton Glass from a vendor on EBay, for about $24 each. This works ok on the non-glass 120 holder, and may save you $200+ by not needing Nikon's glass carrier.

Jamie123 · 05-05-2010

I'm not sure I would agree with the above posters regarding the regular 120 holder. While it is by far not ideal, I certainly wouldn't say it's 'ridiculous' or 'less than worthless'. You can get very sharp scans with the regular holder. You can get sharper scans with a glass holder.

I got a Nikon 9000 cheaply and didn't want to spend a ton on a glass carrier so I just got two pieces of glass (one ANR) and have turned the regular holder into a glass carrier. So far it works edit.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 05-05-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jamie123

I'm not sure I would agree with the above posters regarding the regular 120 holder. While it is by far not ideal, I certainly wouldn't say it's 'ridiculous' or 'less than worthless'. You can get very sharp scans with the regular holder. You can get sharper scans with a glass holder.

I got a Nikon 9000 cheaply and didn't want to spend a ton on a glass carrier so I just got two pieces of glass (one ANR) and have turned the regular holder into a glass carrier. So far it works edit.

If it doesn't give the sharpest scans possible, why bother using a $3000 scanner? Buy a $400 epson flatbed and save money.

ornate_wrasse · 05-05-2010

Quote:

You definitely need the glass holder for medium format, but personally I like Nikon Scan. It does sometimes crash or do something weird, but it's pretty rare. Why not try it and see if it works well on your computer before you spend money on something else?

I was thinking of trying Nikon Scan first, as the above comment suggests. My question is:

Since I'm still using Tiger on my Mac and have never bothered to upgrade to Leopard or Snow Leopard, am I less likely to have a problem with Nikon Scan?

Thank you all for your input and suggestions. Your comments have been very helpful!

Ellen

Oh Two · 05-05-2010

Quote:

If it doesn't give the sharpest scans possible, why bother using a $3000 scanner? Buy a $400 epson flatbed and save money.

Are you kidding? There is no flatbed that can come close to the 9000 or Minolta Diamage. Even the latest and newest are good for only 1200 to 1800 DPI with transparencies no matter what they advertise. My late model Epson is in the same league as my 12 year old Umax.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 05-05-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oh Two

Are you kidding? There is no flatbed that can come close to the 9000 or Minolta Diamage. Even the latest and newest are good for only 1200 to 1800 DPI with transparencies no matter what they advertise. My late model Epson is in the same league as my 12 year old Umax.

I was talking about people who buy the 9000 and then use the plain 120 carrier even though they admit it produces inferior scans to the glass carrier. Having seen firsthand how truly awful the scans from my 8000 are without the glass carrier I truly believe that a flatbed will do as good for someone unwilling to spend the money and take the time to se the glass carrier on the Nikon scanners.

Jamie123 · 05-05-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chriscrawfordphoto

If it doesn't give the sharpest scans possible, why bother using a $3000 scanner? Buy a $400 epson flatbed and save money.

See, that's where you're wrong. Just because the regular carrier doesn't give the sharpest scans possible it does not mean that the results are on par with those of a $400 flatbed. I have both an Epson 4990 flatbed and a Nikon 9000 and believe me when I say that the Nikon scans are significantly sharper even with the regular carrier.

That being said, I would of course advise anyone who wants really good scans from their Nikon 9000 to get a glass carrier. I built one myself because I wasn't ready to spend $250 on a film holder for a scanner I got for $1k. I'm not made out of money. I'm not saying the regular carrier is good, I'm just saying it's not utterly useless.

For me the reason to get a glass carrier is not so much sharpness but film flatness per se. With a curled neg you get (even if it's not quite noticeable) a distorted image in the scan. I find that annoying.

historicist · 05-05-2010

When I got my Coolscan 8000 I did some comparison scans with m previous mf scanner, the epson v500 (both regulat film holders). They were very similar, I would say almost identical apart from the v500 producing bloomy rather than crisp highlights around sharp edges. Not really a big deal unless you view at 100%.

But the glass film holder for medium format on the Nikon makes a massive difference, the scans are way sharper. No experience with the glass holders on the Epson.

I've had Nikon Scan work flawlessles on OS X 10.4. at first it didn't work on 10.5 but after a resinstall again it was flawless. From what I've heard, it won't work on any mac wit more than one processor (not core) i.e. Powermacs.