I don't think i have seen anything aftermarket for film holders for the Nikon - the Betterscanning MF film holders are good with the V700 - a comparison scan between the two would be very interesting.
I would be in heaven and hell with a decent drum scanner - heaven for me and the wife sends me to hellNot cheap downunder by any means, even if you can find a good one a Heidelberg Tango for 9K is is a little out of reach.
Thanks for the input.
The main reason you need the improved holders for the Epson is that moving the film is only way to focus it. The Nikon, howeber, can be focused by the scanning software. VueScan will allow you to set your focus point and focus manually if you choose.Originally Posted by pinup tragic
The stock glassless film holder grabs the film by the edges using grippy stuff. You then stretch the film across its width and lock the holder in place. There is a trick to it, but it really does work better than the glass carrier. I've never been able to use my glass carrier without getting Newton rings. I'm back to the original holder now that I've learned the trick. The original holder will hold an entire strip of 3 6x6 frames, too. Thus, I can scan both ends of a 6x12 frame without having to reposition the film or even remove the film holder from the scanner. That means the two images are perfectly aligned. Photoshop can stitch them together without having to move any pixels around.
Yes, I wish the Nikon holder was less fiddly. But it's a better scanner than the Epson. The Nikon performs a bit better at 4000 than the Epson does at 2400, and the Nikon has better dynamic range. Neither is as good as a drum scan, but they are vastly easier to live with.
Rick "whose wife would be only one impediment to making decent use of a drum scanner" Denney
I have both the Epson V700 and the Nikon 9000. There's no comparison. I have the betterscanning holder for the V700, and I mount to glass on the 9000. Even without glass on the 9000, it is way better than the V700 for 35mm and MF (color, dynamic range, ability to get info out of dense negs). Yes, all that even with the stock holder. Of course, it doesn't do 4x5 or 8x10, which is the only reason I still own a V700. Is the 9000 worth $3k? I don't know; I bought mine for $2300 2 years ago.
I love how people say why worry when you can get screen cezanne's for $1000, 2 drum scanners for $100/$200 each (including the ancient Mac too in perfect working condition, no doubt), as if we LF'ers can just stumble upon a deal like that and everything magically works perfectly. I might be wrong, but i'd bet that deals like that were in abundance only when the big professional shops were ditching their drum scanners / pro flatbeds during the first decent DSLR days, and you happened to be prescient in your awareness of exactly what was what.
Nowadays for a nice 4000dpi scan, there are very few options. 1) pay a lot for something that's 15 years old on eBay and hope it even lights up when you plug it in, or 2) bite the bullet and get the nikon or higher.
PLEASE someone prove me wrong! I'll definitely pay you $150 for your completely working Aztek.
I sold my 8000 at what might have been the peak of the market. There seems to be a few on ebay for around $1200, just without the glass MF holder, which is significantly cheaper than they were a few months ago. If you don't need that they would be an excellent buy. I still miss mine for 35mm but I get along fine with a Minolta Dimage IV.
Maybe if you were involved with any lab ditching its scanners... While I found or have been offered a few for scrap value, they were, in fact, scrap value - i.e. missing a crate full of small moveable key parts not available from the maker any more. And as the same bits are missing from just about every scanner (either removed for spares for the remaining system, or thrown into the garbage while the big frame was carried off separately), these tend to be near unobtainable.
Agreed about the amazing bargain drums and high-end flatbeds... the cost is in your time spent assembling and testing. Plus they need a lot of office or studio space, another workstation area at least.
The Hasselblad Imacons will probably be the last professional option, I am surprised they are not mentioned more on this forum?
I use an old Minolta for 35mm and an Epson for large film. Medium format gets squeezed out of the equation, it really needs a Coolscan or an Imacon to get in the ballpark. I did get OK Epson scans from 6x9 for 11x14 inkjets but I know I was not getting the best quality I could.
Buying a used drum scanner or old high-end flatbed isn't as easy as some would suggest, but it can be done. I paid a lot more than $100 for my Howtek, but I paid quite a bit less than what some used Imacon/Hasselblads are going for and not much more than what Nikon LS9000s are actually selling for. I bought it from a local photographer, got an afternoon of free training, and of course the thing worked.
But it can be a headache too. Repair can be difficult and/or expensive and sometimes impossible. The scanners do require a lot of space. I haven't found the mounting and fluids to be messy as some say, if you spill any they pretty much evaporate on contact. But it is a different level of commitment.
However, I was working with the LS9000 after my trip to Lima last year and I ended up scanning each photo two or three times. I mistakenly scanned the first batch and only checked the focus in the center. When I was done scanning (around 100 photos) I realized that the edges were soft due to the bad carrier. I did a LOT of fiddling with the scanner to get sharp scans across the entire frame.
With the drum scanner, I can load up the drum with 4-4x5 negs or 9-6x7 negs (loading it up takes maybe 5 minutes). I can do a prescan, make my adjustments and then leave leave while the machine batch-scans all the film. The scans are always sharp the first time, they take much less time to clean up, and the quality is first-rate.
As someone who does this for a living, I value my time. And while the Howtek took some initial research and setup time, it's much more efficient now because of the batch scanning and the fact that I rarely, if ever, have to make a re-scan.
I've made 40x50in. prints from 6x7cm. Portra scanned on the LS9000 and they were very good. The drum scans are better, but really only to a critical eye.
But now that the LS9000 is approaching the price of a good used drum scanner, it's looking like less of a deal.
The Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are very good. I've used an X1 and the scans are better than the Nikon and they print very well. They're a bit limited in resolution with 4x5, but for MF they're great. They're a bit pricey though even on the used market.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks