Nikon 9000 vs. Imacon vs. Creo Iq3

[D. Bryant]

Was just in Seattle, would rather go South than North if I had to go any direction though a trip to Rainier or Olympic National Parks along with Seattle would be nice. Something to definitely consider. Thanks and thanks for posting what you scan with. I thought you shot digital though?

Sorry I have no digital backs for LF cameras. But I do use different digital cameras though since this is the LF Forum I prefer to discuss film based photography since that's the capture media that most users here use.

Yeah you can visit APUG but don't talk about scanning film there. It's analog only.

Don Bryant

[Findingmyway4ever]

Thanks Sandy/D. Bryant. Will head over to APUG and will also be doing my best to find some quality digital work and also well done analog work (via scanner) to view in person, prints in hand vs. glass over print.

[Lenny Eiger]

Unfortunately 6 hours roundtrip from Portland Oregon, but if all goes as planned, I will be down your way along the way to Yosemite at the 1st of May-May 9th or so. We could hopefully get together then. In the meantime, if you know anyone up this way, that would be great as well since we will be heading into Portland area next weekend.

Thanks Lenny!

Come on by. Since I print for other people as well, there are a number of styles here.

Lenny

[Lei Meng]

Unfortunately 6 hours roundtrip from Portland Oregon, but if all goes as planned, I will be down your way along the way to Yosemite at the 1st of May-May 9th or so. We could hopefully get together then. In the meantime, if you know anyone up this way, that would be great as well since we will be heading into Portland area next weekend.

Thanks Lenny!

I am in Portland downtown and I have inkjet prints from 120, 4x5 and 8x10 films. You are welcome to come take a look.

[mrladewig]

I don't think so Van Camper. Nikon discontinued the LS-50 and LS-5000 last year. They haven't produced an update to NikonScan in eons, and I suspect the LS-9000 is finally showing discontinued because the stock on hand is now depleted. I suspect Nikon stopped making these scanners quite some time ago, but its taken this long for them to clear the shelves. Shame as they're very good.

[gainer]

The problem is that Nikon has been inconsistent.

On the one hand they told me they were "out of the scanner business" at PMA, and I've been on lists at major retailers for the 9000 for many months. B&H and Samy's both informed me that they can't get the scanners. On the other hand, a short note to Nikon USA was answered in minutes, and said in no uncertain terms that the scanner is still available...if you are willing to wait a few weeks.

I suppose time will tell...

[Jim Bradley]

If Nikon batch builds the LS-9000 (a likely scenario given volumes) they might also run into the issue of RoHs compliance (no lead solder). If the LS-9000 was designed before 2006 and they didn't future plan well, to make the design RoHs would(will) require rework at the production level. Also a design of that vintage Nikon may be running into component end of life issues. Given the small volumes it is often a better business decision discontinue a product than face the expenses of redesigning.

Jim "still waffling over scanner choices" Bradley

[Findingmyway4ever]

Come on by. Since I print for other people as well, there are a number of styles here.

Lenny

Very sweet! I'd love to see examples from many genres/styles/formats/etc. Would certainly put my mind to rest!!!

[rdenney]

With exception of an 8X10 contact print, nothing 4X5-8X10 scanned/printed with an Epson or anything digital looks as good as even 35mm negative film processed/scanned/printed at a local grocery store that has the system on automatic. I can see "obvious" differences, even at an 8X10 print size.

Of course, the local grocer probably has a machine that scans the negative and is all digital after that.

But I have made 16x20 prints from 6x7 negatives made using a Pentax 6x7. I used a Nikon 8000ED scanner, and edited in Photoshop using my own hobbyist skills. It's possible my eyes just aren't tuned to the subtleties, but I would have been happy to produce prints as good using Cibachrome back in the day. They would have looked different, of course.

And the 8000 scanner is more than good enough to distinguish between excellent and not-so-good lenses in my medium-format collection, even in 11x14 prints. In terms of limiting factors, I don't think the scanner or the print technology (Epson 3800) is hemming me in as much as my cheap equipment, mistakes, and unattainable standards.

4x5 on the V750 and 6x7 on the Nikon yield about the same number of usable pixels--something like 8000x10000. I've compared both to black-and-white and Cibachrome prints I made in the past--from the same films in some cases--and preferred the digital prints. That preference was based on greater control over the print process in Photoshop than I could ever attain under an enlarger. I don't compare the best possible print from one technology to the best possible print from another. I compare the best print I can make under an enlarger with the best print I can make using the scanner and computer, and in that test, the latter comes closer to my visualization. And it gives me the pleasure of controlling the whole process, which is important to my enjoyment of the hobby.

Rick "thinking the glass carrier and accurate focus is required for the Nikon scanner to achieve its potential" Denney

[Findingmyway4ever]

Of course, the local grocer probably has a machine that scans the negative and is all digital after that.

But I have made 16x20 prints from 6x7 negatives made using a Pentax 6x7. I used a Nikon 8000ED scanner, and edited in Photoshop using my own hobbyist skills. It's possible my eyes just aren't tuned to the subtleties, but I would have been happy to produce prints as good using Cibachrome back in the day. They would have looked different, of course.

And the 8000 scanner is more than good enough to distinguish between excellent and not-so-good lenses in my medium-format collection, even in 11x14 prints. In terms of limiting factors, I don't think the scanner or the print technology (Epson 3800) is hemming me in as much as my cheap equipment, mistakes, and unattainable standards.

4x5 on the V750 and 6x7 on the Nikon yield about the same number of usable pixels--something like 8000x10000. I've compared both to black-and-white and Cibachrome prints I made in the past--from the same films in some cases--and preferred the digital prints. That preference was based on greater control over the print process in Photoshop than I could ever attain under an enlarger. I don't compare the best possible print from one technology to the best possible print from another. I compare the best print I can make under an enlarger with the best print I can make using the scanner and computer, and in that test, the latter comes closer to my visualization. And it gives me the pleasure of controlling the whole process, which is important to my enjoyment of the hobby.

Rick "thinking the glass carrier and accurate focus is required for the Nikon scanner to achieve its potential" Denney

Excellent points made, especially the very much so subjective nature in all of this stuff. I mean, lets pretend I see every digital print in the world, and I still find nothing that I think looks as beautiful as a film based print. Well, the other 99% out there with digital setups will wonder where my reading glasses are in spite I am young and have perfect vision)

You are right about the vision you and anyone needs to have with what you have to work with. I mean, I would rather travel and see Lenny, travel around more and see other very fine artists of all genres and ways of printing/digitizing or not/etc. etc. This would lead me to what I am after in the end, in terms of my goals with what I'd like to see from my own process which after seeing some of the better stuff out there, may be wishing I did wet plate or had an Aztek Premier with fancy printer!

But in your case and in MANY people's cases, the darkroom is not a kind place to people that just cannot pull off the level of processing one can pull off with the digital. So it's really not a fair comparison for you or even a process to consider when you know going into the darkroom is going to be a very difficult task especially when you'll need so much time to nail down very fine looking prints when in all that time, software is progressing at a 10X fold rate.

Back to the subjective, however, it would be interesting to see one of your contact prints and one of your inkjet prints of the contact print to see how your eyes see the inkjet print being superior. It may not even be that you are not as good of a darkroom artist, but rather, that you may well just like the look of the digital print more for the way it looks, plain and simple.

Ahhhh...how I can't wait to see more photos!!! I'm tempted to pm you and see if there is any possible chance I can get a hold of some of your 6X7 and 4X5 shots along with some of your contact prints to get a little better idea of what you are seeing. I can promise never to say one single word if I didn't think they weren't that great! Really, in spite I have not been impressed with the work that has been sent to me, I have it to keep since they let me keep it (lucky me!), and I have no reason to ever get rid of it because I just value it regardless of what I think about it, and fact is, I never point out a person, their work, etc. It's irrelevant and it's also not a nice thing to do. If asked how I feel, I can say what I feel, but I will always rely on the positive attributes of something whenever on a whole, the print is not so good. I know my own work is just for fun and know many would laugh out loud at it. But that's the fun in all of this. Laughing in a good way, critiquing in an open minded way (if I don't like it, what can I find that I do like), and so on.

Ready to send me some prints???

BTW, the Pentax system is excellent. People say it's like a gunshot, but it's not that loud. I dunno where people make up these comments like, "when taking a shot with the camera, one can hear it at the other side of a baseball field"...right...The system is a bit clunky/big for me or I'd definitely use it since the pricepoint has been incredible especially compared to the other MF equipment, and you get the 67 ratio