Comparison of Nikon Scan v. VueScan for Nikon Scanners

[copake_ham]

I'm a film shooter. Formerly exclusively 35mm format; I've recently begun shooting MF too.

I've been using a Nikon Coolscan 5000D with Nikon Scan software. Now that I am adding MF to the mix, I'm upgrading to a Nikon Coolscan 9000D. Before "defaulting" to using Nikon Scan again, I'm curious if I might be better off with VueScan.

The reason for thinking this is that I've not been "overly impressed" with the Digital ICE function of Nikon Scan and its "user unfriendliness" and lack of documentation is really annoying.

Anyway, I'd be interested in the thoughts of those who've had a chance to "test" Nikon Scan against VueScan with Nikon scanners?

Thanks,
George

 

[donbga]

I'm a film shooter. Formerly exclusively 35mm format; I've recently begun shooting MF too.

I've been using a Nikon Coolscan 5000D with Nikon Scan software. Now that I am adding MF to the mix, I'm upgrading to a Nikon Coolscan 9000D. Before "defaulting" to using Nikon Scan again, I'm curious if I might be better off with VueScan.

The reason for thinking this is that I've not been "overly impressed" with the Digital ICE function of Nikon Scan and its "user unfriendliness" and lack of documentation is really annoying.

Anyway, I'd be interested in the thoughts of those who've had a chance to "test" Nikon Scan against VueScan with Nikon scanners?

Thanks,
George

Have you considered the Silverfast products? Expensive, but also very good, though I'm not a Nikon scanner owner.

I've used Vuescan Pro for years and it has it's pluses and minuses.

My 2 cents though probably not to informative,

Don Bryant

 

[MikeSeb]

I have a Nikon 8000 which is very similar to the 9000, I'm told; I've used Nikon Scan, VueScan, and a demo of SilverFast, scanning medium format film and a smattering of 35mm as well.

I think VueScan is vastly overrated, though apparently mine is the minority opinion, given the second-coming-of-Jesus praise that is showered upon it in various online venues. Its documentation is no better than Nikon's--actually, it's pretty much useless--and its interface is clunky and counterintuitive. No disrespect to Ed Hamrick meant here, but that's my candid opinion.

Maybe I'm not the sharpest lens in the Domke, but I find it nearly useless for "bulk scanning", which is what anyone who cuts his film into strips of multiple images does every time s/he scans. It is nearly impossible to do this in VueScan (I'd be thrilled if someone could help me figure this out and I could actually evaluate VueScan's other supposed advantages) so it's mostly useless to me.

I have defaulted to Nikon Scan and have been very happy with it. It doesn't have the slickest interface, but it's no worse than VueScan, and the controls at least make sense. I've gotten very good results from it.

I only hope that it will be supported by future versions of the Mac OS, and updated by Nikon, so that I don't have to shell out the absurd price of Silverfast (and shell out again if I add or swap scanners.)

 

[toyotadesigner]

I have the Coolscan 5000 and the Coolscan 9000, using Nikon Scan. I've tested VueScan for a while, but one day I enlarged a scan and discovered blank pixels all over the image (not meaning the watermark of the demo).

It might take a while to use Nikon Scan, but it has several advantages: identical interface for both scanners, very clean scans and superb color reproduction, extremely good quality of the scans. Plus you can save several options in your settings for different films.

Be aware that scanning 35mm film with the 9000 will take considerably longer than with the 5000. This was the reason why I kept my 5000.

If you want the best results, you might consider to invest into the Nikon glass holder. It's really worth the money and the only way to get perfectly sharp scan from edge to edge.

I had a Canon 9950F with Silverfast for a while, but that setup never turned out satisfactory results, so I sold it and invested into a 9000 without silverfast, because the Silverfast for the 9000 carries a hefty price tag of some 500 Euros. IMHO the investment of the half of that price into a glass holder gave me a far better mileage.

 

[frugal]

I find that Vuescan's interface does have a pretty steep learning curve to it. If you can learn it then it can offer you a lot of power and control, but if you can't figure it out (understandable, it's not all that intuitive and the documentation's not the greatest in places) then it's not for you.

I like if for my Canon 9950F but I also despised the Canon software for it. Even in "advanced" mode there were options like "high quality" and the docs just said, "scans at a higher quality", gee thanks, mind telling me what it's doing to achive that "higher quality" so I can know when I want to use it and when I don't?

So I can't comment on the Nikon software but for me I was already used to it and the Canon software was so bad it was a no-brainer.

 

[Pavel+]

I've used all three software packages and found the nikon stuff hard to use if you do a lot of scanning. Typical Nikon workflow ... which does not work for me.
Vuescan is very good at doing batch scans and has a very good workflow once you learn the software. The advantage is price and being able to run all scanners with it.

That said, I like silverfast best over all. it is the trickiest to set up and learn but once done is very very good at getting the best from the scanner.
I like that you can get B&W profiles and that they are easy to do.
The company is infuriating however. They are a bit strange in how they do business and it bothers me. They gouge in my opinion. I can live with the fact that they have a different version you have to buy for each scanner but why the heck is the software on the Nikon 5000 so much more than on the V?

As for a steep learning curve - the vuescan is a piece of cake compared to vuescan.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Vuescan is very good at doing batch scans

Batch scanning for MF? Huh? Max 3 negs/slides at 6x6, max 2 at 6x9. Setting up a batch for 2 or 3 images isn't worth the hassle. I prefer to correct each slide individually, and with Nikon Scan it is much easier because the sliders have a longer path to be moved compared to the tiny knobs with kiddie paths in Vuescan.

 

[miklosphoto]

I am using both and it depends on the film which software I use. For slides, I use only the VueScan because I can use scanner profiles for the the different slide film types. The NikonScan does not let you use custom profiles and as a result the colors of the scanned slide film have nothing to do with the actual colors on the slide.
For high ISO film negative I use NikonScan because the grain reduction is much better using that software. For B&W it does not really matter which software to use, so I use VueScan since it does the job perfectly.
Hope this helps.
Miklos

 

[toadhall]

I prefer Vuescan over the Nikon software (and have never been successful, at least with the version I tried, in getting Silverscan and the Nikon software to coexist on my Mac). You can profile the Nikon scanner with Vuescan, which you can't do with the Nikon software. Vuescan constantly updates, Nikon never does - at least not for Mac. I would agree that Vuescan is finicky with medium format, particularly 6 x 7, for positioning. I like that I can scan with minimal manipulation in Vuescan, working with the belief that it is best to manipulate post scan. Vuescan also allows you to simultaneously save a 'raw' file, in addition to either, or both, a jpeg and tiff. The 'raw' file is unreadable by post scan software, but Vuescan will read it, and allow you to manipulate it in the same manner as you do a scan. Vuescan also allows you to print (I typically do 4 x 6) from preview (Nikon might, but I've never tried it) which I do as part of my 'work flow', scanning only the images I really like. I also like being able to do an additional pass with Vuescan, allowing the program to get a better 'read' on high density areas of my b & w negs.

 

[photomy]

... but I find it nearly useless for "bulk scanning", which is what anyone who cuts his film into strips of multiple images does every time s/he scans. It is nearly impossible to do this in VueScan (I'd be thrilled if someone could help me figure this out and I could actually evaluate VueScan's other supposed advantages) so it's mostly useless to me.

Vuescan has the ability to do bulk scanning with Nikon 9000 and I assume 8000, however, the instructions are not there. You have to figure it out on your own trial and error style. I assume this is becuase the instructions are generic for all the dozens of scanner types that Vuescan can be used for and perhaps not all work with bulk scan. When you say bulkscanning I assume you meen 35 mm as Nikon 9000 only has room for two medium format images which is not really bulk scanning.

 

[Lotus M50]

I am using both and it depends on the film which software I use. For slides, I use only the VueScan because I can use scanner profiles for the the different slide film types. The NikonScan does not let you use custom profiles and as a result the colors of the scanned slide film have nothing to do with the actual colors on the slide.

I've got some bizarre and uncorrectable colors from my LS-8000 with some 6x7 Velvia 100F sildes. I was then disappointed to find that I could not calibrate the scanner and build a custom profile. This is the main aspect of NikonScan that disappoints me. (the other major annoyance is that Nikon seems to refuse to provide the drivers to make their scans compatible with Windows 64-bit OS's. The 64-bit OS's really help with the memory needed to work with big scanned film files. So I had to set up another computer just for scanning with the Nikon, and then transfer the file to the XP 64 bit computer to work with it)

I've used Vuescan for other things, but since it appears that I can calibrate the LS-8000 with it, that is my next task. I think I agree with the comments that it is overrated, but even so, it is a pretty good product. It just does not walk on water.

For high ISO film negative I use NikonScan because the grain reduction is much better using that software. For B&W it does not really matter which software to use, so I use VueScan since it does the job perfectly.

I would not use NikonScan for grain reduction. There are a few stand-alone/PS plug-ins that do the job much better with more control. After looking at a few of them, I thought that Neat Image provided the best result for scanned film, and am pretty happy with it. It's not a magic bullet, but it does help when you need it, and it does a better job than NikonScan.

 

[toadhall]

To anyone using a Mac, with Leopard, you'll find that Nikon's software won't run - but VueScan will.
Nikon's support site mentions an upgrade coming in the new year, but based on how reluctant they seemed to have been to do any ungrades on their software .... I'm not holding my breath.