How to downgrade Mac Mini OS to run Nikon Coolscan 9000 original software

Tom Kershaw said:

For transparency scans I take the result straight out of Nikon Scan / VueScan as tiff file. Color negative is scanned in VueScan but output as a raw tiff file (no adjustment) and then converted to positive within the ColorPerfect software. - www.colorperfect.com - this is worth a look even if you don't use it as there is some good content on the site.



You had reliability issues with the mac mini when trying different web browsers?



Your Mac Pro looks like a very good option for running a scanner. You could always install another more recent operating system on an additional hard drive if you neeeded to at some point. A quick tip, you can do a partial screenshot on Mac OS X with the keyboard shortcut 'command-shift-4' and then drag out the area to be included with the mouse pointer.

Click to expand...

Hey Tom,

I think you may have missed some of the discussion here, I’ll catch you up.

VueScan files “straight” with no correction prior to scan were totally unusable, green and dark. Much adjustment and fiddling. Again these weren’t normal scans but scans in tunnels and sunset silhouettes and other difficult lighting and VueScan’s “averaging” wasn’t good at all. Also I suspect some of the negatives had a color shift not just from Long exposure but because it was expired at the time of shooting.

Anyway, the Nikon software really did a much better job of initial averaging as well as more “tools” to correct.

I was also saying that the files that I did scan as examples, were on the hard drive of the initial Mac mini that I had attempted to use with VueScan, and then subsequently tried to install Tiger OS onto, to use the Nikon software. So the drive was wiped and I didn’t save the scans elsewhere. I had a hard time finding a viable copy of Tiger that would run on an intel chip, and figuring out how to install it from a USB drive instead of actual install DVD since I don’t have any blank writeable DVD’s here. I scraped that idea and bought a Mac Pro with Tiger installed.

The WHOLE POINT is to KEEP tiger, and not upgrade, because Nikon’s software isn’t supported past Tiger and doesn’t run. So it was the most modern OS that still ran the software. It’s also a great bridge because tiger also runs OS 9 so if I ever need to run something old I have that option.

I know how to screen shot, but I didn’t want to them have to transfer that off of the computer, since it’s a process and the browser doesn’t work for the website, when I could just use my cell phone, which is where I was posting the reply from anyway, I know it’s not an ideal photo, it’s readable, so I figured it was good enough. The Tiger OS no longer supports modern browsing and doesn’t read modern HTML5/CSS code and I was having trouble finding a browser that has been updated to read that, the only one that exists seems to be only for power PC’s and not written for this interim Tiger OS that runs on the intel chip.

I’m not really using it for browsing so it’s fine, and when I need to transfer Scanned files I can either hook up via wifi or hard wire it with a fire wire cable in target disk mode, so that works well.

All-in-all I’m pretty set at this point. It’s really nice for you to try and help. The Nikon software really is much more user friendly and works better with the scanner since it was intended for this as proprietary.

Even if I didn’t need the computer for scanning, the Mac Pro is too old to be useful for anything else, so there’s no point in upgrading it. As a “sad” comparison, my 11” MacBook Air is faster and runs photoshop CC 2020 / LR Better than the pro could. So it’s just a clunker that does the one thing I need, and I’m satisfied with that.

Thanks

Robert Stone said:

The WHOLE POINT is to KEEP tiger, and not upgrade, because Nikon’s software isn’t supported past Tiger and doesn’t run. So it was the most modern OS that still ran the software.

Click to expand...

I'm pleased the Nikon Scan software is working for you.

Tom Kershaw said:

I don't really see where the Nikon Scan controls are 'MILES more advanced' than VueScan.

Click to expand...

Hi Tom
I agree with you 100%, there really isn't much of a difference between the two, easy fix with a few tweaks. I guess people rely on the driver to do more than just drive the scanner... ? Like people who love using an auto function camera instead of dealing with adjusting the speed and stops.

jnantz said:

Hi Tom
I agree with you 100%, there really isn't much of a difference between the two, easy fix with a few tweaks. I guess people rely on the driver to do more than just drive the scanner... ? Like people who love using an auto function camera instead of dealing with adjusting the speed and stops.

Click to expand...

it’s not so much the auto functions, it’s the fact that there are more tools to adjust that are more intuitive, the way that the histogram functions is different.

The next time I do some scanning I will post examples. I can still probably do a comparison with the non-licensed version and I’ll just have watermarks but it will give you guys an idea of what I was talking about.

Robert Stone said:

it’s not so much the auto functions, it’s the fact that there are more tools to adjust that are more intuitive, the way that the histogram functions is different.

The next time I do some scanning I will post examples. I can still probably do a comparison with the non-licensed version and I’ll just have watermarks but it will give you guys an idea of what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

I was using "auto function" as an example of different strokes for different folks. As mentioned previously I have used Epson's Drivers and Vue Scan for close to 20 years and see very little difference between their functionality and the final results they produce: they are just a drivers, and if you know how to use PS, there really shouldn't be that much of a difference. I say that having been a user of PS since the early 1990s. Good luck chasing the rabbit down the hole, say hello to the Queen for me when you get there.
Tom's examples show exactly what I was talking about.

jnantz said:

I was using "auto function" as an example of different strokes for different folks. As mentioned previously I have used Epson's Drivers and Vue Scan for close to 20 years and see very little difference between their functionality and the final results they produce: they are just a drivers, and if you know how to use PS, there really shouldn't be that much of a difference. I say that having been a user of PS since the early 1990s. Good luck chasing the rabbit down the hole, say hello to the Queen for me when you get there.
Tom's examples show exactly what I was talking about.

Click to expand...

I have already found a solution (which was the intent of the initial post). This was about Nikon not Epson, being able to use the Epson (Version one) software was just a bonus. Although I do feel the Epson software is also more intuitive to use, but not as good as Nikon where you can grab the curve on the histogram and move it directly without guessing at numbers and see the changes live. If I’ve missed that functionality somehow in VueScan, then I’m sorry, but the auto scan itself wasn’t very good and if I recall I wasn’t able to auto-batch scan either. But now it’s been quite a few weeks and just finished my thesis proposal and my head is swimming so I could be wrong about that last part.

No rabbit hole here. No need to be rude.

Robert Stone said:

No rabbit hole here. No need to be rude.

Click to expand...

Stone:
no one is being rude, If I came off as rude, I certainly didn't intend to be. Its a fact of life, cameras, lenses, film holders, chemistry, drivers, scanners, software, papers, technique, its all a rabbit hole and a big one, and once in a while, a worthy one to fall into, but often times, like with all photographic nonsense, none of it really makes that much of a difference, its all just a distraction from doing what the point of photography is .. making images with light.

best of light with your journey

jnantz said:

Stone:
no one is being rude, If I came off as rude, I certainly didn't intend to be. Its a fact of life, cameras, lenses, film holders, chemistry, drivers, scanners, software, papers, technique, its all a rabbit hole and a big one, and once in a while, a worthy one to fall into, but often times, like with all photographic nonsense, none of it really makes that much of a difference, its all just a distraction from doing what the point of photography is .. making images with light.

best of light with your journey

Click to expand...

No worries,

And true enough. Like I said when all the classwork is over for the term I’ll try and “demo” what I was having issues with so you can see the difference just to help others who might find this thread informative.

Cheers

Glad the OP has his solution. I used to use Nikon Scan when I bought the LS9000ED, and had to switch to VueScan when it was no longer updated. I did look at SilverFast, but they quoted me $800 for a license and I declined. I am very happy with VueScan and in fact I've been using it a lot lately with the Nikon. I've been spoiled in the interim with an Imacon 848 and a Hasselblad X1, but I'm facing the same problem of software that requires old computers and old versions of the macOS to keep it running. Hasselblad were extremely uncommunicative about whether they would upgrade FlexColor to 64-bit, and eventually decided not to bother and discontinued making the X1 and X5 scanners (a fact that has still not been publicly announced, simply, I suspect to allow remaining stocks of the scanners to be sold without buyers knowing they are spending up to $25,000 on an orphaned product). I shall sell my X1 in the near future and 'make do' with the 9000 (actually, it is so close that it makes no difference for B&W scans. Colour negatives are much easier with the X1.)
I did go to the bother of making a VM with OS X 10.6 on it, and then I discovered that Firewire is not recognised by virtual machines, as someone pointed out above. So I stuck with VueScan and I'm really quite happy with it.

drmoss_ca said:

I shall sell my X1 in the near future and 'make do' with the 9000 (actually, it is so close that it makes no difference for B&W scans. Colour negatives are much easier with the X1.

Click to expand...

Curious in what manner scanning color negatives would be easier with the X1 rather then the Coolscan?

drmoss_ca said:

Hasselblad were extremely uncommunicative about whether they would upgrade FlexColor to 64-bit, and eventually decided not to bother and discontinued making the X1 and X5 scanners (a fact that has still not been publicly announced, simply, I suspect to allow remaining stocks of the scanners to be sold without buyers knowing they are spending up to $25,000 on an orphaned product).

Click to expand...

They seem to have at least advised their dealers:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hasselblad-discontinues-flextight-scanners.167945/

Les Sarile said:

Curious in what manner scanning color negatives would be easier with the X1 rather then the Coolscan?

Click to expand...

The FlexColor software that drives the scanners makes correcting for the mask on colour negative films very easy. One click and results as good as mucking around with raw scans and ColorPerfect.

MattKing said:

They seem to have at least advised their dealers:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/hasselblad-discontinues-flextight-scanners.167945/

Click to expand...

Every week I get their newsletter, and no mention of it at all. If they have told dealers, it must mean they have run out of scanners to ship. BTW, Ed Hamrick told me he would be happy to adapt VueScan to work with the Flextight series but Hasselblad have refused to release the engineering specs he needs. Seems a bit dog-in-the-manger-ish when Hasselblad have given up on them.

drmoss_ca said:

The FlexColor software that drives the scanners makes correcting for the mask on colour negative films very easy. One click and results as good as mucking around with raw scans and ColorPerfect.

Click to expand...

Do you happen to have results of the same frame of color negative using Coolscan and X1?
Not to show resolution but color/contrast difference?

Les Sarile said:

Do you happen to have results of the same frame of color negative using Coolscan and X1?
Not to show resolution but color/contrast difference?

Click to expand...

I can do one for you. Wait a bit...

Just grabbed the last colour negative film from the files. Happens to be Fuji Superia 400, developed in a Unicolor presskit, and this frame is of the 50ft. tall violin on the quayside in Sydney, NS. There's all sorts of drying marks that should be wiped off with some alcohol, but that's the way it came. I scanned it with the 9000 and Vuescan, in 48-bit RGB at 4000dpi, no adjustments other than film type being set. Then I scanned it on the X1 with FlexColor, as a 16-bit and 3000dpi, film type set and one click one auto adjustments. Both imported into LR, no adjustments applied, but exported at 900 pixel JPEGs.
Nikon:


Flextight:


The orange mask on the film (ie a blue cast in the positive) is strongly present in the scan from the Nikon. I've found the best way to get around that is to make a raw scan, import it into PS and use the ColorPerfect plug-in to invert it, then take it into LR for whatever else I want to do with it. The end result is pretty much indistinguishable, but it takes more effort and time. FlexColor lets me click on one button and the scan will come out with the colour cast corrected. Maybe I'm being remarkably stupid and missing something in Vuescan that does the same! Doesn't matter - I doubt I'll ever get to the colour films in my freezer, as time is limited for me.

drmoss_ca said:

Just grabbed the last colour negative film from the files. Happens to be Fuji Superia 400, developed in a Unicolor presskit, and this frame is of the 50ft. tall violin on the quayside in Sydney, NS. There's all sorts of drying marks that should be wiped off with some alcohol, but that's the way it came. I scanned it with the 9000 and Vuescan, in 48-bit RGB at 4000dpi, no adjustments other than film type being set. Then I scanned it on the X1 with FlexColor, as a 16-bit and 3000dpi, film type set and one click one auto adjustments. Both imported into LR, no adjustments applied, but exported at 900 pixel JPEGs.

Click to expand...

I can see why you would rather use the X1 Flexcolor combination to the Coolscan Vuescan combination given these results.
Too bad you don't have Nikonscan available to use anymore.

Flexcolor also scans in true raw, 3F files are really quite nice, especially in combo with color perfect.

I haven’t gotten to do another test scan yet, but I’m glad someone else was able to sort of demonstrate what I’m talking about, the difference between the auto functions and the scanner programs ability to read the file in a “normal” way without fiddling. I don’t like “fixing it in post” and tricky negatives just are easier with the original program.

I should install the Flextight software on my new-old machine while it’s still available, thanks for reminding me.