Hello, my name is Vincent and I'm a first time poster here, but have read many threads before.
I have a number of different questions about scanning, pertaining to different formats and different techniques.
I shoot both 35mm and MF, but mostly 35mm. I only shoot Ektar 100.
I am now scanning both formats on a Epson V700, that I use free of charge at a local photo club.
The place is far from dust-free, and there is no complete set of film holders for the scanner.
So, I have begun looking into what scanner to buy for home use, and found some interesting alternatives, that I now want advice on.
Right now, a Nikon Coolscan 9000 seems to be the perfect choice for me, since it takes both formats I use, and produces high-quality scans. But for me it is a huge investment. I'm aware of the Hasselblad/Imacon scanners, but of course they are even huger investments that don't seem realistic to me.
If there is any other scanner that compares to the 9000 in the same price range, I would like to know about it.
But I'm also looking for alternatives to an all-in-one scanner. If there is a scanner that only takes 35mm and still produces great results, I am interested in also owning a flatbed scanner for MF, together with a holder from Betterscanning.
But I am unsure of which holder is the smoothest in use, while producing the best results.
I am split between the Variable Height Mounting Station, and the Dual MF holder, together with ANR glass. I wonder if wet mounting is worth the time and hassle compared to the more simple looking Dual holder.
The reason I am interested in owning two kinds is that I am unsure of if a good flatbed or the Coolscan 9000 produces the best results with MF.
So, to conclude, my main questions are:
If the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is the altogether best choice of a scanner, in terms of image quality and value for money.
Or if a flatbed together with a dedicated 35mm scanner produces the best result for each format, and what models of scanners there are to then look for.
And which of the Betterscanning holders would be the right choice for me, weighing in the relative hassle of wet mounting
and if it is even worth it.
Any answer to any of these questions are greatly appreciated.
I have a number of different questions about scanning, pertaining to different formats and different techniques.
I shoot both 35mm and MF, but mostly 35mm. I only shoot Ektar 100.
I am now scanning both formats on a Epson V700, that I use free of charge at a local photo club.
The place is far from dust-free, and there is no complete set of film holders for the scanner.
So, I have begun looking into what scanner to buy for home use, and found some interesting alternatives, that I now want advice on.
Right now, a Nikon Coolscan 9000 seems to be the perfect choice for me, since it takes both formats I use, and produces high-quality scans. But for me it is a huge investment. I'm aware of the Hasselblad/Imacon scanners, but of course they are even huger investments that don't seem realistic to me.
If there is any other scanner that compares to the 9000 in the same price range, I would like to know about it.
But I'm also looking for alternatives to an all-in-one scanner. If there is a scanner that only takes 35mm and still produces great results, I am interested in also owning a flatbed scanner for MF, together with a holder from Betterscanning.
But I am unsure of which holder is the smoothest in use, while producing the best results.
I am split between the Variable Height Mounting Station, and the Dual MF holder, together with ANR glass. I wonder if wet mounting is worth the time and hassle compared to the more simple looking Dual holder.
The reason I am interested in owning two kinds is that I am unsure of if a good flatbed or the Coolscan 9000 produces the best results with MF.
So, to conclude, my main questions are:
If the Nikon Coolscan 9000 is the altogether best choice of a scanner, in terms of image quality and value for money.
Or if a flatbed together with a dedicated 35mm scanner produces the best result for each format, and what models of scanners there are to then look for.
And which of the Betterscanning holders would be the right choice for me, weighing in the relative hassle of wet mounting
and if it is even worth it.
Any answer to any of these questions are greatly appreciated.
