Nikon Scan, Silverfast or Vuescan for Coolscan 5000

EAF64 · Sep 5, 2019

Hello all!
I'm new to this forum and wonder if someone can help me out deciding what to do next. I bought a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to speed up the scanning process of my regular 35mm work. I have a slow Imacon 343 that I will keep for scanning MF. This scanner is connected to an iMac with an Eizo graphic screen. Since the Nikon Scan software is not supported by the newer generation Apple computers, I don't know what is best.
Some 5 or 6 years ago I had a Nikon LS-4000 and back then I bit the bullet and bought the terribly expensive Silverfast software. It was a disaster. The program crashed many times and when I found a solution with the help of the support team, it would crash again once the OS updated. I stepped over to Vuescan and this proved to be a more stable solution. However, I didn't like the interface.
I believe the best software to use all of the functionality the LS-5000 is offering would still be the old Nikon Scan software. I just read on the Lasersoft site that Silverfast has 'better' solutions for some of the functions, but somehow I doubt that. I am looking for the best image quality at the highest speed possible. Am I better off buying an old apple computer with an older OS and use this as a dedicated Nikon Scan station, or can I achieve the same results (or better?) with Silverfast or Vuescan? And if an older computer is advicable, what model should I look for? I use computers as an operator, but in my heart I am utterly analog, so please not too digitechnical...
Many thanks!

PhilBurton · Sep 5, 2019

EAF64 said:
Hello all!
I'm new to this forum and wonder if someone can help me out deciding what to do next. I bought a Nikon Coolscan 5000 to speed up the scanning process of my regular 35mm work. I have a slow Imacon 343 that I keep using for scanning MF and connected this scanner to an iMac with a Eizo graphic screen. Now I learned that the Nikon Scan software is not supported anymore by the newer generation Apple computers and I don't know what is best.
Some 5 or 6 years ago I had a Nikon LS-4000 and back then I bit the bullet and bought the terribly expensive Silverfast software. It was a disaster. The program crashed many times and everytime I found a solution with the help of the support team, it crashed again once the OS updated. I stepped over to Vuescan and this proved to be a more stable solution. However, I didn't like the interface.
I believe the best software to use all of the functionality the LS-5000 offers is still the old Nikon Scan software. I just read on the Lasersoft site that Silverfast has 'better' solutions for some of the functions, but somehow I doubt that. I am looking for the best image quality at the highest speed possible. Am I better off buying an old apple computer with an older OS and use this as a dedicated Nikon Scan station, or can I achieve the same results (or better?) with Silverfast or Vuescan? And if an older computer is advicable, what model should I look for? I use computers as an operator, but in my heart I am utterly analog, so please not too digitechnical...
Many thanks!

Hi.

I bought a Nikon 5000 scanner a while ago but never actually got around to using it. I'm planning to start using it soon. I have not yet decided on the software to use. However, if you are willing to get a Windows system, you can find instructions on the web for how to run Nikon Scan under Windows 10 64.

I have played a bit with Silverfast and it seems powerful, but the interface is difficult. Do you think that the Silverfast interface is better than VueScan? Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the VueScan interface?

EAF64 · Sep 5, 2019

PhilBurton said:
Hi.

I bought a Nikon 5000 scanner a while ago but never actually got around to using it. I'm planning to start using it soon. I have not yet decided on the software to use. However, if you are willing to get a Windows system, you can find instructions on the web for how to run Nikon Scan under Windows 10 64.

I have played a bit with Silverfast and it seems powerful, but the interface is difficult. Do you think that the Silverfast interface is better than VueScan? Out of curiosity, what didn't you like about the VueScan interface?

Hi,
I can't exactly recall what I didn't like back then, but I remember the feeling it was not fully using the scanner's abilities. Silverfast is indeed a bit of a difficult interface, but like everything in life, you will learn to live with it. With all these third party applications I have the assumption I will not exploit all the possiblities of the LS-5000. And these unique features are what is making this scanner so expensive and sought-after. But... maybe I'm wrong and Silverfast or Vuescan are perfectly capable of extracting everything I need from my negatives.

Arvee · Sep 5, 2019

Had exactly the same problem with a Minolta scanner; I just rehabilitated an older Mac and dedicated it to keeping the Minolta running with the mfr.'s software. No problems.

EAF64 · Sep 5, 2019

Thanks, just like I thought. I strongly believe that dedicated Mac will be the best option. The manufacurer should know how to exploit all the goodies of it's products.

StepheKoontz · Sep 5, 2019

I have a Nikon 8000ED that I was able to get working with the nikon software in windows 10 with an online "hack" on a couple of install files. I'm using silverfast basic with an epson flatbed and like the combo for quick scans.

Les Sarile · Sep 5, 2019

IMO, still the best scanner today!

Got my Coolscan 5000 when it was first released and the 9000 not long after. Have scanned almost 40K frames of various films to date. Still use Nikonscan today running on a Windows Vista PC. In fact I have two exact same PCs just in case. Make sure you have more then enough RAM memory as Nikonscan will bog down if you don't particularly when using ICE.

Full res scan in about 30 seconds with no ICE and about 50 seconds with ICE. Strip feeder results in perfectly aligned scans unlike film holders. Also no fumbling with film holders saves time.

In thousands of various films I have scanned, I have only encountered one glitch on about 5 different strips of seemingly perfectly exposed color negative frames where it would not correctly identify the frame boundaries. All I did was then reinsert the strip of film backwards. So instead of the normal 1-2-3-4-5-6 I turn it around as 6-5-4-3-2-1.

As I understand it, Nikonscan implementation of ICE is proprietary and that Vuescan could not directly use the same as Nikonscan. Here is a comparison of ICE on the Coolscan 5000 using Vuescan and Nikonscan.

Vuescan had (has?) many built-in film profiles but I didn't find them useful. In this example, I used Kodak 160VC which Vuescan had a profile for. I also scanned the same frame with the various modifiers in Vuescan as compared to one neutral setting in Nikonscan.

If you're interested, I setup some steps to use Nikonscan @ http://www.fototime.com/inv/B48262629CF3ECB. Ordered 1 through 13. Steps 1-5 is for creating and saving settings and steps 6-13 is for retrieving and applying the previously saved settings.

BTW, what kinds of films are you going to scan?

Tom Kershaw · Sep 5, 2019

I get VueScan to produce a 'raw' tiff output and then convert the image in PhotoLine with the 'ColorPerfect' plug-in. Seems to work well, although I do understand there are many workflows for negative scanning.

PhilBurton · Sep 5, 2019

Les Sarile said:
IMO, still the best scanner today!

Got my Coolscan 5000 when it was first released and the 9000 not long after. Have scanned almost 40K frames of various films to date. Still use Nikonscan today running on a Windows Vista PC. In fact I have two exact same PCs just in case. Make sure you have more then enough RAM memory as Nikonscan will bog down if you don't particularly when using ICE.

Full res scan in about 30 seconds with no ICE and about 50 seconds with ICE. Strip feeder results in perfectly aligned scans unlike film holders. Also no fumbling with film holders saves time.

In thousands of various films I have scanned, I have only encountered one glitch on about 5 different strips of seemingly perfectly exposed color negative frames where it would not correctly identify the frame boundaries. All I did was then reinsert the strip of film backwards. So instead of the normal 1-2-3-4-5-6 I turn it around as 6-5-4-3-2-1.

As I understand it, Nikonscan implementation of ICE is proprietary and that Vuescan could not directly use the same as Nikonscan. Here is a comparison of ICE on the Coolscan 5000 using Vuescan and Nikonscan.

Vuescan had (has?) many built-in film profiles but I didn't find them useful. In this example, I used Kodak 160VC which Vuescan had a profile for. I also scanned the same frame with the various modifiers in Vuescan as compared to one neutral setting in Nikonscan.

If you're interested, I setup some steps to use Nikonscan @ http://www.fototime.com/inv/B48262629CF3ECB. Ordered 1 through 13. Steps 1-5 is for creating and saving settings and steps 6-13 is for retrieving and applying the previously saved settings.

BTW, what kinds of films are you going to scan?

Plus-X, Tri-X, some Pan-X, Kodacolor or Kodacolor-X [did it exist? so old it may be C-22], plus lots and lots and lots of Kodachrome X and 25/64, plus some amount of various Ektachromes

Your comparison of ICE using Vuescan and Nikonscan is very impressive.

Les Sarile · Sep 5, 2019

PhilBurton said:
Your comparison of ICE using Vuescan and Nikonscan is very impressive.

I sent that frame of film to Fuji professional services for a 20" X 30" optical enlargement back when. The print turned out great but they gouged that frame terribly. The silver lining is now I have a perfectly great example to try ICE on!

EAF64 · Sep 6, 2019

StepheKoontz said:
I have a Nikon 8000ED that I was able to get working with the nikon software in windows 10 with an online "hack" on a couple of install files. I'm using silverfast basic with an epson flatbed and like the combo for quick scans.

Thanks. I've heard it can run under Windows, but I am an Apple man. When I need to buy a dedicated computer it might as well be again one from the apple tree.

EAF64 · Sep 6, 2019

Les Sarile said:
IMO, still the best scanner today!

Got my Coolscan 5000 when it was first released and the 9000 not long after. Have scanned almost 40K frames of various films to date. Still use Nikonscan today running on a Windows Vista PC. In fact I have two exact same PCs just in case. Make sure you have more then enough RAM memory as Nikonscan will bog down if you don't particularly when using ICE.

Full res scan in about 30 seconds with no ICE and about 50 seconds with ICE. Strip feeder results in perfectly aligned scans unlike film holders. Also no fumbling with film holders saves time.

In thousands of various films I have scanned, I have only encountered one glitch on about 5 different strips of seemingly perfectly exposed color negative frames where it would not correctly identify the frame boundaries. All I did was then reinsert the strip of film backwards. So instead of the normal 1-2-3-4-5-6 I turn it around as 6-5-4-3-2-1.

As I understand it, Nikonscan implementation of ICE is proprietary and that Vuescan could not directly use the same as Nikonscan. Here is a comparison of ICE on the Coolscan 5000 using Vuescan and Nikonscan.

Vuescan had (has?) many built-in film profiles but I didn't find them useful. In this example, I used Kodak 160VC which Vuescan had a profile for. I also scanned the same frame with the various modifiers in Vuescan as compared to one neutral setting in Nikonscan.

If you're interested, I setup some steps to use Nikonscan @ http://www.fototime.com/inv/B48262629CF3ECB. Ordered 1 through 13. Steps 1-5 is for creating and saving settings and steps 6-13 is for retrieving and applying the previously saved settings.

BTW, what kinds of films are you going to scan?

Thank you Les, for this impressive comparison. Looks like Nikon ICE is better performing than Vuescan, but I sure hope I will never have to scan a negative scratched as badly as this one. You say Fuji Pro service did this to your Kodak neg..? Hmmm... then it makes sense...

You mention the film used is 160VC. This would be a 'vivid color' type of film. Do you think the Nikonscan Neutral example is doing a good job here? To my eyes I would say the nr. 10 colors are more 'vivid' than the Nikonscan example. The no. 1 is perhaps a bit over the top in the red channel, but the blue sky looks very nice. One more quesion: do you ever use the multi sampling option? And how is Nikonscan handling the grain suppression? Are there any other functions you miss out when using Vuescan?

The films I will be scanning are Kodak Tri-X, Ilford FP4, Ilford PanF, Kodak Portra 160 and 400, Kodak Ektar and some slidefilm from my archive (Fuji Provia and Kodachrome).

Btw... that Nikon Scan setup workflow will be very helpful, thanks!

BMbikerider · Sep 6, 2019

I use a Coolscan LS50 (one step down from the 5000) I use the original Nikon software and a laptop with Windows XP software. I save the files (always in Raw) onto a memory stick and then work on them using my desktop and Adobe CC. I know I could speed things up with installing aftermarket software onto the desktop but I am used to the Nikon software and know what it can do. I have no need to change what I get. Nor am I in a hurry.

EdSawyer · Sep 6, 2019

set up a harddrive partition and install windows on it on the mac with bootcamp. That's what I do to run Nikonscan 4 on an up-to-date iMac with a coolscan 9000. best of all worlds.

Patrick Robert James · Sep 6, 2019

I use Viewscan on a Mac. It is the easiest solution and it is a great program once you learn how to use it. It wins hands down if you want to scan entire rolls of film in one go, and does a better job on black and white film than Nikon Scan.

That said, Nikon Scan is really good for color neg film without much fuss. I have an old Powerbook I keep around that has Nikon Scan loaded on it. I take it out every now and then. Nikon Scan is a clunky program though. If you want to run Nikon Scan on a Mac, I think you need a PPC. I seem to recall people having issues running Nikon Scan with Intel Macs and Rosetta. I could be wrong on that. It has been a long time... I've never messed with Bootcamp, but if that works like Ed suggests I may do that myself, but then again, I'd have to use Windoze. No thanks....

Viewscan is good with color too if you learn how to use it. If you lock the exposure, lock the base color then set a neutral the scans come out great.

Hope that helps you.

PhilBurton · Sep 6, 2019

BMbikerider said:
I use a Coolscan LS50 (one step down from the 5000) I use the original Nikon software and a laptop with Windows XP software. I save the files (always in Raw) onto a memory stick and then work on them using my desktop and Adobe CC. I know I could speed things up with installing aftermarket software onto the desktop but I am used to the Nikon software and know what it can do. I have no need to change what I get. Nor am I in a hurry.

RAW from the scanner? Can you process that RAW with Adobe software? Which software? I heard somewhere that a scanner RAW file isn't the same as a DSLR RAW file.

Tom Kershaw · Sep 6, 2019

Have a look at: https://www.colorperfect.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en

Les Sarile · Sep 6, 2019

EAF64 said:
Thank you Les, for this impressive comparison. Looks like Nikon ICE is better performing than Vuescan, but I sure hope I will never have to scan a negative scratched as badly as this one. You say Fuji Pro service did this to your Kodak neg..? Hmmm... then it makes sense...

You mention the film used is 160VC. This would be a 'vivid color' type of film. Do you think the Nikonscan Neutral example is doing a good job here? To my eyes I would say the nr. 10 colors are more 'vivid' than the Nikonscan example. The no. 1 is perhaps a bit over the top in the red channel, but the blue sky looks very nice. One more quesion: do you ever use the multi sampling option? And how is Nikonscan handling the grain suppression? Are there any other functions you miss out when using Vuescan?

The films I will be scanning are Kodak Tri-X, Ilford FP4, Ilford PanF, Kodak Portra 160 and 400, Kodak Ektar and some slidefilm from my archive (Fuji Provia and Kodachrome).

Btw... that Nikon Scan setup workflow will be very helpful, thanks!

I sent many different 35mm films to Fuji Pro and fortunately that was the only one they screwed up. I did this as a way to compare traditional optical enlargements - in terms of detail, color and contrast, to my own scans.

With regards to colors, that is a most personal assessment and all I can do is show you the results.
As far as grain, Nikonscan has an option called GEM. Here are results I get using it on a relatively "grainy" film like Fuji Superia 400 as well as external plugins for comparison.

For mild form of grain reduction, normal ICE does soften the grain a tad, and fine mode a little bit more. Out side of that, I don't recommend using GEM and prefer to add grain reduction on the final output. For instance, grain you see on-screen would not be visible on poster size prints unless it is from very grainy film like Fuji Superia 1600 or the like. If you reduce the size from a full res scan to a websize scan, the grain tends to be minimized as well.

Of your list, probably Tri-X has the most grain - depending on developer, and here is an example I have of this film.

Please note that zooming in larger then 1:1 on my examples and you will see JPEG artifacting due to compression and not the film itself.

Here is one of Fuji Natura 1600 with and without grain reduction.

With regards to multisampling, every now and then I would try it just to see if it gave me any improvements and I have not found any use for it.

I only tried Vuescan very early on so perhaps there have been worthwhile improvements incorporated since. Otherwise, I have not found any failures in Nikonscan. I only use auto focus and auto exposure and about the only adjustment I ever add is to bring the master exposure down to better control highlights. For instance the Kodak Portra series have such wide exposure latitude that it is nearly impossible to blow out the highlights especially compared to even RAW digital files.

However, it may take some post work to show using shadows/highlights tool.

The newer Fuji slide films can benefit from scanning over and under exposed too like this RVP100. In this, I scanned the frame and adjusted Analog Gain to get over and under and then used HDR and post work.

Of course you can do all the other post work on these files as you can with any other like stitching multiple frames of Kodak Ektar 100 together.

You'll have many chances to enjoy the benefits of the Coolscan ahead of you!

BMbikerider · Sep 7, 2019

PhilBurton said:
RAW from the scanner? Can you process that RAW with Adobe software? Which software? I heard somewhere that a scanner RAW file isn't the same as a DSLR RAW file.

You most certainly can. I use nothing else when scanning film. With Adobe CC the latest RAW conversion is absolutely magic. The depth of detail that can be recovered from a negative has to be seen to be believed. Bear in mind the Nikon V50 scanner had a D Max of 4.2 - greater than any other scanner. The only one generally available that even come close are the high end Epson scanners V800/850 which have a D max of 4.0

As for your last comment = Fake news!......... Whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about, or telling deliberate lies.

Even on the flatbed with an image scanned into a TIFF (a lossless file) once it has been opened in PS you can open the RAW converter afterwards and whilst it is not as good as an original RAW file it isn't bad at all

PhilBurton · Sep 7, 2019

BMbikerider said:
You most certainly can. I use nothing else when scanning film. With Adobe CC the latest RAW conversion is absolutely magic. The depth of detail that can be recovered from a negative has to be seen to be believed. Bear in mind the Nikon V50 scanner had a D Max of 4.2 - greater than any other scanner. The only one generally available that even come close are the high end Epson scanners V800/850 which have a D max of 4.0

As for your last comment = Fake news!......... Whoever told you that didn't know what they were talking about, or telling deliberate lies.

Even on the flatbed with an image scanned into a TIFF (a lossless file) once it has been opened in PS you can open the RAW converter afterwards and whilst it is not as good as an original RAW file it isn't bad at all

I'm unsure about your message.

There is no Nikon V50 scanner. Which model are you referring to?

I am pretty sure that you cannot convert a TIFF file into a RAW file. RAW convertors start with a RAW file and produce a different format. It's a one-way process.

After I first read your post, I got curious enough to do some searching. I found these links:
http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=3626.0 - see next to last post
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikonscan-and-raw-nef.263793/

So let me confirm your workflow. You have a Nikon film scanner. You use NikonScan 4 and you save the scan results as NEF. You then import these scanner NEFs into Adobe Lightroom, which is able to process these file.

MattKing · Sep 7, 2019

Vuescan supports RAW file output which is convertible by a number of RAW converters.
FastStone Image viewer lists Nikon NEF files as one of the formats it can convert.

BMbikerider · Sep 7, 2019

PhilBurton said:
I'm unsure about your message.

There is no Nikon V50 scanner. Which model are you referring to?

I am pretty sure that you cannot convert a TIFF file into a RAW file. RAW convertors start with a RAW file and produce a different format. It's a one-way process.

After I first read your post, I got curious enough to do some searching. I found these links:
http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php?topic=3626.0 - see next to last post
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikonscan-and-raw-nef.263793/

So let me confirm your workflow. You have a Nikon film scanner. You use NikonScan 4 and you save the scan results as NEF. You then import these scanner NEFs into Adobe Lightroom, which is able to process these file.

Sorry, I wrote the wrong name it is a Coolscan V

You are getting a little mixed up I'm afraid. I scan the negative as a RAW (NeF) file and process it using Adobe CC and then open up the main CC pallette and do what I have to do. The amount of detail that can be recovered using the raw image and Adobe CC has to be seen to be believed. I save these a Jpeg or Adobe files

I do not bother with saving a file as a TIFF when it has been scanned using Nikon Scanner to make a RAW (NeF), there is no need to, so I save as a Jpeg but I still have the original if I need to do something else without altering the saved J peg.

What I did say and you seem to have miss read my post, was, if I scan using my flatbed, which can be set to scan as TIFF file instead of a Jpeg. When I open the lossless TIFF file in Adobe CC, in the Adobe cc filters section there is option of opening and using the Adobe RAW menu to adjust the content before saving as a Jpeg. I like to use these before going back to the main CC menu because some of the options in RAW are far more subtle that the main CC tools. So it appears you may have been miss-informed again.

Les Sarile · Sep 7, 2019

BMbikerider said:
The amount of detail that can be recovered using the raw image and Adobe CC has to be seen to be believed.

Do you have some examples that show what you can achieve from these RAW files vs a JPEG?

BMbikerider · Sep 8, 2019

Not at present because I am not at home and won't be back for a couple of weeks - I can then.

But if you read up on it the evidence already there. A RAW file contains all the information in the file as recorded by the camera sensor. A Jpeg file' will always contain less when it comes out of the camera because the camera processor will have 'done its work' to use the internal soft ware.

Try photographing, say a sunset with parts of the image almost bleached out and at the other end of the scale with dense shadows, with a RAW image you will be able to recover more information from the RAW state than one that has already been processed. When a RAW unprocessed file is saved onto the hard drive the file size will be a lot larger than a Jpeg file because the processing of the Jpeg file will have to all intents and purposes 'destroyed' a significant amount of information.

PhilBurton · Sep 8, 2019

BMbikerider said:
Sorry, I wrote the wrong name it is a Coolscan V

I scan the negative as a RAW (NeF) file and process it using Adobe CC and then open up the main CC pallette and do what I have to do.

There is no piece of software called Adobe CC. Adobe Creative Cloud https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud.html is an entire suite of applications designed to create and edit "content." CC includes

and

Not shown in those screen shots, but a part of CC is

So which one or more of these applications to you use to process Nikon NEFs. When you can, please post screen shots of your workflow.

Nikon Scan, Silverfast or Vuescan for Coolscan 5000

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency