Scanning 617 film on a Coolscan 9000

Paul Ozzello

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Montreal
Format
Medium Format
I know that scanning 6x17 film on the LS-9000 has to be done in 2 parts, but how is it actually done? I've read they some people remove and flip the negative in the holder, but I came across this post that says you can "offset" in the preview to scan the second part without moving the negative. Can this be done in Silverfast and will it keep the same exposure settings?

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/nikon-super-colscan-9000-ed-scanner.350935/

Paul
 
OP
OP

Paul Ozzello

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2004
Messages
618
Location
Montreal
Format
Medium Format
mshchem said:
So, you make two "6×9" scans and put together in Photoshop? Oy that's a pain.
Click to expand...

Almost - the maximum scan is 6x8 so you have to do it in 3 parts. I use Stephan Sharf’s universal holder and fluid mount my negatives. I stitch them in photoshop and the results are pretty incredible.
 

mshchem

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
14,280
Location
Iowa City, Iowa USA
Format
Medium Format
I actually got some really nice scans from a 5+ year old Canon flatbed scanner. I have plenty of 6x6 and 6x9 films to scan. I picked the Coolscan up for next to nothing, using good old reliable easy VueScan. I'm not going to wet mount, don't want the mess.
 

Light Capture

Advertiser
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Ontario, Canada
Format
Multi Format
mshchem said:
Is there any one who's done this?
Click to expand...

As previously mentioned it needs to be done in 3 scans as 2 won't cover the whole area.

I'm using VueScan to do this and make sure negative is placed in the same position every time. After that with trial and error offsets and frame sizes are established.
Also, I try to place seams away from central area. Central portion of image is scanned in maximum size and two sides are scanned with desired overlap for merging.

Didn't notice any artefacts from merging but doing it this way minimizes potential artefacts in central image area.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,257
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
mshchem said:
It's working very nice with the latest VueScan.
Click to expand...

Try Nikonscan 4.0.3 too. The ICE implementation and colour conversion on C41 material are *so* much better than in Vuescan (I use and like both Vuescan and Nikonscan and actually prefer Vuescan for B/W)
 

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,972
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
albireo said:
Try Nikonscan 4.0.3 too. The ICE implementation and colour conversion on C41 material are *so* much better than in Vuescan (I use and like both Vuescan and Nikonscan and actually prefer Vuescan for B/W)
Click to expand...

I've given NikonScan another go recently, and agree the C-41 negative conversions are good out of the box. However, the software seems to have trouble with my Stephan Scharf film holder arranged for 6x7cm in colour negative mode - NS won't show an image - a 6x6cm set-up works fine in colour negative mode.

I'm reasonably comfortable with my linear colour neg VueScan -> ColorPerfect workflow on relatively modern computer hardware, but find it noteworthy that NS gives good colour quality with little customisation or film type selected etc.
 

albireo

Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
1,257
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format

Tom - this is odd. I use a Scharf film holder too, with a variety of masks to suit my negatives, and I have no issues using any of the masks with Vuescan or Nikonscan.

I was also a big fan of Colourperfect but I've largely ceased using it given how much I prefer Nikonscan's conversions.
 

Tom Kershaw

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4,972
Location
Norfolk, United Kingdom
Format
Multi Format
albireo said:
Tom - this is odd. I use a Scharf film holder too, with a variety of masks to suit my negatives, and I have no issues using any of the masks with Vuescan or Nikonscan.
Click to expand...

I thought it was odd as well, thanks for the data point. I may have to do some experimentation. I've not had any trouble with his system of masks and VueScan.

albireo said:
I was also a big fan of Colourperfect but I've largely ceased using it given how much I prefer Nikonscan's conversions.
Click to expand...

I realise that as these are proprietary solutions we can't really know, but a comparison of how the underlying methods work would be useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…