Very, very, very late to scanning.

NikonScan will give you the best "dumb color" by which I mean you won't have to mess around with it as much. For transparencies it isn't that different, but for color negs it makes a difference. I am a Mac user and I have an old Powerbook I use with NikonScan when I want to scan a color neg that way occasionally. For black and white though, Vuescan will do a better job than NikonScan. The downside to Silverfast is you have to buy a version for each scanner. Vuescan is a once only purchase for life.

Make sure your scanner is clean, especially the mirror. Any dust on the mirror will make your scans blurry. On the upside it isn't that complicated to clean it, but it is worth the effort. I clean mine about every year.

philipus said:

I used Nikon Scan with my Coolscans for several years but prefer Vuescan these days. Here's a write-up I did a few years ago which may help with the basic Vuescan settings.

Whichever software you pick be prepared 1) to go through a learning curve to arrive at as flat-looking scans as possible in order to keep as much image data in the TIFF as possible, and 2) learn how to post-process them.

Good luck
Philip

Click to expand...

Thanks very, very much for this workflow. Much appreciated.

I do almost all my post work in Lightroom, but I also have Photoshop available, and I would probably use your workflow as a guide for dust removal using Photoshop.

Patrick Robert James said:

NikonScan will give you the best "dumb color" by which I mean you won't have to mess around with it as much. For transparencies it isn't that different, but for color negs it makes a difference. I am a Mac user and I have an old Powerbook I use with NikonScan when I want to scan a color neg that way occasionally. For black and white though, Vuescan will do a better job than NikonScan. The downside to Silverfast is you have to buy a version for each scanner. Vuescan is a once only purchase for life.

Make sure your scanner is clean, especially the mirror. Any dust on the mirror will make your scans blurry. On the upside it isn't that complicated to clean it, but it is worth the effort. I clean mine about every year.

Click to expand...

When you say that NikonScan gives you the best "dumb color," does statement that apply to Kodachrome? Almost all of my slides are K-chromes.

I know that the pricing structure for Silverfast is a real deterrent. However, all I have now is my Nikon 5000 ED and for the odd 120s, I would probably use a friend of a friend's scanner. Price aside, did you compare Silverfast and Vuescan?

PhilBurton said:

When you say that NikonScan gives you the best "dumb color," does statement that apply to Kodachrome? Almost all of my slides are K-chromes.

I know that the pricing structure for Silverfast is a real deterrent. However, all I have now is my Nikon 5000 ED and for the odd 120s, I would probably use a friend of a friend's scanner. Price aside, did you compare Silverfast and Vuescan?

Click to expand...

I gave you the answer right in the post. For transparencies it won't matter that much.

One thing to keep in mind is that you are using the batch feeder. I don't know how that would work with Vuescan since I've never tried it.

I've tried Silverfast before. It is probably easier to use than Vuescan since it resembles other imaging software, but I didn't think it offered anything for the price really. You will need to learn how to use whatever software you choose though. Vuescan is probably the most complicated, but can be made simple too (it has Simple and Expert modes). Since you are scanning transparencies see if you can get NikonScan to work first. If that is a problem then Vuescan will work for sure and doesn't really cost that much.

Hope that helps you.

Patrick Robert James said:

I gave you the answer right in the post. For transparencies it won't matter that much.

One thing to keep in mind is that you are using the batch feeder. I don't know how that would work with Vuescan since I've never tried it.

I've tried Silverfast before. It is probably easier to use than Vuescan since it resembles other imaging software, but I didn't think it offered anything for the price really. You will need to learn how to use whatever software you choose though. Vuescan is probably the most complicated, but can be made simple too (it has Simple and Expert modes). Since you are scanning transparencies see if you can get NikonScan to work first. If that is a problem then Vuescan will work for sure and doesn't really cost that much.

Hope that helps you.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Your response does help.

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.

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.

Les,
I'm really impressed with your results. It's a strong argument in favor of Nikonscan, especially if it proves to be superior to Silverfast and Vuescan for Kodachrome. Is there a way to download all those screenshots in a batch?

Unfortunately, fototime doesn't have a batch download mode. Fortunately there are only 13 frames of small images.

Coolscan 5000 + Nikonscan on Kodachrome shows the effects of ICE compared to Epson. You'll notice there are artifacts around the areas with bright and dark intersections such as the exhaust pipe as well as the rims and tires. These are most prominent on the Epson and much less - practically indiscernible, on the Coolscan 5000 + Nikonscan combination.

Les' first example uses a negative. Vuescan needs a little work to get the best color out of negative film and NikonScan does well right out of the box, which is why I said earlier that NikonScan has dumb color. You can see that in Les' example... That is only with negative film though since the software has to deal with the orange mask and every film is a bit different. You need to lock the base color in Vuescan to get the color right and, to be fair to Vuescan, Les' negative examples don't look to me like that was done. For transparencies you won't see much difference at all.

One thing to note is that as you get more advanced in scanning Vuescan will offer you a lot more control and it is much more efficient. I won't get into all that now, but I still think your best bet is to just use NikonScan as long as you can get it to work.

I pretty much only used automatic scan - auto focus, auto exposure with normal ICE. Note that ICE can't be used with true b&w films. I also use exposure level controls to reign in the highlights particularly on slides. Nikonscan color results for me have been near perfect across all the films I have ever used. Occasionally, I would try other scanners just to see how the Coolscan+Nikonscan compares and here are a few examples of completely aberrant results from other scanners that make you wonder if they are even of the same frame of film.

This one using Kodak Gold 100


This one using Kodak Ektar 100


To get the most range out of a film, you might have to post process. I use ACDSee's Light Equalizer on this Kodak Portra 400 to draw out the details from the dark and light areas.


Scanning multiple frames for stitching is so easy with Coolscan+Nikonscan and Kodak ICE. This one of 4 frames of Kodak Ektar 100.


If the film grain bothers you, I would suggest not using Nikonscan's GEM but use grain reduction in post. This one using Fuji Superia 400.


The effects of Nikonscan ICE on detail. This one on Fuji RVP.


You might be really late scanning, but I can assure you that you picked the best possible tool to do it. Of course the Coolscan 9000 is perfect for scanning Kodachrome due to it's implementation of ICE - no abberation even magnified. This one shows DSLR scanning using a Nikon D800 which of course has no ICE compared to the 9000 of a particularly dirty frame of Kodachrome.



But of course the workflow is so much faster with the Coolscan 5000 due to the film handling. Scanning speed per frame is also faster with the 5000.