35mm slides scanner clarification questions

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by All Things Mopar, Feb 16, 2006.

  1. I was at my fav camera store today buying Canon L-glass 17-
    40mm and 24-70mm lenses. I knew he carried Nikon scanners, so
    we talked about them as well.

    He has both sold and personally used the Coolscan V ED, 5000
    ED, and 9000 ED. In my first post I asked the more general
    question of what people recommended with the main criteria
    being able to bulk scan. I thank everyone who replied. I
    learned a great deal. I learned even more from my local store
    manager.

    First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait until
    after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of current
    models dropping in price.

    I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
    well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
    advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional
    bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he sold last year
    came back, one 3 times. The buyers eventually kept the
    scanner, which worked flawlessly with the built-in f-slide
    holder, and returned the larger tray. The alleged problem was
    continual jams loading new slides, in some case with very
    difficult extraction.

    We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So, here's
    some fresh questions to help people focus on what I think I
    heard today, and offer their personal experience. As to Braun,
    he knows about it, but can't get them. He predicted they would
    also jam, but that's just supposition.

    1) If anyone has the Braun SlideScan 4000, what has your
    experience been with either of Braun's optional trays, the
    straight one or the circular 100 job. I (now) understand that
    I would have to swap slides from my Kodak Carousel trays to
    anything I buy, which I can live with.

    Is the Braun relatively jam-free in bulk mode?

    2) Again to the Braun 4000, I would scan at 1800 DPI, not
    3600. If my calculator is correct, that would give me about
    approx. 2.4 mega pixels, which is plenty for me. Braun claims
    a scan speed with ICE off at 60 seconds, but I'm skeptical of
    that. What is your experience? And, how long does it take with
    ICE turned on?

    3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"

    a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK, work
    sorta, or jam-city?

    b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
    size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill for
    me. So, my question is, what is your experience with per-slide
    scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?

    5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
    Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says he
    has had excellent results. The only thing he does is turn the
    slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake the emulsion 3-
    D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet sandpaper job on it. He
    says that his customers also report good success, but he was
    more vague on that.

    6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
    software has masks for common negative film types, certainly
    Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of negs and they're
    all Kodak. If I assume right, is the Coolscan color rendition
    sufficiently accurate?

    Six new questions is a lot, I know. If it results in too much
    length and confusion, I will wait a day or two and come back
    with smaller bites.

    Thank you all for any and all advice and recommendations on
    what works and what doesn't. And, since I have only 35mm and
    no medium format, I do go with my camera store manager that I
    don't need the big Nikon.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. All Things Mopar

    Battleax Guest

    Man, you are high maintenance, lol
    Battleax, Feb 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. All Things Mopar

    rafe b Guest

    "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131...

    > 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
    > software has masks for common negative film types, certainly
    > Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of negs and they're
    > all Kodak. If I assume right, is the Coolscan color rendition
    > sufficiently accurate?



    NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
    either chromes or C41.

    SilverFast and Vuescan have "profiles" for
    common C41 films. I don't use VueScan
    much, and when I do, I don't use these
    profiles.

    As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard of
    a single mention of the Braun scanners, in years
    on various scanner lists.

    Yes, I have heard of complaints with the Nikon
    slide bulk feeders, but since I don't use one, I
    never paid them much mind.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Feb 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Today Battleax commented courteously on the subject at hand

    > Man, you are high maintenance, lol
    >

    Yes, but what I really am is focused 150% when I'm trying to get
    smart on a new issue. The time to ask questions is /before/ you
    buy, as most stores won't let you return a scanner. And, while I
    read specs and tests, I only give them about 10% weighting. I go
    with just one or two data points from people who actually own
    and use what I'm looking for. Besides the obvious, I can also
    get opinions on ergomics and other "softer" criteria.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

    >> 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
    >> software has masks for common negative film types,
    >> certainly Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of
    >> negs and they're all Kodak. If I assume right, is the
    >> Coolscan color rendition sufficiently accurate?


    > NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
    > either chromes or C41.


    Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
    expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
    forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?

    > SilverFast and Vuescan have "profiles" for
    > common C41 films. I don't use VueScan
    > much, and when I do, I don't use these
    > profiles.
    >
    > As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard of
    > a single mention of the Braun scanners, in years
    > on various scanner lists.


    Thanks. It isn't possible to prove a negative hypothesis by
    examples, but it is possible to prove a positive one, meaning if
    nobody knows, the thesis is disproved and I buy something else.

    > Yes, I have heard of complaints with the Nikon
    > slide bulk feeders, but since I don't use one, I
    > never paid them much mind.


    Maybe a bulk loader user will come along later. Thanks, rafe.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 16, 2006
    #5
  6. All Things Mopar

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131>,
    All Things Mopar <> wrote:

    > Is the Braun relatively jam-free in bulk mode?


    This isn't an issue as the Braun does not use a stack loader. It uses
    the same slide trays that Braun slide projectors have used for decades
    and has the same anti-jamming feature as their projectors.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Feb 16, 2006
    #6
  7. All Things Mopar

    Bob Salomon Guest

    In article <Xns976CADBD1893DReplyID@216.196.97.131>,
    All Things Mopar <> wrote:

    > And, how long does it take


    Again that depends on computer speed, ram, 8 or 16 bit as well as the
    chosen res.

    I scan in less then 2 minutes with the equipment I noted earlier.

    --
    To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.
    Bob Salomon, Feb 16, 2006
    #7
  8. All Things Mopar

    rafe b Guest

    On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:47:33 -0600, All Things Mopar
    <> wrote:

    >Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand


    >> NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
    >> either chromes or C41.

    >
    >Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
    >expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
    >forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?



    It can be done without any steenking
    profiles. I do it all the time. Most
    of the images on my website are from
    C41 film.



    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Feb 17, 2006
    #8
  9. "rafe b" <rafebATspeakeasy.net> wrote:
    > All Things Mopar <> wrote:
    >
    >>Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand

    >
    >>> NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
    >>> either chromes or C41.

    >>
    >>Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
    >>expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
    >>forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?

    >
    > It can be done without any steenking
    > profiles. I do it all the time. Most
    > of the images on my website are from
    > C41 film.


    Besides, profiles really only make sense if you (a) have even lighting (e.g.
    no open shadows in an outdoor shot), (b) actually measure the color
    temperature of your light source, (c) use the correct color correction
    filters on your lens when you take the shot, and (d) actually want color
    correct images as opposed to something that makes sense perceptually.

    None of those apply in most of my photography, and each image needs
    individual color correction.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Feb 17, 2006
    #9
  10. All Things Mopar <> writes:

    > First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait until
    > after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of current
    > models dropping in price.


    Not a bad concept. I'm guessing consumer scanners are nearing
    end-of-life, myself, as people who care about old pictures mostly get
    them taken care of; but waiting until after PMA *might* pay off, and
    doesn't seem to hurt you any (this project doesn't sound urgent).

    > I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
    > well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
    > advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional
    > bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he sold last year
    > came back, one 3 times. The buyers eventually kept the
    > scanner, which worked flawlessly with the built-in f-slide
    > holder, and returned the larger tray. The alleged problem was
    > continual jams loading new slides, in some case with very
    > difficult extraction.


    And those were the SF-210, the new one? I believe last year they
    should have been, but just to be sure. Because that doesn't fit the
    general reputation as I found it on the web, or my personal
    experience.

    > We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So, here's
    > some fresh questions to help people focus on what I think I
    > heard today, and offer their personal experience. As to Braun,
    > he knows about it, but can't get them. He predicted they would
    > also jam, but that's just supposition.


    This is starting to make me suspicious. Feeding from trays is *far*
    easier than handling a stack of slides, in my experience projecting
    slides over the last 30-some years. I'm starting to think this
    camera-store guy may be talking beyond his actual knowledge (a failing
    I've noted throughout the years in camera-store guys). If you have
    experience with him and can rate his reliability, then that's useful.

    [snip]

    > 3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"
    >
    > a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK, work
    > sorta, or jam-city?


    Already answered elsewhere, where you'll probably find it.

    > b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
    > size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill for
    > me. So, my question is, what is your experience with per-slide
    > scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?


    There is no Nikon 500; there is a "Super Coolscan 5000 ED" (which is
    what I have and have mostly called just the "5000 ED") and a "Coolscan
    V ED".

    I believe the current Nikon scanners all use the same software. I
    haven't used the Coolscan V, but I have used the even older 1000 and
    the somewhat older Coolscan LS-2000, and of course my current 5000,
    and all of them let you adjust the resolution/pixel dimensions
    throughout a very wide range, and down to much smaller than 12MP. I
    would therefore be very surprised if the Coolscan V had such a
    limitation. But I cannot say from direct personal experience for
    sure.

    > 5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
    > Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says he
    > has had excellent results. The only thing he does is turn the
    > slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake the emulsion 3-
    > D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet sandpaper job on it. He
    > says that his customers also report good success, but he was
    > more vague on that.


    Again I see reason to be suspicious of this store manager; so far as I
    can see turning the Kodachrome slide over will have no effect. ICE
    works by having a fourth scan step, using infrared illumination and
    sensor straight through the slide. Which side was up would make no
    difference to how the infrared went through the slide. I also haven't
    seen this -- I'm tempted to call it an urban legend -- in any previous
    discussion.

    I've already told you about my good results. I was going to give you
    pointers to my examples on the web, but it's hard enough to find the
    film type (buried in the raw IPTC info as "supplemental information")
    and many of the originals were badly enough exposed and hence are
    fairly drastic rescue jobs that they could easily be interpreted
    against the scanner; whereas *I* think the fair interpretation is
    against me as a photographer in 1972-1974 instead :). Okay, having
    said that,
    <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1971-72/09000-lacon/> and
    <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1974/08300-Discon-II/> are two batches with quite a lot of Kodachrome in them. Also most of the color images in <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1957/> from 1957 (my mother's slides, my scans on the LS-2000).
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
    RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
    Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
    Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Today David Dyer-Bennet commented courteously on the subject
    at hand

    >> First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait
    >> until after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of
    >> current models dropping in price.

    >
    > Not a bad concept. I'm guessing consumer scanners are
    > nearing end-of-life, myself, as people who care about old
    > pictures mostly get them taken care of; but waiting until
    > after PMA *might* pay off, and doesn't seem to hurt you any
    > (this project doesn't sound urgent).


    Certainly not urgent, David! I thought about getting them done
    by Ritz or CVS at six bits apiece all last year and didn't do
    anything. Just a few days ago, I god all head up thinking that
    maybe, just maybe the technology had advanced since I last
    looked and buying a scanner might now be the better choice,
    plus it eliminates some store losing my "irreplaceable"
    slides.

    >> I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
    >> well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
    >> advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to
    >> optional bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he
    >> sold last year came back, one 3 times. The buyers
    >> eventually kept the scanner, which worked flawlessly with
    >> the built-in f-slide holder, and returned the larger tray.
    >> The alleged problem was continual jams loading new slides,
    >> in some case with very difficult extraction.

    >
    > And those were the SF-210, the new one? I believe last
    > year they should have been, but just to be sure. Because
    > that doesn't fit the general reputation as I found it on
    > the web, or my personal experience.


    He didn't say, and I didn't asked because I didn't have the
    benefit of your experience yesterday afternoon, just got it
    this morning. So, your posts and my replies are being stored
    for reference so I ask better questions in the store next
    month.

    also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So,
    >> here's some fresh questions to help people focus on what I
    >> think I heard today, and offer their personal experience.
    >> As to Braun, he knows about it, but can't get them. He
    >> predicted they would also jam, but that's just
    >> supposition.

    >
    > This is starting to make me suspicious. Feeding from trays
    > is *far* easier than handling a stack of slides, in my
    > experience projecting slides over the last 30-some years.
    > I'm starting to think this camera-store guy may be talking
    > beyond his actual knowledge (a failing I've noted
    > throughout the years in camera-store guys). If you have
    > experience with him and can rate his reliability, then
    > that's useful.
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >> 3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"
    >>
    >> a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK,
    >> work sorta, or jam-city?

    >
    > Already answered elsewhere, where you'll probably find it.
    >
    >> b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
    >> size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill
    >> for me. So, my question is, what is your experience with
    >> per-slide scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?

    >
    > There is no Nikon 500; there is a "Super Coolscan 5000 ED"
    > (which is what I have and have mostly called just the "5000
    > ED") and a "Coolscan V ED".


    I dropped a digit, my bad.
    >
    > I believe the current Nikon scanners all use the same
    > software. I haven't used the Coolscan V, but I have used
    > the even older 1000 and the somewhat older Coolscan
    > LS-2000, and of course my current 5000, and all of them let
    > you adjust the resolution/pixel dimensions throughout a
    > very wide range, and down to much smaller than 12MP. I
    > would therefore be very surprised if the Coolscan V had
    > such a limitation. But I cannot say from direct personal
    > experience for sure.


    I can handle those questions in the store by breaking open the
    box and reading the manual before I buy (or not). My store
    will let me return anything within 10 days except most DSLRs.
    But, I think that he won't take returns on scanners because it
    is a mechanical device and couldn't be pawned off as "new".

    >> 5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
    >> Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says
    >> he has had excellent results. The only thing he does is
    >> turn the slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake
    >> the emulsion 3- D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet
    >> sandpaper job on it. He says that his customers also
    >> report good success, but he was more vague on that.

    >
    > Again I see reason to be suspicious of this store manager;
    > so far as I can see turning the Kodachrome slide over will
    > have no effect. ICE works by having a fourth scan step,
    > using infrared illumination and sensor straight through the
    > slide. Which side was up would make no difference to how
    > the infrared went through the slide. I also haven't seen
    > this -- I'm tempted to call it an urban legend -- in any
    > previous discussion.


    "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but "the proof of the
    pudding is in the eating". Meaning that a sales guy would
    subconsciosly, if not intentionally, minmize anything bad he
    knows about Kodachrome and ICE, while the only real way to
    find out is to try it.

    I imagine it's going to be quite difficult to do that in a
    store, although I could bring a bag of slides in and see if
    he's set up for a demo. I may be wrong about returns. Dunno.
    My best case scenario is that a return is allowed, then I
    would be able to spend a week test driving and /know/ whether
    a Coolscan V ED does or doesn't do my job.

    > I've already told you about my good results. I was going
    > to give you pointers to my examples on the web, but it's
    > hard enough to find the film type (buried in the raw IPTC
    > info as "supplemental information") and many of the
    > originals were badly enough exposed and hence are fairly
    > drastic rescue jobs that they could easily be interpreted
    > against the scanner; whereas *I* think the fair
    > interpretation is against me as a photographer in 1972-1974
    > instead :). Okay, having said that,
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1971-72/09000-l
    > acon/> and
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1974/08300-Disc
    > on-II/> are two batches with quite a lot of Kodachrome in
    > them. Also most of the color images in
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1957/> from
    > 1957 (my mother's slides, my scans on the LS-2000).


    I'll take a look. Again, thanks muchly with the thorough, well
    thought-out replies, David.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Today David Dyer-Bennet commented courteously on the subject
    at hand

    [big snip]
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1971-72/09000-l
    > acon/> and
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1974/08300-Disc
    > on-II/> are two batches with quite a lot of Kodachrome in
    > them. Also most of the color images in
    > <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/1957/> from
    > 1957 (my mother's slides, my scans on the LS-2000).


    "A picture is worth a 1000 words." Your web site images are, of
    necessity, quite small, but the quality is quite remarkable,
    including the Kodachome.

    I would have no problem being confident in buying a Coolscan V
    ED based on your personal experience. You don't have any reason
    to "guild the lily", as my camera store manager has, you don't
    make your living from selling these things, and you've upgraded
    as your needs change and Nikon improved, and you sound like
    you're very, very satisfied.

    Thank you again.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 17, 2006
    #12
  13. All Things Mopar

    tomm42 Guest

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    > Today rafe b commented courteously on the subject at hand
    >
    > >> 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
    > >> software has masks for common negative film types,
    > >> certainly Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of
    > >> negs and they're all Kodak. If I assume right, is the
    > >> Coolscan color rendition sufficiently accurate?

    >
    > > NikonScan has no special profiles for films,
    > > either chromes or C41.

    >
    > Good thing I'm not doing a lot of negs! <grin> What does Nikon
    > expect people to do about that, or am I missing the entire
    > forest and the things are strictly /slide/ scanners?
    >
    > > SilverFast and Vuescan have "profiles" for
    > > common C41 films. I don't use VueScan
    > > much, and when I do, I don't use these
    > > profiles.
    > >
    > > As I mentioned earlier, I've never heard of
    > > a single mention of the Braun scanners, in years
    > > on various scanner lists.

    >
    > Thanks. It isn't possible to prove a negative hypothesis by
    > examples, but it is possible to prove a positive one, meaning if
    > nobody knows, the thesis is disproved and I buy something else.
    >
    > > Yes, I have heard of complaints with the Nikon
    > > slide bulk feeders, but since I don't use one, I
    > > never paid them much mind.

    >
    > Maybe a bulk loader user will come along later. Thanks, rafe.
    >
    > --
    > ATM, aka Jerry


    The Nikon bulk loader works OK (not perfect) with plastic mounts, not
    so hot with cardboard mounts, and terrible with gamy old beat up
    cardboard mounts.
    I have a Nikon LS2000 (Nikon Scan 3.1) and often scan at 1500 or
    1800ppi. Mostly for PowerPoint presentations. It works well, BUT at
    that level I also use my Epson Expression 1600. Not a big difference
    with the scans at that size, the Nikon has better color control. But
    the Epson files are fine after Photoshop massage. Try an Epson 4990
    maybe?
    At home I have a Minolta Scan Multi and have done a lot of negs from
    this scanner, even without a specific profile, I have very good,
    adjustable color. I have used old Kodak, new Kodak, Fuji and AGFA film.

    No experience with the Braun, but it sure looks like something Kodak
    should have invent for the all the Carousel trays out there. Except if
    Kodak had thought of it it would either be real cheap plastic with no
    precission or cost $20000 and be way over designed.

    Tom
    tomm42, Feb 17, 2006
    #13
  14. All Things Mopar wrote:
    > I was at my fav camera store today buying Canon L-glass 17-
    > 40mm and 24-70mm lenses. I knew he carried Nikon scanners, so
    > we talked about them as well.
    >
    > He has both sold and personally used the Coolscan V ED, 5000
    > ED, and 9000 ED. In my first post I asked the more general
    > question of what people recommended with the main criteria
    > being able to bulk scan. I thank everyone who replied. I
    > learned a great deal. I learned even more from my local store
    > manager.
    >
    > First, he says that since I'm in no hurry, I should wait until
    > after PMA to see what's new, with some likelihood of current
    > models dropping in price.
    >
    > I asked him what he thought I needed, since he knows quite
    > well what I do and my level of expertise. He /strongly/
    > advised me /not/ to buy any Coolscan scanner with to optional
    > bulk tray. He says that nearly 100% of what he sold last year
    > came back, one 3 times. The buyers eventually kept the
    > scanner, which worked flawlessly with the built-in f-slide
    > holder, and returned the larger tray. The alleged problem was
    > continual jams loading new slides, in some case with very
    > difficult extraction.
    >
    > We also talked about Digital ICE and Kodachrome. So, here's
    > some fresh questions to help people focus on what I think I
    > heard today, and offer their personal experience. As to Braun,
    > he knows about it, but can't get them. He predicted they would
    > also jam, but that's just supposition.
    >
    > 1) If anyone has the Braun SlideScan 4000, what has your
    > experience been with either of Braun's optional trays, the
    > straight one or the circular 100 job. I (now) understand that
    > I would have to swap slides from my Kodak Carousel trays to
    > anything I buy, which I can live with.
    >
    > Is the Braun relatively jam-free in bulk mode?
    >
    > 2) Again to the Braun 4000, I would scan at 1800 DPI, not
    > 3600. If my calculator is correct, that would give me about
    > approx. 2.4 mega pixels, which is plenty for me. Braun claims
    > a scan speed with ICE off at 60 seconds, but I'm skeptical of
    > that. What is your experience? And, how long does it take with
    > ICE turned on?
    >
    > 3) For any Nikon Coolscan, same questions basically"
    >
    > a) What is your experience with the bulk loader? Work OK, work
    > sorta, or jam-city?
    >
    > b) If I read the Nikon 500 specs right, the smallest image
    > size is in 12 mega pixel range, which is really overkill for
    > me. So, my question is, what is your experience with per-slide
    > scan times with ICE off and with ICE on?
    >
    > 5) What is your experience scanning Kodachrome slides with
    > Digital ICE turned on. Again, my local store manager says he
    > has had excellent results. The only thing he does is turn the
    > slide emulsion side up, so ICE doesn't mistake the emulsion 3-
    > D effect as dust, and do a 600 wet sandpaper job on it. He
    > says that his customers also report good success, but he was
    > more vague on that.
    >
    > 6) Finally, I assume that both Braun and Nikon scanning
    > software has masks for common negative film types, certainly
    > Kodak and Agfa. I have only a small number of negs and they're
    > all Kodak. If I assume right, is the Coolscan color rendition
    > sufficiently accurate?
    >
    > Six new questions is a lot, I know. If it results in too much
    > length and confusion, I will wait a day or two and come back
    > with smaller bites.
    >
    > Thank you all for any and all advice and recommendations on
    > what works and what doesn't. And, since I have only 35mm and
    > no medium format, I do go with my camera store manager that I
    > don't need the big Nikon.


    What you are trying to do is the equivalent of taking a couple of exposed
    color films to the drugstore, and asking them to put them through their
    1-hour service program, and expecting 72 absolute masterpieces to be ready
    after the hour has elapsed. You might get reasonably acceptable prints, but
    masterpieces you will not get.

    When I bought my Minolta Dimage Scan Dual 3 negative/slide scanner on Ebay
    about 3 months ago, I expected to have to work on each negative/slide
    scanned, since the Minolta has no bulk-scanning facility.

    Subsequent work with the machine has taught me that there is no easy way to
    scan a Kodachrome slide taken in the late fifties/ early sixties without a
    fair deal of work, both in using the multitude of software functions to
    examine and change exposure, color cast, dust particles, scratches etc.,
    etc., etc., and in finally working on the file with Photoshop to apply the
    final polish.

    I have probably scanned around 300 of my best slides, and now finally have a
    nice collection, some of which depict my children forty/forty-five years
    ago. All of these are as perfect as I could reasonably expect, and every
    single one of them required a personal, individual approach and a good deal
    of work.

    You seem to be looking for a scanner that will take all the enjoyment out of
    the copying process. Maybe time is a factor. (This doesn't apply with me,
    being retired.)

    My advice is that if you want the scanned slides to be worthy of copying,
    and the results worthy of viewing, forget all this bulk nonsense and do what
    the rest of us do, spend some time on the process. Even if you succeed in
    finding a bulk scanner which suits your purpose, I doubt wether the results
    can possibly replicate all the time I have put into this (most enjoyable)
    process.

    The 2 Nikons you have mentioned are supposedly a step forward in technology
    from my humble Minolta, but unless you intend to print out each and every
    copied slide in large size, I very much doubt that the .jpg's on my hard
    drive can be bettered, no matter what device you use. Digital Ice may save a
    deal of time on scatch/dust removal, but that is only part of the process of
    achieving as near perfect a result as possible. Noise, and all it's related
    problems, will cause you far more problems, as will color-correction.

    My advice is go for the Nikon 5000 and be prepared to put in some time, it's
    worth it!

    Dennis.
    Dennis Pogson, Feb 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Today tomm42 commented courteously on the subject at hand

    > The Nikon bulk loader works OK (not perfect) with plastic
    > mounts, not so hot with cardboard mounts, and terrible with
    > gamy old beat up cardboard mounts.


    All of mine are cardboard, and they were all developed and
    mounted by Kodak. Seems odd that the (maybe) can reliably load
    their own slides...

    > I have a Nikon LS2000 (Nikon Scan 3.1) and often scan at
    > 1500 or 1800ppi. Mostly for PowerPoint presentations. It
    > works well, BUT at that level I also use my Epson
    > Expression 1600. Not a big difference with the scans at
    > that size, the Nikon has better color control. But the
    > Epson files are fine after Photoshop massage. Try an Epson
    > 4990 maybe?


    2nd recommendation for an Epson 4990.I clearly have to learn
    more. Thanks.

    The Epson appears to be a simple flatbed with a slide adapter.
    Is that what it is? I don't "know" but "think" I want a
    dedicated scanner that presumeably is designed specifically to
    do slides. Better would be on that can do Kodak negs, but
    that's not as high a priority with me.

    > At home I have a Minolta Scan Multi and have done a lot of
    > negs from this scanner, even without a specific profile, I
    > have very good, adjustable color. I have used old Kodak,
    > new Kodak, Fuji and AGFA film.
    >
    > No experience with the Braun, but it sure looks like
    > something Kodak should have invent for the all the Carousel
    > trays out there. Except if Kodak had thought of it it would
    > either be real cheap plastic with no precission or cost
    > $20000 and be way over designed.
    >
    > Tom
    >
    >




    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Today Dennis Pogson commented courteously on the subject at
    hand

    [snip]
    > You seem to be looking for a scanner that will take all the
    > enjoyment out of the copying process. Maybe time is a
    > factor. (This doesn't apply with me, being retired.)


    I am also retired, but my desire is to get the "good" 1000 or
    so slides out of the 8000+ in my basement scanned. I am an
    archivist, not an artist or perfectionist. So, I'm not at all
    interested in a solution that's 10, 20, 60 minutes per slide.

    If I haven't looked at my slides in 20+ years, can't be that
    important, right? So, I want good quality, yes, but speed and
    easy of effort are far more important.

    > My advice is that if you want the scanned slides to be
    > worthy of copying, and the results worthy of viewing,
    > forget all this bulk nonsense and do what the rest of us
    > do, spend some time on the process. Even if you succeed in
    > finding a bulk scanner which suits your purpose, I doubt
    > wether the results can possibly replicate all the time I
    > have put into this (most enjoyable) process.


    1,000 scans is not for the faint of heart, Dennis, and I
    really don't want to make 1,000 scan runs. It is bad enough if
    I need 250, 4 at a time, because Nikon somehow can't auto-load
    their own 30-40 year-old slides,but such is life.

    > The 2 Nikons you have mentioned are supposedly a step
    > forward in technology from my humble Minolta, but unless
    > you intend to print out each and every copied slide in
    > large size, I very much doubt that the .jpg's on my hard
    > drive can be bettered, no matter what device you use.
    > Digital Ice may save a deal of time on scatch/dust removal,
    > but that is only part of the process of achieving as near
    > perfect a result as possible.


    Perfection can /never/ be attained, so I don't intend to even
    try.

    Noise, and all it's related
    > problems, will cause you far more problems, as will
    > color-correction.


    I intend to print 0.0. I intend to organize, name as best I
    can, file into logical folders, and add them to my on-screen
    albums and screen savers. And, most important, remember all
    the good time when I wore the clothes of a younger man, wasn't
    ill and very little endurance, and my parents were still
    alive, vibrant happy people.

    So, I'm looking for 1,000/8,000 35mm "snapshots" to get as
    quickly, painlessly, and least expensively out of my basement
    and onto my screen saver.

    > My advice is go for the Nikon 5000 and be prepared to put
    > in some time, it's worth it!
    >

    Please qualify/clarify "be prepared to put in some time",
    please. How much time? 1 minute per slide? 1 hour per slide?
    an hour to scan and another hour in PSP 9 getting the color
    and brightness/contrast right and cloning out the dust that D
    ICE didn't get?

    An hour a slide for a thousand of them is /not/ what I had in
    mind. If my requirement is too rigid to be at all realistic, I
    may do nothing. So, please restate your last comment. Thanks.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry
    All Things Mopar, Feb 17, 2006
    #16
  17. All Things Mopar

    rafe b Guest

    On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 07:43:58 -0600, All Things Mopar
    <> wrote:


    >I would have no problem being confident in buying a Coolscan V
    >ED based on your personal experience. You don't have any reason
    >to "guild the lily", as my camera store manager has, you don't
    >make your living from selling these things, and you've upgraded
    >as your needs change and Nikon improved, and you sound like
    >you're very, very satisfied.



    Point being that Nikon's role in consumer
    and prosumer film scanners is roughly
    equivalent to Canon's role in DSLRs and
    digicams. It's not much of a market any
    more, but in any even, Nikon is the
    market leader.

    The Braun may be an excellent machine,
    but I have no way of knowing that, because
    I've never heard any comments or questions
    about it, one way or another. If it weren't
    for Bob Solomon, I'd still not know about it.

    It's unfortunate that you can't test drive
    something as critical as a film scanner, so
    the best you can do is go by reviews and
    comments on the web or from people you know
    and trust.

    But in all cases, the review needs to be
    considered for veracity. Is it from a
    store owner or manufacturers' rep? Hmm,
    maybe some bias there. Has the store
    owner or rep actually used this thing
    he's selling?

    Even user reviews need to be scrutinized
    this way. There are folks who have been
    burned by Brand X, and spend the rest of
    their lives badmouthing Brand X in every
    forum available.

    In the interest of full disclosure, I've
    owned six or seven film scanners since 1998,
    and of all these, the Nikon LS-8000 is my
    absolute favorite; nearly five years old
    and still going strong. So I am very much
    a pro-Nikon partisan, though I recognize
    that there are other worthy and excellent
    film scanners out there.

    I can't tell you much about the LS-5000,
    the Coolscan V, or about automatic slide
    feeders on film scanners.

    David Dyer-Bennet has been on these lists
    for years, is as knowledgeable as anyone
    here, and I'd trust him implicitly in his
    comments on these matters.


    rafe b
    www.terrapinphoto.com
    rafe b, Feb 17, 2006
    #17
  18. All Things Mopar

    Steven Toney Guest

    Hi

    I don't have quite that many slides, but I'm in the same decision boat

    I have a Minota Dual Scan IV and have tried it with scanning numerous
    slide -- at four at time in the feed tray/mount it is a slow process

    so I also want a bulk loading scanner for 35mm slide - I'm convinced that
    ICE is worth the $$

    It is down to the Nikon 5000ED (only one that works with SP210 loader
    add-in) or the Braun

    Best price I can find on these is at adorama

    braun is roughly 1200-1300
    nikon with sp210 is roughly 200 dollars more than the braun

    I expect the braun mya jam a little less give the side load from the trays
    versus the stack in the nikon, but no experience or first response in the
    newsgroup



    "All Things Mopar" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns976D5E74BE172ReplyID@216.196.97.131...
    > Today Dennis Pogson commented courteously on the subject at
    > hand
    >
    > [snip]
    >> You seem to be looking for a scanner that will take all the
    >> enjoyment out of the copying process. Maybe time is a
    >> factor. (This doesn't apply with me, being retired.)

    >
    > I am also retired, but my desire is to get the "good" 1000 or
    > so slides out of the 8000+ in my basement scanned. I am an
    > archivist, not an artist or perfectionist. So, I'm not at all
    > interested in a solution that's 10, 20, 60 minutes per slide.
    >
    > If I haven't looked at my slides in 20+ years, can't be that
    > important, right? So, I want good quality, yes, but speed and
    > easy of effort are far more important.
    >
    >> My advice is that if you want the scanned slides to be
    >> worthy of copying, and the results worthy of viewing,
    >> forget all this bulk nonsense and do what the rest of us
    >> do, spend some time on the process. Even if you succeed in
    >> finding a bulk scanner which suits your purpose, I doubt
    >> wether the results can possibly replicate all the time I
    >> have put into this (most enjoyable) process.

    >
    > 1,000 scans is not for the faint of heart, Dennis, and I
    > really don't want to make 1,000 scan runs. It is bad enough if
    > I need 250, 4 at a time, because Nikon somehow can't auto-load
    > their own 30-40 year-old slides,but such is life.
    >
    >> The 2 Nikons you have mentioned are supposedly a step
    >> forward in technology from my humble Minolta, but unless
    >> you intend to print out each and every copied slide in
    >> large size, I very much doubt that the .jpg's on my hard
    >> drive can be bettered, no matter what device you use.
    >> Digital Ice may save a deal of time on scatch/dust removal,
    >> but that is only part of the process of achieving as near
    >> perfect a result as possible.

    >
    > Perfection can /never/ be attained, so I don't intend to even
    > try.
    >
    > Noise, and all it's related
    >> problems, will cause you far more problems, as will
    >> color-correction.

    >
    > I intend to print 0.0. I intend to organize, name as best I
    > can, file into logical folders, and add them to my on-screen
    > albums and screen savers. And, most important, remember all
    > the good time when I wore the clothes of a younger man, wasn't
    > ill and very little endurance, and my parents were still
    > alive, vibrant happy people.
    >
    > So, I'm looking for 1,000/8,000 35mm "snapshots" to get as
    > quickly, painlessly, and least expensively out of my basement
    > and onto my screen saver.
    >
    >> My advice is go for the Nikon 5000 and be prepared to put
    >> in some time, it's worth it!
    >>

    > Please qualify/clarify "be prepared to put in some time",
    > please. How much time? 1 minute per slide? 1 hour per slide?
    > an hour to scan and another hour in PSP 9 getting the color
    > and brightness/contrast right and cloning out the dust that D
    > ICE didn't get?
    >
    > An hour a slide for a thousand of them is /not/ what I had in
    > mind. If my requirement is too rigid to be at all realistic, I
    > may do nothing. So, please restate your last comment. Thanks.
    >
    > --
    > ATM, aka Jerry
    Steven Toney, Feb 17, 2006
    #18
  19. All Things Mopar

    Dave Guest

    rafe b wrote:
    Snip
    >
    > The Braun may be an excellent machine,
    > but I have no way of knowing that, because
    > I've never heard any comments or questions
    > about it, one way or another. If it weren't
    > for Bob Solomon, I'd still not know about it.

    Snip



    I assume (I know, dangerous) that all are aware that the HPMarketing in
    Bob Solomon's Sig. is the importer of the Braun line ???

    http://www.hpmarketingcorp.com/

    This is not to disparage Bob, or anything he writes, nor is it a
    negative comment about HPMarketing. Bob has been a big help to many here
    and I have had personal experience dealing with HP through one of the
    dealers I have bought from. First class service!!

    Just making sure all info is out in the open.

    Hope this helps,
    Dave

    PS - You can see from the lines HP represents that this is a class
    operation IMHO.
    Dave, Feb 17, 2006
    #19
  20. All Things Mopar

    Dave Guest

    All Things Mopar wrote:
    > Today Dennis Pogson commented courteously on the subject at
    > hand
    >
    > [snip]
    >
    >>You seem to be looking for a scanner that will take all the
    >>enjoyment out of the copying process. Maybe time is a
    >>factor. (This doesn't apply with me, being retired.)

    >
    >
    > I am also retired, but my desire is to get the "good" 1000 or
    > so slides out of the 8000+ in my basement scanned. I am an
    > archivist, not an artist or perfectionist. So, I'm not at all
    > interested in a solution that's 10, 20, 60 minutes per slide.
    >
    > If I haven't looked at my slides in 20+ years, can't be that
    > important, right? So, I want good quality, yes, but speed and
    > easy of effort are far more important.
    >
    >
    >>My advice is that if you want the scanned slides to be
    >>worthy of copying, and the results worthy of viewing,
    >>forget all this bulk nonsense and do what the rest of us
    >>do, spend some time on the process. Even if you succeed in
    >>finding a bulk scanner which suits your purpose, I doubt
    >>wether the results can possibly replicate all the time I
    >>have put into this (most enjoyable) process.

    >
    >
    > 1,000 scans is not for the faint of heart, Dennis, and I
    > really don't want to make 1,000 scan runs. It is bad enough if
    > I need 250, 4 at a time, because Nikon somehow can't auto-load
    > their own 30-40 year-old slides,but such is life.
    >
    >
    >>The 2 Nikons you have mentioned are supposedly a step
    >>forward in technology from my humble Minolta, but unless
    >>you intend to print out each and every copied slide in
    >>large size, I very much doubt that the .jpg's on my hard
    >>drive can be bettered, no matter what device you use.
    >>Digital Ice may save a deal of time on scatch/dust removal,
    >>but that is only part of the process of achieving as near
    >>perfect a result as possible.

    >
    >
    > Perfection can /never/ be attained, so I don't intend to even
    > try.
    >
    > Noise, and all it's related
    >
    >>problems, will cause you far more problems, as will
    >>color-correction.

    >
    >
    > I intend to print 0.0. I intend to organize, name as best I
    > can, file into logical folders, and add them to my on-screen
    > albums and screen savers. And, most important, remember all
    > the good time when I wore the clothes of a younger man, wasn't
    > ill and very little endurance, and my parents were still
    > alive, vibrant happy people.
    >
    > So, I'm looking for 1,000/8,000 35mm "snapshots" to get as
    > quickly, painlessly, and least expensively out of my basement
    > and onto my screen saver.
    >
    >
    >>My advice is go for the Nikon 5000 and be prepared to put
    >>in some time, it's worth it!
    >>

    >
    > Please qualify/clarify "be prepared to put in some time",
    > please. How much time? 1 minute per slide? 1 hour per slide?
    > an hour to scan and another hour in PSP 9 getting the color
    > and brightness/contrast right and cloning out the dust that D
    > ICE didn't get?
    >
    > An hour a slide for a thousand of them is /not/ what I had in
    > mind. If my requirement is too rigid to be at all realistic, I
    > may do nothing. So, please restate your last comment. Thanks.
    >

    Jerry,

    Based on what you have said in the above post, I think the earlier
    advice you received might be your best bet. That was to give the Epson
    4990 a look. It has a slide holder to hold 8 slides per scan and an 8x10
    scanning area guide that I would assume you could use to fill with as
    many slides as would fit and scan them in one pass. You would then have
    to crop out the individual slides and name and save, but I believe the
    claim is that as many as 30 slides will fit in this area.

    FYI - 4800 SPI (DPI) is 4800 SPI, so all would be at that Res. Even if
    the actual Res turned out to be only 2400 SPI, I feel that is more than
    adequate for your needs.

    I'm sure there are others here who have had experience with this method
    of scanning with one of the better flatbed units and could also comment
    re: your use and file size you want and quality of scan.

    Here's the NewEgg link to the 4990 which is $394.00 shipped:

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16838110122

    As far as I know, NewEgg has a 30 day return policy unless stated
    otherwise. There may be a restocking fee if you are not doing an
    exchange (15% I think), but if you buy a different scanner (or any other
    product)for the same or greater price there is no fee. There is also no
    fee if the unit is defective and they are doing an exchange for another
    of the same. They will wait to ship the replacement until they receive
    the first unit back. Been there done that and they are good to their word.

    DISCLAIMER - I neither own nor have I used this scanner. I have a Canon
    8400F (3200 SPI) which I use for medium format and flat art as well as
    the occasional 3D object. I use a dedicated film scanner for my 35mm
    stuff. I also have no connection with NewEgg other than being a very
    satisfied customer for several years.

    Hope this is of some help,
    Dave
    Dave, Feb 17, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Chris
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    401
    Ed E.
    Oct 22, 2003
  2. Scott in Florida

    Advice for Scanner of 35mm slides sought

    Scott in Florida, Jan 23, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    634
    HRosita
    Jan 25, 2004
  3. Morton Klotz

    Good flat bed scanner for 35mm slides?

    Morton Klotz, Oct 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    443
    Gary Hendricks
    Oct 19, 2005
  4. Allan

    35mm film scanner questions

    Allan, Mar 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    1,182
    Philip Homburg
    Mar 16, 2006
  5. Me-manny

    Scanner for 35mm slides

    Me-manny, Jun 27, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    430
    Don Kirkman
    Jun 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page