Coolscan 4000

[Willjan]

I've been using a Nikon Coolscan 4000 with Infrared on "LIGHT". All my scans this way are being rejected. Is this because of the infrared clean?

 

Thanks,

 

Leif Skoogfors

[John Mitchell]

I have about 1500 scans done with a Coolscan 4000 on Alamy. I used Digital ICE on "Normal" and had no failures. Not sure what you mean by "Infrared on LIGHT," though.

[Inchiquin]

He's probably referring to VueScan settings.

 

The only answer to this question is: check the images at 100%. If they're not sharp, try scanning with cleaning off. Only you can tell whether it makes a significant difference or not.

 

Alan

[DDoug]

Before getting my Canon scanner, I had a Nikon LS2000. There was a problem with banding and Nikon in Düsseldorf said it would go away if I used multi-sample scanning. That greatly increased the scan time, but fixed the problem.

 

That said, when I started with Alamy some weeks ago I submitted four images, 10 and 16 megapixel digital, an MF scan and a 35mm scan. They rejected the 35mm. I figured I'd address the problem when I run out of MF scans and digital images to submit.

[John Mitchell]

I haven't used Vuescan, only the Nikon software. My scans were uploaded a few years ago. I don't think I would be brave enough to submit them now. QC is much more stringent. Also, I'm working on getting myself back in their good books -- it's a long and winding road.

[fotoDogue]

I have a Nikon 5000 ED. No matter which setting I use to remove dust and scratches I still have to clean up "scanner schmutz" and film blemishes in PhotoShop. Getting film images past QC is a lot more difficult than digital but some of those images have sold several times so it's worth it.

[John Mitchell]

I have a Nikon 5000 ED. No matter which setting I use to remove dust and scratches I still have to clean up "scanner schmutz" and film blemishes in PhotoShop. Getting film images past QC is a lot more difficult than digital but some of those images have sold several times so it's worth it.

True, it probably is worth it. My scans continue to do well on Alamy, and some of them are probably older than some forum members.

[Bill Brooks]

I scanned a collection of 6X7 and 35mm on a Nikon Coolscan 8000 in the years 2000 to 2006. The 8000 is the big brother to the 4000 and gives the same quality as the 4000, when scanning 35mm film.

 

The Nikon Digital Ice cleaning made the 35 mm scan too soft, so I turned Digital Ice off for 35mm, and got out the dust cloning tool. I scanned 6X7 with Digital Ice on, as it was sharp enough against the DSLR technology in 2000-2006. I used a multi sample scanning of 4X.

 

In about 2004, with the quality improvement in Digital cameras, I abandoned scanning the 35mm entirely. No one needs another, lower than DSLR quality, 35mm film scan of Niagara Falls.

 

The 6X7 scans held up well against the DSLRs of 2004, so I scanned my entire collection of 6X7.

 

If a subject has been well covered by modern DSLRs then it is not worth scanning a softer 35mm film image of the same subject. 6X7 or 4X5 yes. Historic yes

 

Here is an example of a timeless Grand Canyon image scanned from 6X7 film. Still competitive in terms of sharpness, but not so if from 35mm.

 

[fotoDogue]

Actually some of my old film scans have been my best sellers on Alamy but those tend to be newsy events shot mostly on ISO 100 or 400 35mm film. Another problem I've had with 35mm is edge-to-edge sharpness. I bought some Anti-Newton glass to fit an FH-3 Strip Film Holder I found on eBay but wound up breaking the glass before I figured out how to use it properly.

[Bill Brooks]

I found the Gepe glassless mount with metal mask to be the best at holding 35 mm film flat.

 

https://www.gepe.com/website/index.asp?pageID=274

 

Film flatness was always a problem with the 4000. The 8000 lens when focused at 1:1 was farther away from the film, so I think it had a greater depth of field. This meant that film flatness was not as critical on the 8000.

 

I allowed the scanner to autofocus.

 

I found that most film did not lie flat, but had a slight natural curve.  I would mount the film in the reverse direction to the curve. This meant that when mounted, the tension created by the natural curve would press against the mount and hold the film flatter. Then I could flop the image in software when necessary.

[John Mitchell]

I didn't find film flatness to be that much of a problem when scanning my 35 mm slides. The exception were old Kodachromes in those ridiculous cardboard mounts. But they are a pain to scan anyway you shake it.

 

No problems with digital ICE causing softness either. Never had any complaints from QC at all about the quality of my scans -- just sent everything through at full size. But that was then, and this is now. Think my scanning days are done at this point.

[wiskerke]

I found the Gepe glassless mount with metal mask to be the best at holding 35 mm film flat.

 

https://www.gepe.com/website/index.asp?pageID=274

 

Film flatness was always a problem with the 4000. The 8000 lens when focused at 1:1 was farther away from the film, so I think it had a greater depth of field. This meant that film flatness was not as critical on the 8000.

 

I allowed the scanner to autofocus.

 

I found that most film did not lie flat, but had a slight natural curve.  I would mount the film in the reverse direction to the curve. This meant that when mounted, the tension created by the natural curve would press against the mount and hold the film flatter. Then I could flop the image in software when necessary.

 

+1 for the Gepe mounts. I have used them with the metal masks on both sides.

 

You are right, both the 4000 and the 5000 were notorious for their extreme shallow depth of field. With Vuescan it's possible to focus manually. Check if the corners are at the same distance (in one plane perpendicular to the axis). Mine wasn't; I ended up modding the holders. A piece of a microfiche works well as a test slide, because it's really flat and has no visible grain.

The big difference between the Coolscan 4000 and the 5000 is that the 4000 (and 8000) needs a second pass for the IR channel. That can lead to inaccuracy, and blur.

If the scanner has been used for a couple of years or has been stored without proper dust cover, check if there is dust on the front lens. Even with a dust cover on, there were some complaints about a kind of fogging of the front lens. Mine certainly showed some of it. At the time I blamed extreme work load.

 

wim

[Robert M Estall]

those 4000 and 8000 scanners are a good few years old by now. Even the 5000 and 9000 models have been with us a while. They have a mirror and a lens in the light path and they get dusty. Cleaning and re-allignment is very tricky. But a dusty mirror is very likely to degrade the scan. Fixation had a crack at my 9000 and then sent it off to Nikon who weren't very interested in getting it really right. "within accptable tolerances" is the kind of phrase makes my blood run cold.  I am not the only one thinks Nikon customer service sucks.

 

But I got about 6000 good scans out of it so I guess it paid for itself. Worked out at something like 50 cents a scan. And about half my working hours over two years! Digital ICE was OK, multi sampling helped a little but did slow things down.The 9000 was better than the 8000 at tackling Kodachrome, but still had problems from time to time.

 

Those big old drum scanners seemed to get good results from Kodachrome but they were in a whole different price league. I mean really serious money which only the big repro houses could run to. And they had highly trained operators who's sole job was to get the best out of the whole reproductive process. It's amateur time now. That includes myself! Years ago, I did a little dye transfer work at RIT which is a pretty good way to learn masking and how to manipulate colours (or colors as they would have said at RIT), but it doesn't make you a repro technician. We used to do a fair bit with National Geographic; what their repro guys could get out of a dodgy dark chrome was a wonder. We are supposed to produce files that cut the mustard with a £1000 scanner and a quick course in Photoshop?