Lightroom and negative lab is too slow for me. Also don’t want to pay for lightroom. That’s like 5 films a month.Have you ever compared results with Negative Lab Pro?
What do you mean by "photoshoppy?"
What version of Silverfast? What settings?
(Do you also have settings for slides?)
The "add-on" to the base Silverfast product?
As far as I am aware, their user forum hasn't worked for years. Are you able to use it? If not the user forum, how do you communicate with them?
As you might infer, I tried to use Silverfast but got very frustrated after a while. This software is not cheap. I would be very happy to be able to use it, instead of having to purchase VueScan. Nikon's scanning software is not an option for me. If it matters, I have a Nikon 5000 scanner.
For the record I am not a photographer proffesional. I grew up in a poor country and took pictures and developed myself.
Please do report back, if possible with examples. Here's a portion of a damaged 35mm Ektar negative (less than 1/3 of the negative) from maybe 15 years ago. (Nikon Coolscan IV ED) I see some softening of the image from Vuescan's "infrared cleaning" which I have not corrected with sharpening. If I had Nikonscan I'd do a direct comparison but I can't to that. Soon you will be able to do the comparison though so please do share.Whilst Vuescan is working well for me (scanning as RAW DNG, inverting with NLP in Adobe LR), the ICE leaves a lot to be desired, so I'm very interested to see how Nikon Scan performs in my hands.
I'll report back in a few months
Please do report back, if possible with examples. Here's a portion of a damaged 35mm Ektar negative (less than 1/3 of the negative) from maybe 15 years ago. (Nikon Coolscan IV ED) I see some softening of the image from Vuescan's "infrared cleaning" which I have not corrected with sharpening. If I had Nikonscan I'd do a direct comparison but I can't to that. Soon you will be able to do the comparison though so please do share.
It's best to never need or use ICE of course and thankfully I've not needed it for more than a handful of negatives in the last 20 years but still it's interesting to learn about it.
View attachment 366254View attachment 366257
Would you mind sharing the name/contact of the repair person?
Sure thing - It's worth noting I'm in the UK.
I used Graeme Hardie of Lincoln Scan who is a lovely chap and excellent at what he does, a true engineer and really understands these.
If you're in the US, Gleb Shtengel:
Cheers!
Gleb's website has very helpful posts on different repairs for Nikon scanners and adapters.Sure thing - It's worth noting I'm in the UK.
I used Graeme Hardie of Lincoln Scan who is a lovely chap and excellent at what he does, a true engineer and really understands these.
If you're in the US, Gleb Shtengel:
Cheers!
This is only partially correct.Just to be sure, only Coolscan 8000 & 9000 use Firewire as all the other models use USB. Myself, I keep a Windows Vista PC just for scanning.
Before giving up the will, I decided to install Windows XP via Boot Camp (Beta 1.4) and low and behold - Nikon Scan is now working on Windows XP!
Did you already have a copy of WIN XP? If no, how did you find/buy/download a copy with the correct key? Thanks!
This is only partially correct.
The only USB scanner NIkon made was the V/5000.
In addition to the 8000 and 9000, the IV/4000 use Firewire. The older Coolscan III(great unit, if lower resolution and a bit limited in features compared to the newer ones) runs on SCSI, as does the original Coolscan.
The Nikon Coolscan IV (LS-40) is certainly USB. It might be USB v1.1, not USB2. I think the LS-4000 may have came out later with Firewire because Firewire was faster at the time. I dunno about Nikon Scan, but I think one can use a Coolscan IV with a present day Mac with Vuescan.
Adaptec SCSI cards are a good bet for the Coolscan III (LS-30). I bought an LS-30 when it was new and it came with an Adaptec PCI internal SCSI card, and I was also able to use it with a laptop with an Adaptec PCMCIA SCSI card.
Sorry, guess I'd never handled that one. I own a 4000 and it certainly is Firewire-in fact mine is down now due to a bad Firewire chip. Scanning over USB 1.1 must be painful.
For Mac use, especially with a Coolscan III, it's hard to beat an Adaptec 2930CU as long as you're using in a G4 or earlier and OS X 10.4.11 or earlier(or OS 8/9). Apple shipped this card in the G3 and G4 tower era as a build to order option, and the CU version has Mac firmware so is a bootable card(if you care about that, although presumably you're not booting off your scanner). I like this because it's plentiful and "just works" natively. It has an internal 50 pin connector and external HD50 Centronics, so you can connect it to the LS-30/III using a cable with this style connector on both ends(potentially easier to find than an "adapter" cable with different ends).
The only issue with that particular card is that Apple dropped support for it in 10.5.8, along with most other Adaptec cards. I had a friend who is a real whiz at this sort of stuff offer to try to get the 2930CU working by transplanting the kexts from 10.4.11, but he was never successful(and he's had good luck getting other deprecated support working in 10.5.8 by doing this). 10.5.8 supports a lot more ATTO cards than Adaptec, but they are a lot less easy to find now and tend to be pricier. I've also not had great luck finding a card that's compatible with PCI G5s and supported in OS X, much less a PCIe card for G5s or Mac Pros(that would make my day).
I looked in the LS-40/LS-4000 manual and the LS-40 is USB 1.1. However, the rated scan times for the LS-40 are only a little slower than the LS-4000 over Firewire, per the manual. Using ICE slows down the rated time by more than 2x for either scanner. I don't know which part of the system is the limiting step. I have a LS-40 but it is packed up at the moment - my memory is that it wasn't obviously slower than using the LS-30 over SCSI.
Although off topic for this thread, several versions of the Minolta Dimage Scan Dual used USB 2.
All of that aside, what I'm really saying is that I don't know how much of a difference the bus speed makes in practice for a scanner.
I was talking this over with a friend earlier today in general terms.
I don't know exactly what the mechanism of data transfer is for scanners, but truth be told even at 4000ppi the acquisition time is short enough that you probably don't need super fast transfers. On paper USB 2.0 is faster than FW400(480mbit/s vs 400mbit for FW400) but in practice FW often gets higher sustained speeds.
50 pin SCSI can manage 40mbit/s in theory(although IIRC in practice it's really sensitive to things like cable length. Some claim termination isn't necessary in LVDS implementations, which IIRC the Coolscan III is, but I've also seen slow downs on internal hard drives without terminating properly). USB 1.1 is 12mbit/s. For some perverse reason, or actually I have my theories as to why, Apple made USB booting relatively easy in a lot of USB 1.1 systems, but made the process more complicated and less intuitive when they started shipping USB 2.0. I once booted a Titanium Powerbook to 10.5.8 by a USB external HDD-it took 15 minutes to reach a useble desktop, where the same computer will get there within a minute on the internal ATA/100 bus.
All of that aside, what I'm really saying is that I don't know how much of a difference the bus speed makes in practice for a scanner.
Did you already have a copy of WIN XP? If no, how did you find/buy/download a copy with the correct key? Thanks!
Have been reading this thread with interest - glad I never went the Mac way, although the newspaper and magazine publishers I worked with were until recently Maccers.
Domestically, I've used Windows since Day One, and with various flatbed scanners, plus the invincible Nikon Coolscans. First was a III and I'm now running a pair of V's with Windows 11 on my desktop with 64gb of memory.
I've used Vuescan for several years with no issues and also SilverFast, which I prefer, although it's a more omplicated tool.
Still have EpsonScan installed, although my flatbed A4 is a Canon - excellent machine. I also have an A3, which is a bit of an oddity with its software, using oldfashioned Windows generic driver with only limited functionality. However, it's useful if I have to scan, say, a broadsheet paper's centre spread.
The point of this is to say I don't know why Windows is so demeaned. No love particularly of Microsoft, and Win 11 is a frustratingly buggy and clunky version. 10 was a much more reliable and stable platform. But with some fiddling and fettling, I can run pretty much all of my apps - even some dating back to win 97! With compatibility settings, even CoolScan runs.
As far as laptops and notebooks, generally these (in my experience) don't have enough expansion capability. 32gb of chips seems to be the optimal for scanning and post-scan work.
These are my general ramblings and are offered only as observations on some 30-plus years of analogue>digital image conversion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?