Nikon Coolscan 4000 - Vuescan/Silverfast Vs Nikon Scan 4.X

[Twotone]

Hi folks,

I've just bought a Coolscan 4000 as my V700 flatbed wasn't cutting it for 35mm and plan on batch scanning a whole uncut role with the modified SA-21 adaptor.

I've also just upgraded my computer setup as my old windows 10 laptop was dying a death and I've been wanting to start using lightroom for some time but my laptop could barely run Silverfast when adjusting levels etc.

My new setup is a Mac Mini M1 (2020) running OSX 10.13 Ventura.

My intention is to scan the 35mm negatives and invert them in Lightroom into positives with NLP whilst taking advantage of a straight forward scanning application that uses the ICE function of the scanner.

Does anyone else have a similar workflow and care to share what they use out of Vuescan, Silverfast or Nikon Scan?

I have read horribly conflicting statements about which is best to get the most out of the scanner so some suggestions would be great.

Finally, I realise my newish Mac combined with old software isn't especially compatible, so my gut feeling is to go with vuescan/Silverfast over Nikon Scan to avoid headaches, but if the OEM software is going to get more out of the scanner then it is worth me exploring.

I have seen suggestions around running a virtual machine to emulate the suitable conditions for the coolscan e.g. windows XP, so whilst that might be a massive headache, I'd be happy to explore it if the OEM software is much more beneficial. Alternatively, I'd also considering having a separate Mac for scanning and would need to figure out a way of networking them together.

Any thoughts/suggestions appreciated!

Thanks

 

[Les Sarile]

I bought the 5000 when it was first released in early 2000. I tried Vuescan then but Ed Hamrick states that his implementation of ICE is not the same as Nikonscan due to intellectual property rights. I don't know if that has since changed.

Here's the results of ICE on a very scratched up frame of Kodak 160VC

Coolscan 5000 ICE Nikonscan vs Vuescan by Les DMess, on Flickr

Maybe just as important are the color results you get, particularly from color negatives. Here I used all the different Vuescan options on the same frame of Kodak 160VC compared to the default neutral setting from Nikonscan.

Coolscan 5000 Nikonscan and Vuescan Kodak 160VC by Les DMess, on Flickr

A single scan of Kodak Portra 400 with deep shadows and blownout highlights and you can recover both using post Shadows and Highlights tools . . .

Kodak Portra 400-04-24A by Les DMess, on Flickr

You can do HDR compositing or Shadows tool in post with Fuji RVP100 color slide . . .

Fuji RVP100_04-06HDR by Les DMess, on Flickr

Stitching even 9 frames of Kodak Ektar 100 is simple due to the color fidelity of each scan . . .

Kodak Ektar 100_31-16to24_stitch C by Les DMess, on Flickr

This of 4 frames of Kodak Ektar 100 . . .

Kodak Ektar 100_20-18-21_stitch by Les DMess, on Flickr

Given these results, I continue to maintain a Windows Vista PC to run Nikonscan on my Coolscans. I've since scanned over 30K frames of various films using color neutral settings. I would characterize the workflow as uneventful and predictable. About the only setting I may change is Master Gain to keep the highlights from getting blown. A feat that is just about impossible to do with today's color negatives and b&w films.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

NikonScan is a no go on all Macs after 10.6 I think it was. That was a loooooong time ago. I still have a 15" PPC Powerbook around to use NikonScan occasionally for fun. For modern Macs that leaves you with Vuescan and Silverfast. I haven't used Silverfast for years, but I use Vuescan all the time. For what you want to do Vuescan will work fine. I don't believe that scanning raw (which is what you will probably want if you want to use NLP) will allow you to use the ICE features. If you don't scan raw then NLP would be applying color adjustments on color adjustments and that never works out. Contact the guy from NLP to verify though.

NikonScan was great for color right out of the gate. Vuescan needs massaging, but if you are using NLP that won't matter I suppose. (I don't use NLP). Vuescan is fantastic for black and white though, much better than NikonScan. Vuescan has way more control for color than Les' examples above would make you believe. His examples are probably 15 years old at least. I have zero problems getting great color out of Vuescan.

One more advantage of Vuescan over NikonScan is when batch scanning an entire roll, it is way faster.

So basically Vuescan→scanning RAW→NLP should work fine for you.

I believe Silverfast has RAW scanning capabilities but you'd have to verify that. Downside to Silverfast is the license only works specifically for that scanner. Vuescan Pro can be used for life with updates and with any scanner imaginable, nearly, so it makes a lot of sense if you have more than one scanner.

Hope that helps.

 

[Les Sarile]

One more advantage of Vuescan over NikonScan is when batch scanning an entire roll, it is way faster.

What scan times were you getting and what settings did you use?

I believe my 5000 was faster than the 4000 as my buddy and I compared times back when I first got mine. About 30 seconds without ICE and about 50 seconds with using default settings with all color controls (Curves, Color balance, Unsharp, LCH) off and master gain 0. If I remember correctly, the 4000 took almost 4 minutes per frame with ICE on using Nikonscan? Again, if I remember correctly, Vuescan ICE also took a little longer with it's dust and scratch removal on. BTW, scanning times are greatly enhanced by amount of free memory available - specially with ICE on.

 

[Twotone]

Thank you both for your comprehensive answers!

I've decided I'm going to just try them all out for size, starting with Nikon Scan on an older Mac, and then take it from there, I may even omit using NLP if the colours from the scans are decent.

Whilst I could certainly improve in the dusting department, my home isn't a hovel, yet still I need all the help I can get when it comes to dust removal!

I'll update you all once I've had chance to have a play but my current thought is Nikon Scan after having a read this afternoon and your points on this thread.

 

[radialMelt]

I run a Coolscan 9000 and recently have been comparing NikonScan, Vuescan + NLP, and Vuescan alone (using its own color inversion tools).

While I felt the Nikonscan output looked great in terms of contrast and sharpness, there is a major caveat in terms of dynamic range, and colorspaces in particular. As much as I liked Nikonscan, it consistently clipped the highlights for me. I could play around with levels a bit, but then my shadows would get crushed. On challenging negatives I always seemed to lose recoverable detail in the extremes. This is apparently a known phenomenon, with plenty of threads on the topic here as well as other sites.

I have been an NLP user for quite some time and am generally satisfied with it. What I don't like, however, is having a bunch of files in my library that rely on this proprietary plugin. Going from the "negative" to a "positive" means I have more files to keep track of. And honestly, in the end, I found Vuescans own inversion/color correction tools to be just as good.

Currently I am using Vuescan and following the "super advanced workflow" which essentially uses the analog gain of each LED color channel to negate the orange mask. Overall this has been giving me more consistent results than I have had with NLP.

Here's a couple links that go through the process:

Vuescan & Erik Krause's Advanced Workflow = BROKEN

Hi, <p> I was a big fan of Erik Krause's Advanced Workflow for scanning color negative film with the Nikon film scanners. <p> It went something like this: <p> -Preview<br> -Lock Exposure<br> -Preview again<br> -Lock Film Base Color<br> -Amongst the 'film ...

www.photo.net

Vuescan: my new advanced workflow

I've been busting my brain trying to make Vuescan do what I want it to do. Using the specified "advanced workflow" consistently produces muddy shadows and never enough room on the toe of the curve. My new advanced workflow is as follows: Preview, Lock Exposure at 1.0 (ie. ignore whatever value...

www.pcreview.co.uk

It adds a couple of steps to the overall process, but I think it is worth it. I can arrive at just as consistent results as NLP, but with the added benefit of only having single copies of photos in my library, and the ability to use Lightroom's adjustments from the onset, and furthermore removes the reliance on NLP (and LR for that matter, say if your preferred editing app is C1, for example).

I think that if Nikonscan didn't have trouble with colorspaces/dynamic range, I would stick with that though. Your mileage may vary!

 

[Les Sarile]

Thank you both for your comprehensive answers!

I've decided I'm going to just try them all out for size, starting with Nikon Scan on an older Mac, and then take it from there, I may even omit using NLP if the colours from the scans are decent.

Whilst I could certainly improve in the dusting department, my home isn't a hovel, yet still I need all the help I can get when it comes to dust removal!

I'll update you all once I've had chance to have a play but my current thought is Nikon Scan after having a read this afternoon and your points on this thread.

Why not if it is available to use.
If you've never used Nikonscan, I made an album on how to make and apply your own presets - > https://flickr.com/photos/192470050@N04/albums/72157719918906694
You can also select individual frames for rotation - portrait or landscape, and it doesn't affect scan times. Saves a few seconds rather than doing it in post.
Normal ICE can affect the appearance of film grain while Fine ICE even more.
I would never use GEM (grain reduction) in Nikonscan as it does add to the scan time and is a bit heavy handed. Instead I would only use in post the final step before output. In large poster size prints, you can barely see the grain as the paper texture usually takes care of it. Here's an example of GEM on Fuji Superia 400 compared to using grain reduction in post.

Fuji Superia 400-005 GEM0-4_NN_NI by Les DMess, on Flickr

Color results - specially from color negatives, is definitely very personal and highly subjective. I don't recall ever getting any prints - from back in the day of optical prints, that I would consider poor or even terrible. Maybe a little too dark or cropped incorrectly but never bad colors. This is an example of what I consider terrible from Kodak Gold 100 - one I've used for decades previously, of a perfectly well exposed shot. This from a minilab Noritsu and from my Coolscan + Nikonscan with no post work except for combining and text.

Kodak Gold 100-7_30-36 Coolscan-Noritsu by Les DMess, on Flickr

Unfortunately, folks may not know any better and think the minilab result is what it should look like . . .

 

[Les Sarile]

I run a Coolscan 9000 and recently have been comparing NikonScan, Vuescan + NLP, and Vuescan alone (using its own color inversion tools).

While I felt the Nikonscan output looked great in terms of contrast and sharpness, there is a major caveat in terms of dynamic range, and colorspaces in particular. As much as I liked Nikonscan, it consistently clipped the highlights for me. I could play around with levels a bit, but then my shadows would get crushed. On challenging negatives I always seemed to lose recoverable detail in the extremes. This is apparently a known phenomenon, with plenty of threads on the topic here as well as other sites.

I have been an NLP user for quite some time and am generally satisfied with it. What I don't like, however, is having a bunch of files in my library that rely on this proprietary plugin. Going from the "negative" to a "positive" means I have more files to keep track of. And honestly, in the end, I found Vuescans own inversion/color correction tools to be just as good.

Currently I am using Vuescan and following the "super advanced workflow" which essentially uses the analog gain of each LED color channel to negate the orange mask. Overall this has been giving me more consistent results than I have had with NLP.

Here's a couple links that go through the process:

Vuescan & Erik Krause's Advanced Workflow = BROKEN

Hi, <p> I was a big fan of Erik Krause's Advanced Workflow for scanning color negative film with the Nikon film scanners. <p> It went something like this: <p> -Preview<br> -Lock Exposure<br> -Preview again<br> -Lock Film Base Color<br> -Amongst the 'film ...

www.photo.net

Vuescan: my new advanced workflow

I've been busting my brain trying to make Vuescan do what I want it to do. Using the specified "advanced workflow" consistently produces muddy shadows and never enough room on the toe of the curve. My new advanced workflow is as follows: Preview, Lock Exposure at 1.0 (ie. ignore whatever value...

www.pcreview.co.uk

It adds a couple of steps to the overall process, but I think it is worth it. I can arrive at just as consistent results as NLP, but with the added benefit of only having single copies of photos in my library, and the ability to use Lightroom's adjustments from the onset, and furthermore removes the reliance on NLP (and LR for that matter, say if your preferred editing app is C1, for example).

I think that if Nikonscan didn't have trouble with colorspaces/dynamic range, I would stick with that though. Your mileage may vary!

I pointed out above that I tend to adjust master gain in Nikonscan for the sole purpose of not blowing out the highlights. I did post an example above of the Porta 400 were I could level the image to get shadow and highlight details in post if that is desired.

Here is another from what is considered a high contrast film - Kodak Ektar 100, where I adjusted Master Gain -1 or -2 stops to retain most of the highlights but recover the shadows in post successfully.

Kodak Ektar 100 high contrast scene by Les DMess, on Flickr

This one even more extreme of Kodak Ektar 100 at night with a very bright front lit sign and I used HDR from scans of the same frame of -1, 0 , +1.

Kodak Ektar 100_20-01B by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[warden]

Maybe just as important are the color results you get, particularly from color negatives. Here I used all the different Vuescan options on the same frame of Kodak 160VC compared to the default neutral setting from Nikonscan.

Hi Les, just FYI you didn’t use “all the options”. You used some useless presets. Those results you share are the results people get if they don’t read the manual. I agree they look terrible. There is good info in the Vuescan documentation to help you avoid awful results.

A single scan of Kodak Portra 400 with deep shadows and blownout highlights and you can recover both using post Shadows and Highlights tools . . .

I’m curious about this. Are you suggesting that while using the same scanner, if you use the old Nikon software you can achieve more highlight and more shadow detail than any other software? Can Nikon software somehow crank up dynamic range to eleven and beyond? Maybe it can, but I’ve not heard this before. Are we missing out on dynamic range by using Silverfast or Vuescan?

 

[radialMelt]

I’m curious about this. Are you suggesting that while using the same scanner, if you use the old Nikon software you can achieve more highlight and more shadow detail than any other software? Can Nikon software somehow crank up dynamic range to eleven and beyond? Maybe it can, but I’ve not heard this before. Are we missing out on dynamic range by using Silverfast or Vuescan?

Not directed at me, but based on the reading I have done of various anecdotal evidence, as well as my own tests, it would seem that the inverse is true because NikonScan tends to clip highlight regions.

 

[blee1996]

@Les Sarile thanks for the flickr instructions on how to do custom settings. I noticed ICE need to be set for every frame out of a 6 frame stipe, which is quite tedious. Your method made it easier and saves time. Thanks you sir!

 

[Les Sarile]

Hi Les, just FYI you didn’t use “all the options”. You used some useless presets. Those results you share are the results people get if they don’t read the manual. I agree they look terrible. There is good info in the Vuescan documentation to help you avoid awful results.



I’m curious about this. Are you suggesting that while using the same scanner, if you use the old Nikon software you can achieve more highlight and more shadow detail than any other software? Can Nikon software somehow crank up dynamic range to eleven and beyond? Maybe it can, but I’ve not heard this before. Are we missing out on dynamic range by using Silverfast or Vuescan?

Presets is the more appropriate nomenclature. To your point, I didn't pursue it any further then that since I was getting the results I wanted from Nikonscan both because of ICE as well as color/contrast that better suits my taste with not too much intervention.

I am not sure what you are saying about highlights and shadow details as I haven't compared to any other since I've been immersed in Coolscan + Nikonscan. However, I did provide the results and the OP can definitely try it out on his system as he sees fit.

 

[Les Sarile]

@Les Sarile thanks for the flickr instructions on how to do custom settings. I noticed ICE need to be set for every frame out of a 6 frame stipe, which is quite tedious. Your method made it easier and saves time. Thanks you sir!

When I first started scanning, I wanted to find a more streamlined way and figured it could be helpful for others too.

Good to hear that even in 2023 it is still helpful!

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

Here's my settings for scanning color negs with Vuescan and a Nikon scanner. I used the Coolscan V, but the settings should be the same with the 5000.

Color Negative Film Scanning Tutorial for Vuescan

 

[Twotone]

Hi folks,

Just a little update for you all!

I purchased a late 2009 iMac 3.06Ghz which is arriving tomorrow for £40 (eBay) + 16GB of ram for an extra £14 (Amazon) which should run Nikon Scan nicely. I'm downgrading the firmware to it's original OS X which happens to be Snow Leopard (which is generally accepted as the final OS X that is compatible).

As you've probably guessed, I've decided to try out Nikon Scan first as £54 for the above + an evening of my time is cheaper than £100 for Vuescan, plus the staunch support NS still has online has pushed me to try it first and try Vuescan only if I'm dissatisfied!

I need to read through the manual for NS and refer to the above suggested workflow to understand how it all operates but I'm feeling hopeful!
Thanks

 

[warden]

Hi folks,

Just a little update for you all!

I purchased a late 2009 iMac 3.06Ghz which is arriving tomorrow for £40 (eBay) + 16GB of ram for an extra £14 (Amazon) which should run Nikon Scan nicely. I'm downgrading the firmware to it's original OS X which happens to be Snow Leopard (which is generally accepted as the final OS X that is compatible).

As you've probably guessed, I've decided to try out Nikon Scan first as £54 for the above + an evening of my time is cheaper than £100 for Vuescan, plus the staunch support NS still has online has pushed me to try it first and try Vuescan only if I'm dissatisfied!

I need to read through the manual for NS and refer to the above suggested workflow to understand how it all operates but I'm feeling hopeful!
Thanks

Best of luck, and do share some scans when you get everything up and running.

 

[Twotone]

I bought the 5000 when it was first released in early 2000. I tried Vuescan then but Ed Hamrick states that his implementation of ICE is not the same as Nikonscan due to intellectual property rights. I don't know if that has since changed.

Here's the results of ICE on a very scratched up frame of Kodak 160VC

Coolscan 5000 ICE Nikonscan vs Vuescan by Les DMess, on Flickr

Maybe just as important are the color results you get, particularly from color negatives. Here I used all the different Vuescan options on the same frame of Kodak 160VC compared to the default neutral setting from Nikonscan.

Coolscan 5000 Nikonscan and Vuescan Kodak 160VC by Les DMess, on Flickr

A single scan of Kodak Portra 400 with deep shadows and blownout highlights and you can recover both using post Shadows and Highlights tools . . .

Kodak Portra 400-04-24A by Les DMess, on Flickr

You can do HDR compositing or Shadows tool in post with Fuji RVP100 color slide . . .

Fuji RVP100_04-06HDR by Les DMess, on Flickr

Stitching even 9 frames of Kodak Ektar 100 is simple due to the color fidelity of each scan . . .

Kodak Ektar 100_31-16to24_stitch C by Les DMess, on Flickr

This of 4 frames of Kodak Ektar 100 . . .

Kodak Ektar 100_20-18-21_stitch by Les DMess, on Flickr

Given these results, I continue to maintain a Windows Vista PC to run Nikonscan on my Coolscans. I've since scanned over 30K frames of various films using color neutral settings. I would characterize the workflow as uneventful and predictable. About the only setting I may change is Master Gain to keep the highlights from getting blown. A feat that is just about impossible to do with today's color negatives and b&w films.

Thanks Les,
Can I just clarify if you have adjusted the shadows/highlights etc after scanning in e.g. Adobe LR or did you do it before scanning in Nikon Scan?

Thanks

 

[Twotone]

Best of luck, and do share some scans when you get everything up and running.

Many thanks, will do!

 

[Les Sarile]

Thanks Les,
Can I just clarify if you have adjusted the shadows/highlights etc after scanning in e.g. Adobe LR or did you do it before scanning in Nikon Scan?

Thanks

For that Portra 400 shot of my Toyota in the garage, I just did a scan with the settings as shown in Step #3 of that Nikonscan making and applying presets - all color settings OFF with autofocus, autoexpose, Analog Gain neutral normal ICE ON.

#3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Currently I only use ACDSee Ultimate as it has the same facilities of Highlights and Shadows control - and all the other image controls I typically use, and applied it to that image to get the shadow details and blownout highlights.

Depending on whether I need the shadow or highlights - and I cannot reach it just using post tools, I will adjust Analog Gain Master to over or under expose the scan. In that Kodak Ektar 100 of the front lit Las Vegas sign at night, I did that and combined the under, normal and over scans using HDR.

For instance in that extremely contrast scene (overhead sun) on contrasty Kodak Ektar 100 of the fighter jet, I adjusted to underexpose the scan enough to tame most of the highlight and yet was still able to recover the shadows. In fact, you can download that image and use the Shadows tool - Light Equalizer in ACDSee, and you can see how much of the shadow details you can still get.

Notice that these are full res scans with very small file sizes due to a lot of JPEG compression applied. If you need even more aggressive post work, a 16bit uncompressed TIF can give you a little bit more room to work. I've had to resort to this when trying to get something - anything, from very dark Kodachrome slides.

 

[Twotone]

For that Portra 400 shot of my Toyota in the garage, I just did a scan with the settings as shown in Step #3 of that Nikonscan making and applying presets - all color settings OFF with autofocus, autoexpose, Analog Gain neutral normal ICE ON.

#3 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Currently I only use ACDSee Ultimate as it has the same facilities of Highlights and Shadows control - and all the other image controls I typically use, and applied it to that image to get the shadow details and blownout highlights.

Depending on whether I need the shadow or highlights - and I cannot reach it just using post tools, I will adjust Analog Gain Master to over or under expose the scan. In that Kodak Ektar 100 of the front lit Las Vegas sign at night, I did that and combined the under, normal and over scans using HDR.

For instance in that extremely contrast scene (overhead sun) on contrasty Kodak Ektar 100 of the fighter jet, I adjusted to underexpose the scan enough to tame most of the highlight and yet was still able to recover the shadows. In fact, you can download that image and use the Shadows tool - Light Equalizer in ACDSee, and you can see how much of the shadow details you can still get.

Notice that these are full res scans with very small file sizes due to a lot of JPEG compression applied. If you need even more aggressive post work, a 16bit uncompressed TIF can give you a little bit more room to work. I've had to resort to this when trying to get something - anything, from very dark Kodachrome slides.

Thanks for this Les, I'll spend some time with the scanner when it arrives to understand the impact of these different adjustments in NS, but as a starter for 10 I'll use your suggested settings as they sound very sensible and take it from there. I've only been using Silverfast and my Epson V700, so I'm very used to making all the changes during the scanning process, however the options and interface have meant I have ended up with unsatisfactory results due to lack of options, which is why I am now also going to get a post-processing suite e.g. LR etc.

I recently attended a good friend's wedding, I shot a roll of Kodak Vision 250D but unfortunately there was an issue with the supplier's respooling machine which scratched the rolls within an inch of their life, in addition there were some wider issues with some colour casts but I couldn't correct these easily without further highlighting the deep scratches across the pictures. I scanned them on the V700, so I'm very interested to see how the ICE on the CS works out!

 

[brbo]

I purchased a late 2009 iMac 3.06Ghz which is arriving tomorrow for £40 (eBay) + 16GB of ram for an extra £14 (Amazon) which should run Nikon Scan nicely.

Yes, going with the "period" computer to run older periphery is usually the easiest route. Take note of what ram you got and do report back if it works. There might be other people running those machines that would also like to upgrade for such little money.

 

[Twotone]

Yes, going with the "period" computer to run older periphery is usually the easiest route. Take note of what ram you got and do report back if it works. There might be other people running those machines that would also like to upgrade for such little money.

Will do!

This is the ram in case anyone is interested: Link

It obviously goes without saying to check specifics around which type you need (+ what the max per slot your machine can take), however at £6.99 for 2 X 4GB sticks, it's very good value - lots of good reviews too, rated 4.7/5 on Amazon.
Even 'branded' ones aren't expensive but as this machine will just be for scanning exclusively I didn't worry too much (16GB is going to be an improvement over the standard 4GB), especially given the system requirements for NS 4.0.2 on Mac are pretty undemanding.

I'll report back once I've got everything up and running in the coming days!

 

[radialMelt]

For anyone else that comes across this thread, an old Mac is not necessary to run NikonScan. It can be run just fine on a PC with a firewire card and Windows 10 (can't speak for 11).

 

[brbo]

That is true.

But, first you need to have a PC at hand, then you will need to sort out the mess of M$ half ditching Firewire in Win10, circumvent digital signature enforcement in Win 10 (or maybe you could use Vuescan demo for the driver), get firewire card that fits your computer (modern PCs don't have PCI slots anymore)... It's easy if you know a little about computers, not so if you don't.

 

[Les Sarile]

That is true.

But, first you need to have a PC at hand, then you will need to sort out the mess of M$ half ditching Firewire in Win10, circumvent digital signature enforcement in Win 10 (or maybe you could use Vuescan demo for the driver), get firewire card that fits your computer (modern PCs don't have PCI slots anymore)... It's easy if you know a little about computers, not so if you don't.

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.