Need to send in MF scanner to get serviced

[revaaron]

sorry, I've really got no other forum to vent on.  My nikon cool scan 9000 that I bought last year looks like it's stretching out the pixels on the left hand side of the scans of my 645.  I'll post some samples later since I forgot my thumb drive at home.

[healeystudio]

My sympathies.  As you may know by now Nikon Tech Support is useless.  The telephone center support does not know anything at all about scanners.  So you end up having to send the scanner to Melville if you have any problems at all, whether you need to or not.  

Actually when my scanner needed repair, I did finally get one guy who at least helped me figure out it really was a hardware problem but I had to call 5 times to find someone bright enough to figure out I was speaking about a scanner and not a camera within the first 5 minutes, although I start the conversation with I have a "Nikon Coolscan 8000".

I was so frustrated we went out and bought a MF digital back, because once I scan all my MF film worthy of scanning, I am selling the dang scanner and getting away from Nikon forever.  We bought our first Nikon in the 70's.  Nikon used to have one of the best Tech Support Systems around.  It is so sad.

Wish I could be of help with your problem.  But does it make you feel better to have someone join you in your vent?

[TMARK]

Send it to Melville.  If its within warranty its a free repair, if not, the minumum they charge is $500 bucks for a scanner visit.

[revaaron]

yeah, it's under warranty. I've been struggling with getting non-newton ring scans and was trying out a new mask under the glass holder.  And I realized that no matter what I did there was a stretched out pixely thing on the side of the 645 scans.

On a side note, it seems like my mask made the scans less sharp when I did a 1-to-1 of the NEFs. All of my digital equipment is nikon. I actually have to send my new 24-70 into get fixed with the scanner.

[TMARK]

yeah, it's under warranty. I've been struggling with getting non-newton ring scans and was trying out a new mask under the glass holder.  And I realized that no matter what I did there was a stretched out pixely thing on the side of the 645 scans.

On a side note, it seems like my mask made the scans less sharp when I did a 1-to-1 of the NEFs. All of my digital equipment is nikon. I actually have to send my new 24-70 into get fixed with the scanner.

I use about three different methods of scanning to avoid Newton Rings.  I have a glass holder, the regular holder, the regular holder with AN glass on top, the regiular holder with an glass on top, optical glass on the bottom, with or w/o masks.   Best resuts are from a flat piece of film, regular holder, AN glass on top keeping it real flat.  Its a crappy process and I pay for most scans now, because while I'm scanning film the world keeps turning, the sun shines, etc.

[revaaron]

thats what happened to me and all the 4x6, 5x7, etc.. I had laying around.
What I need to do is just get a good process down so while I'm coding at home during the day, I can robotically swap things out. I have like 100 pages of 35mm from 1970 to 1999 from my family to archive and like 25 pages of 35mm slides.

On top of that, I have 45 rolls of MF which is growing by a roll or 2 a month.

[tsjanik]

I use about three different methods of scanning to avoid Newton Rings.  I have a glass holder, the regular holder, the regular holder with AN glass on top, the regiular holder with an glass on top, optical glass on the bottom, with or w/o masks.   Best resuts are from a flat piece of film, regular holder, AN glass on top keeping it real flat.  Its a crappy process and I pay for most scans now, because while I'm scanning film the world keeps turning, the sun shines, etc.

TMARK:
I've tried similar combinations.  I finally settled with Focal Point AN glass on the bottom and 5mm framer's glass on top.  That arrangement ensures that the film is flat, although not necessarily level, but that's another issue.   I was sure the AN glass would cause some softness, but when comparing scans to those done with clear optical glass on the bottom I see no difference in sharpness; in fact the only difference is the Newton's rings in the clear glass scan.  Have you tried that combination?  Masks didn't work for me, the film wasn't really flat.

[TMARK]

You know I have not put the AN glass on the bottom. I'll give that a shot. I only get rings with color neg film. B&W has a thicker emulsion, I think, maybe less or non reflective, so no rings. It's a crap shoot, to be honest. One method or the other will eventually work.  

TMARK:
I've tried similar combinations.  I finally settled with Focal Point AN glass on the bottom and 5mm framer's glass on top.  That arrangement ensures that the film is flat, although not necessarily level, but that's another issue.   I was sure the AN glass would cause some softness, but when comparing scans to those done with clear optical glass on the bottom I see no difference in sharpness; in fact the only difference is the Newton's rings in the clear glass scan.  Have you tried that combination?  Masks didn't work for me, the film wasn't really flat.

[revaaron]

someone here suggested putting lighter fluid on the film. idk about that.

[TMARK]

someone here suggested putting lighter fluid on the film. idk about that.

F*CK THAT.  I know IGC recomend sit in a round about way, but not for me.