Digitizing MF film in 2025 - dedicated scanner or HR digital copy-cam?

[narikin]

Not sure which way to go on scanning my older archive of color negatives. Mostly 6x7, but some 35mm too.

I have a dedicated film scanner (Nikon 9000) with a custom made MF glass holder, that allows me to wet-mount the film and keep it absolutely flat. So - no newtons rings, and perfect scans @4000dpi with infra-red cleaning = great results with Vuescan.

But... I read that people are now using their MF digital camera to make their 'scans' with a macro lens. Speedy on a dedicated copy setup, and with a 100mp Fuji, give great results (although with no IR clean-up). I have a Fuji, and/or Phase IQ4 to do this.

Any thoughts which way to go?

I love my Nikon scanner and its output with the dedicated holder - it is time consuming to do 1 by 1, but then again -  the IR dust cleanup gives back some time in 'post' that I would have to spend spotting with a copy-cam setup. What's best..?

[degrub]

FOr the camera option, lots of things to get into the physical details for if expecting hi resolution without aberrations or noise.
The LS9000 engineers already worked these out for you. Wet mounted is about as good as it gets. The only reason, imo, to use higher than 4000 ppi is if you have to print larger and require more real pixels.

here is a reference to a good solid setup for camera based
https://photopxl.com/digitizing-negatives-with-a-camera-revisited/

[narikin]

Thanks for the info and link. Useful to know.

I have all the bits n bobs needed for such macro work, except... a copy stand, which is easily acquired. I do have the legendary 'Apo El-Nikkor' 105mm lens, which has next to zero color aberrations, and cost a small fortune ~25 years ago. Perfect for this.
(one serious print nerd described as "the greatest lens available to ordinary mortals"!)

Thanks

[degrub]

If you are interested in the copy stand that Mark custom built, you can contact the company directly for an un-assembled "kit" that you can put together.
i have contact information if you PM me.

Vibration of any kind - vehicles moving down street, walking in the house/building, AC blower, etc - all will affect the rig since the lever arms are fairly long on a copy stand.

[narikin]

Thanks, will do.

The more I read, the more I appreciate how easy my Nikon scanner with Vuescan is.
It's slow, but so is converting one-by-one digital copy stand color negative files. Plus spotting those is a time consuming process, done automatically by the IR scanner channel.

But... my Coolscan is now 20+ years old, and nothing lasts forever.
No idea why they stopped making those -really excellent machines, esp. when used with a wet mount carrier..

[degrub]

If something goes wrong in your scanner, you can always part it out. There are parts available on e-bay from time to time. Also, the lens in that scanner is a better/equivalent version of the printing Nikkor and the 105 micro that you have. Here is a reference testing site -
https://www.closeuphotography.com/scanner-lenses

[narikin]

Thanks - interesting to know how excellent the Nikon scanner lens is!
Not surprised though, I swear it's as good as any drum scanner when you wet mount the film so its perfectly flat.

Maybe a high end drum scan operator can get a smidge more out of an MF negative, if they really tried, but in my experience, you're 'just another job', whereas with this, its you scanning your work, so you get 100% out of it

(and after 4000dpi you're just scanning grain anyways, not detail)

Once again: no idea why Nikon stopped making them!

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I also have the Nikon medium format film scanner (Super Coolscan 8000), and use Vuescan, and custom built holders, including anti newton glass holder. You mentioned the scanners will not last forever, and I agree. I had mine serviced not too long ago. Mirror cleaning, new Firewire card, and cleaning, lubing etc. I HIGHLY RECCOMMEND the Facebook Group dedicated to the Nikon Scanners. There are some real experts there who can repair, clean, and generally help people out. I recovered my Father's lost for 72 years negatives and used the scanner to bring back to life my Dad, whom I never knew. He died in May 1940 at age 29, when I was three.
Facebook Group is here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1514948298527146

If you go to my website and look at the "ALEXANDER GURTCHEFF" page, you can see what the scanner has done for me and my family, resurrecting my Dad's negatives. My web site is:
www.modernpictorials.com
Dave Gurtcheff
Beach Haven, NJ

[narikin]

Thanks Dave, good to know.

I'm not on Facebook, and never will be, so maybe you can post a share a few recommendations here, or DM me, regarding who serviced your machine. Seems like we're not a million miles apart on our East Coast locations!

Nothing wrong with mine at present, and I've cleaned the mirror myself before, but still, you never know!

[Dave Gurtcheff]

I sent you a PM.
Dave

[narikin]

Thanks for the info and PM Dave.

I did some digging based on that and found this useful post on Vuescan's blog:

https://www.hamrick.com/newsletter/Newsletter-7.html

Sharing it here as it lists 3 repair service providers for Nikon scanners, in different US areas.

(Just to add a mirror clean is an easy DIY thing, and makes the biggest difference, but be careful as its a front surface mirror, and you don't want to damage it)


Interesting that the Vuescan experts say:

"Many people, including ourselves, consider Nikon scanners to be the best scanners ever made for film scanning"

No argument with that!

[Mark D Segal]

Well, I do have an argument with that, having tested pretty much the full range of high-end film scanners then on the market, and owning a Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and a Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, both of which I used before creating my Mirrorless-based set-up with a Sony a7r4, etc., which outperforms all these scanners, but with some caveats. Amongst the scanners, the best of the lot was the high-end Imacon (if you had $25,000 to spend on it), then for 35mm film the Minolta, followed by the Nikon. The Minolta is slower than the Nikon, but for sheer image quality and effective resolution it was the closest thing to the Imacon I ever used. All good equipment, so one is looking critically at fine differences, but they are there, especially when you get into the higher magnifications and looking for corner to corner definition.

[narikin]

Thanks Mark,

Always respect your opinion, tho have a couple of caveats.

The Imacon is good of course, but I recall a controversy where it turned out it was sharpening the scans even with that set to Zero. Can't remember the details, but you had to set it to Minus 65 sharpening or something to get none. So we were comparing apples with oranges when looking at supposedly unsharpened results.

I'm scanning MF film, so the coolscan 9000 is perfect to me, but you MUST use a glass wet-mount holder for absloute planarity. Night and day difference.
Oh, and the InfraRed cleaning ('Digital Ice') makes a huge difference and speeds things up a lot. I'll for sure miss that when I go to HR digital copy cam setup.

No experience with the Minolta, so no comment on that.
I use Vuescan - simply one of the best pieces of software out there! Kudos to the Hamrick's.

[degrub]

If i remember correctly, one of the differences between the Minolta and the Nikon (any of them) was the light source. The Nikon leds tended to amplify any defects, noise, etc where the Minolta source was more diffuse ?. For a while you could get a 3rd party product called "scanhancer" which diffused the led light a bit IIRC and reduced the so called pepper grain on the CS5000. The DOF for the Nikons was also very shallow and required wet mounting if you wanted to avoid compromise.

i think camera based is the way to go if you can control the variables. It won't be as automated and compact though.