Digital BW, The Print

Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
--

Hate to sell of my Cannon camera


TIA
Richard

Film still rules in my book!!

gar

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 4/3/08 at 1:48 AM Richard wrote:

>Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
>or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
>
>or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
>--
>
>Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
>
>
>TIA
>Richard
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
>they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
>page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
>them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
>Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
>membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
>printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
>the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
>and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files
>section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
>�MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
>YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
>EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
>PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
>�OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
>ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
>OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

try microtek i900 or other type or nikol coolscan
 
imnoexis! 

----- Original Message ----
From: Richard <cms0009@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:48:13 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

                Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
--

Hate to sell of my Cannon camera

TIA
Richard

    
          										






      ____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.  
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
>
> or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> --
>
> Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
>
> TIA
> Richard
Richard, what type of film are you scanning?  Nikon Coolscan  scanners 
(I have a V) are very good with fine-grained film, but not so good with 
grainy film.  My Canon 9950F flatbed is better with grainy negatives. 
Then there are the high-end flatbeds (Screen Cezanne, Kodak/Creo 
IQSmart, Kodak/Creo Eversmart...) and drum scanners, but both of these 
options are much more expensive.  I have a Cezanne, but it's not for 
everyone. It makes great scans, though.

-Peter

Richard wrote:

> Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
> or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by 
the affordable Plustek 7200i.

My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot 
capture all the detail that is in the film.  So, those extra pixels 
just might be significant.


> or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.

So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium 
format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue.  For 
color, however, I never shoot film any more.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

My Microtek 900i lost a solenoid and I then discovered, to my chagrin, that there are no Microtek service facilities in the USA.  I could not recommend Microtek to anyone based on that unhappy (and expensive) experience.  My Nikon Coolscan, on the other hand (the 9000) is humming along merrily.  Jim

----- Original Message ----
From: m revaldi <imnoexis@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 3:48:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

try microtek i900 or other type or nikol coolscan

imnoexis! 

----- Original Message ----
From: Richard <cms0009@gmail. com>
To: DigitalBlackandWhit eThePrint@ yahoogroups. com
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 12:48:13 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
--

Hate to sell of my Cannon camera

TIA
Richard



____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _
You rock. That's why Blockbuster' s offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. 
http://tc.deals. yahoo.com/ tc/blockbuster/ text5.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been using the Plustek for several years now and it does a very
good job. Good enough, in fact, to exhibit just how disappointing some
of my 35mm from the past is, technically speaking. 7200 dpi puts a
very pitiless spotlight on any deficits. One of the very early
reviewers, who was published in a UK photo magazine, really trashed
the machine as being inadequate for use because at 7200dpi all his
output looked less than sharp whereas 4000dpi from it as well as from
another brand looked good. My experience with it indicates that he
hadn't a clue as to what he was seeing. At that time it was even more
affordable than today so a review such as his may very well have
curtailed the machines marketing considerably.

Regards
Duane





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "pr_roark"
<pr_roark@...> wrote:

>
> Richard wrote:
> 
> > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
> > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
> 
> David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by 
> the affordable Plustek 7200i.
> 
> My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot 
> capture all the detail that is in the film.  So, those extra pixels 
> just might be significant.
> 
> 
> > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> 
> So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium 
> format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue.  For 
> color, however, I never shoot film any more.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder. A used drum
scanner (eg. Howtek 4500) will be your best bet, but you have to have alot
of film to make it worth-while.

I would recommend getting sample scans from the same wide-gamut negative
from several different kinds of scanners (operated by knowledgeable
owners!!) before deciding.

Bill

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:27 PM, dlruckus <dlruckus@...> wrote:

>   I've been using the Plustek for several years now and it does a very
> good job. Good enough, in fact, to exhibit just how disappointing some
> of my 35mm from the past is, technically speaking. 7200 dpi puts a
> very pitiless spotlight on any deficits. One of the very early
> reviewers, who was published in a UK photo magazine, really trashed
> the machine as being inadequate for use because at 7200dpi all his
> output looked less than sharp whereas 4000dpi from it as well as from
> another brand looked good. My experience with it indicates that he
> hadn't a clue as to what he was seeing. At that time it was even more
> affordable than today so a review such as his may very well have
> curtailed the machines marketing considerably.
>
> Regards
> Duane
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "pr_roark"
>
> <pr_roark@...> wrote:
> >
> > Richard wrote:
> >
> > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
> >
> > David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very enthused by
> > the affordable Plustek 7200i.
> >
> > My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
> > capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
> > just might be significant.
> >
> >
> > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> >
> > So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my medium
> > format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
> > color, however, I never shoot film any more.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

http://www.MorseEditions.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've never used the Plustek but have heard it has limited Dmax which
should matter to you for scanning transparencies and some silver B&W
negatives.

I have seen Nikon output and focus depends on the model.  The LS-4000
model was known for finicky focus and limited depth of field.  The
LS-5000 and V were known to be far easier to get the frame in focus.

I use the Canon FS4000US which has generous depth of field but fairly
poor holders.  A scanhancer diffuser nicely suppresses Fuji pepper
grain and B&W grain.  It has rather limited Dmax, so for contrasty
transparencies expect to have to scan twice and combine exposures.  I
use Photomatix to do the combining and Vuescan as my scanner software.

If I were buying a scanner today for 35mm I'd get the Nikon LS-50 or
5000 for the combination of speed, high quality IR cleaning, and Dmax.
The LS-5000 is somewhat higher resolution than my 4000 dpi Canon based
on scanning test charts.  I find 4000dpi overkill for most of my work
which is handheld on relatively fast films and after scanning at
4000dpi I downsize in Photoshop to 8x12 inches or so at 300dpi.

Roger


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Morse"
<Bill.Morse@...> wrote:
>
> I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
> similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get
focus
> across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder. A
used drum
> scanner (eg. Howtek 4500) will be your best bet, but you have to
have alot
> of film to make it worth-while.
> 
> I would recommend getting sample scans from the same wide-gamut negative
> from several different kinds of scanners (operated by knowledgeable
> owners!!) before deciding.
> 
> Bill
> 
> >
> > --- In
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "pr_roark"
> >
> > <pr_roark@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > > > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> > > > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
> > >
> > > David Brooks at Shutterbug tests a lot of these and is very
enthused by
> > > the affordable Plustek 7200i.
> > >
> > > My experience is that the typical 4000 dpi of a film scanner cannot
> > > capture all the detail that is in the film. So, those extra pixels
> > > just might be significant.
> > >
> > >
> > > > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> > >
> > > So far, I see no (affordable) serious digital competition for my
medium

> > > format Tech Pan film when ultimate B&W quality is the issue. For
> > > color, however, I never shoot film any more.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > > www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill Morse
> Wm. Morse Editions
> 
> http://www.MorseEditions.com/
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

If you get a Nikon 35mm Film scanner,  make sure to get an FH-3 film 
strip holder. They are not expensive. This allows you to scan 6 frame 
film strips, and it holds the film flatter than the motorized strip 
loading mechanism.

Bill Morse wrote:
> 
> 
> I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
> similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
> across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.

That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
to wet-mount.

Dana

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers" 
<dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Morse wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
> > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to get focus
> > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
> 
> That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
> holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
> to wet-mount.
> 
> Dana


 I have to agree with Dana on this one.  I have been using a 9000 for over two years now 
with the glass carrier, both 35 mm and 120, and the focus is tack sharp.  If the negative is 
clean without scratches then there is no reason to go to all the trouble of wet mounting.  
Once you use glass you never go back.

William

35mm Nikon V and 5000 are ordinarily grain-sharp, corner to corner
without glass, but ends of strips are issues if the film is
curley...which is the reason you want FH-3 carrier.

The worst film for Nikon scanners is probably paper-mounted slide
film, which tends to be bubbled both from the sides and the ends,
unlike plastic-mounted. Mounted slides are worse than unmounted film
either way.

35mm Nikons have a great deal more depth of focus than did Minoltas,
but it's still wise to focus about 1/3 from the edge, rather than from
the center, to take best advantage of that depth of focus. Nikon
autofocus is amazing, in fact. 

Nikons also do exceptionally well with grainy film, but if one wants
the grain to vanish the way some do with grain softening developers
(D76/ID11  etc) or they way they do with diffusion enlargers they will
have to intentionally soften the image because the Nikon wants to
render the grain sharply...

I print grain sharp 12X18 with Nikon V...don't have a larger printer,
but since these are so sharp I'm sure murals would be just as good...

Sometimes good scanners surprise people by revealing how bad their
camera lenses are. Zooms, for example. Bad lenses aren't as obvious
when the image is softened by enlarger optics. 

My impression is that at 4000ppi the Nikons rival point-source
enlargement (I'm experienced with Dursts)...which means they're far
sharper and more highly detailed than any conventional condenser
enlarger...and scanning is less tricky.

Unfortunately Microtek has yet to produce a decent 35mm scanner IMO.
If you don't want a Nikon I suggest the latest Canons, which do very
well...rival color enlargers, for example. 





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"
<dana.myers@...> wrote:
>
> Bill Morse wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The Nikons and
> > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to
get focus

> > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
> 
> That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
> holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
> to wet-mount.
> 
> Dana
>

On wet mounting.

It depends. For 35mm film I usually rely on the normal Nikon 
LS-8000 strip holder and no glass at all. Which was the 
subject of this thread as far as I know. For MF up to 6x9 my 
own wet mount system is very reliable in getting the grain 
sharp on every spot in the frame. That holder is also 
tweaked to get focus as equal as possible on all the spots 
for the first and the second frame (6x9). There are no 
issues like Newton rings and there's some gain in light 
transmission when the emulsion surface of B&W film is matte 
(less scattering). I'm sure most of this goes unnoticed when 
you do not use a print above A3 size. Film strips that had a 
rough past can be healed with wet mounting and ICE. For the 
Epson V700 etc models and larger films the same advantages 
of wet mounting apply.

The last Minolta 35 mm scanner hasn't been mentioned. No 
longer produced it probably is hard to get but with its own 
Scanhancer inspired screen it is good competition to the 
recent Nikon 35mm models.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

On 03/04/2008 Richard wrote:
> Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

Nikon seem to be the only mainstream mfr. still in the prosumer 
filmscanner market. They're good but the LED lightsource is prone to grain 
aliasing on some materials, and DoF is limited as the source is not bright 
enough to allow a small lens aperture, so film flatness/focus can be an issue.

I'm still using a Polaroid 4000 which is now 6-7 years old, and I get 
better results than I could manage in the wet darkroom with a 
Durst+Componon S and half-glass carrier, at 16x12. The downside with the 
Polaroid is that there is no ICE dust/scratch tech, so manual repair of 
poor negs is hard and long.

Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That 
includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during 
the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable 
demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

A lot of flatbeds now scan 35mm film and are OK for casual use or larger 
formats to modest sizes, but unless very costly the optics don't match 
dedicated filmscanners.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk

I picked up 4 rolls of 35mm color film at WPPI in Las Vegas from Kodak that
is meant for improved scans. I have yet to try it. That is a moving forward
answer for sure but it does mean that the film companies are not entirely
closed to scanning issue.

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tony
Sleep
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 5:40 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanner or not

 

On 03/04/2008 Richard wrote:
> Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?

Nikon seem to be the only mainstream mfr. still in the prosumer 
filmscanner market. They're good but the LED lightsource is prone to grain 
aliasing on some materials, and DoF is limited as the source is not bright 
enough to allow a small lens aperture, so film flatness/focus can be an
issue.

I'm still using a Polaroid 4000 which is now 6-7 years old, and I get 
better results than I could manage in the wet darkroom with a 
Durst+Componon S and half-glass carrier, at 16x12. The downside with the 
Polaroid is that there is no ICE dust/scratch tech, so manual repair of 
poor negs is hard and long.

Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That 
includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during 
the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable 
demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

A lot of flatbeds now scan 35mm film and are OK for casual use or larger 
formats to modest sizes, but unless very costly the optics don't match 
dedicated filmscanners.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep. <http://tonysleep.co.uk> co.uk

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have the Minolta Scan Elite 5400 and would agree that it's very good - the extra resolution (5400ppi) is good to have. I've printed excellent A2 tech pan prints from it that were sharp even at that size.

It does sometimes suffer from lack of depth of field, however.

If you are getting a film scannner it is well worth also buying VueScan as it's an excellent scanning program.

Richard

At 11:40 p.m. Friday 4/04/2008, you wrote:
>Probably the best later filmscanner is the Minolta Dimage 5400. That 
>includes ICE and is a very nice scanner. Unfortunately it was axed during 
>the Konica Minolta merger. 5400's in good condition are in considerable 
>demand and sometimes sell on eBay for more than their last new price.

--
http://smallfield.vze.com 

   "I know but one freedom & that is the freedom of the mind."
   --Antoine de Saint-Exupery

I've been using an Epson V700 for about a year now and am pretty happy with it - does 
batch (24 negative) scans pretty well.  Used the V700s at Maine Workshops and liked them 
well enough to buy one.

Bob Gaunt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard <cms0009@...> wrote:

>
> Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives 
> or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
> 
> or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> --
> 
> Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
> 
> 
> TIA
> Richard
>

On Thursday 03 April 2008 9:54:28 am Peter De Smidt wrote:
> > Are there any good scanners for 35mm negatives
> > or should as, what is the best for 35mm ?
> >
> > or is all photography pretty much gone to digital.
> > --
> >
> > Hate to sell of my Cannon camera
> >
> > TIA
> > Richard
>
> Richard, what type of film are you scanning?  Nikon Coolscan  scanners
> (I have a V) are very good with fine-grained film, but not so good with
> grainy film.  My Canon 9950F flatbed is better with grainy negatives.
> Then there are the high-end flatbeds (Screen Cezanne, Kodak/Creo
> IQSmart, Kodak/Creo Eversmart...) and drum scanners, but both of these
> options are much more expensive.  I have a Cezanne, but it's not for
> everyone. It makes great scans, though.
>
> -Peter
>
>

Hey Peter,
Well, I used to shot B&W 25 ISO, but that stuff is long gone,
its now Fuji Superia Reala 100 for color and sharpness.

Richard

At 04:16 p.m. Sunday 6/04/2008, you wrote:
>Well, I used to shot B&W 25 ISO, but that stuff is long gone,
>its now Fuji Superia Reala 100 for color and sharpness.

Isn't Efke 25 still around? I still have several rolls in the freezer ... don't know when they'll see light of day  though.

Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com 

   "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; 
   an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. " 
   --Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

William:  Do you mean to say that with my 9000 I can scan 35 mm film
using my 120 glass holder?  Is there a trick?  I'm under the
impression that the software only allows MF scans with that holder. 
Any info appreciated.  Thanks.  Chuck


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "William John
Smith" <william@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers" 
> <dana.myers@> wrote:
> >
> > Bill Morse wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I don't have experience with the Plustek, so can't say. The
Nikons and
> > > similar film scanners, OTOH, are very difficult (impossible?) to
get focus
> > > across the whole film plane unless you use a wet-mount holder.
> > 
> > That's not my experience with the Nikon LS-9000; the glass
> > holder gives very good edge-to-edge sharpness without resorting
> > to wet-mount.
> > 
> > Dana
> 
> 
>  I have to agree with Dana on this one.  I have been using a 9000
for over two years now 
> with the glass carrier, both 35 mm and 120, and the focus is tack
sharp.  If the negative is 
> clean without scratches then there is no reason to go to all the
trouble of wet mounting.  

> Once you use glass you never go back.
> 
> William
>

cschaible94111 wrote:
> William:  Do you mean to say that with my 9000 I can scan 35 mm film
> using my 120 glass holder?  Is there a trick?  I'm under the
> impression that the software only allows MF scans with that holder. 
> Any info appreciated.  Thanks.  Chuck

With Vuescan and a good custom mask (to reduce flare) in a 
wetmount holder you can scan one, two or four 35mm frames in 
a 9000 at the same time. One is better considering that the 
exposure has to deal with one image only and the focus point 
is easier to place. The normal Nikon glass holder isn't wide 
enough (should be 70 mm) to do two strips at the same time. 
  So one strip only and two frames max. Make a custom mask 
as well. I think it should be possible with NikonScan too 
just crop the scan window starting from a 6x9 one. One thing 
that usually spoils the first attempt is that the focusing 
spot is right at the division between two frames or on the 
mask part if you cover that too. The focus then takes 
endless time and the preview can be aborted. So work out a 
method/mask that sets the focus spot at actual image 
content. There's the manual focus point possible with both 
scanner drivers.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |