My initial test compares the results of a dry and wet scan of the same negative. The image was captured with a Mamiya 7ii, 80mm f4 outfit. It was an extended exposure, taken at dusk. The film is 120 Kodak TMAX 400 developed at LTI New York City. The scan was performed with the same settings – 4000dpi; scale 100%; 16bit; multi-sample 1x; CCD Scan Mode set to superfine; scan image enhancer on; custom focus, black and white points. This resulted in NEF (RAW) files on disk exceeding 550MB files. Slight differences in crop are responsible for the file difference.  The wet scan fluid is Scan Science’s Lumina – a full review to come!

To keep things as simple and neutral as possible the screen shots that follow are from Nikon Scan. No processing has been performed on either, what we see is what was captured and saved. Snagit was used to capture the screens and the only modification is cropping out the main user interface of Nikon Scan. To properly view this comparison you will need to see the large versions of the following images (~2MB PNGs) by clicking the smaller versions below.

The first image shows the dry scan (left) and the wet scan (right). Each is at 8% with the scan settings area of the image view displayed to show all things that could be recorded are equal. Notice the greater tonal depth on the wet scan specifically in the shadows. Notice the crisper detail in the bricks, especially around the chimney top.

The next image zooms into the chimney at 33.33%. The details apparent at 8% are now very clear. Notice the dust caught in the wet scan. I didn’t realize how much was there. Compressed air and lint-free tissues are now in hand for future scans. An anti-static brush is on my B&H wish list.

This following image is the same view zoomed to 100%. This shows without question, the wet scan on the right more detailed and has greater dynamic range.

The differences were so dramatic that I questioned if the focus points were the same. The default focus point is middle negative. The following image compares both at approximately middle image. At this 100% view the differences are subtle, but present. Again, notice the richer darks on the right and greater overall range. What is muddy gray on the left is a stronger gray tone on the right. The grain structure from the window (upper right) is simpler and smoother when comparing the two scans.

This final image is found on the left middle of the image and offers yet another point of comparison. It shows the bricks and window frame of an apartment. Again, notice the overall dynamic range, but more importantly, review the detail seen in the brick.

If you caught me a couple of weeks ago, I would have told you that wet scanning might be a gimmick. I wasn’t convinced from what I could find and while the 9000 ED is a great scanner it isn’t a drum scanner, so I didn’t presume the comparison in process was transferable. At the very least, it can be said, that for black and white negatives, wet scanning is a must. The quality is apparent with almost no detailed review. The effort added to the overall workflow is relatively small and the cost is nominal when compared to all the other things photo geeks spend money on.

Finally, this is the image after being imported into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. I adjusted the crop slightly to align the horizon (noticeable at the top). Basic treatment includes conversion to grayscale, Recovery set to 12 and Clarity to 80. Tone curve is set to the Medium Contrast setting. No additional sharpening was applied. A slight vignette is added at an Amount of -15. I then edited a copy in Adobe Photoshop to review and remove a few dozen dust threads and two air bubbles at 100%. While I was there I removed the distracting light in the lower right. I am not sure I would say I am done, but my intent was to show a “clean” version of the image for review. The JPEG export was done at 100% quality, sRGB, 75ppi and 2000 pixels on its largest edge. The version below is a reduced size, remember to view the full sized version by clicking the image.

Courtyard at dusk, Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York

Pick up a copy of Sascha Steinhoff’s Scanning Negatives and Slides. While it is pretty basic, I did learn a few elements that would take far more time to learn.  Chapters 9-11 review Nikon Scan, VueScan and Silverfast in detail and should offer enough information to make a decision.

My take on it is simple.

1. If most of your work is on slides, you should buy SilverFast because it supports calibration targets so it fits into your color managed workflow. I know VueScan has the ability to work with similar targets, but this would be one more feature making the cost of the software more justifiable. Almost all of the SilverFast capabilities make scanning easier. If you are working mostly with negatives consider other options.
2. If you purchase a Nikon scanner it will come with Nikon Scan. You do not need to buy anything additional as long as you have digital darkroom tools such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX 2, Apple Aperture.
3. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and already work in the digital darkroom then buy VueScan. VueScan is relatively inexpensive and seems to offer a considerable set of features that will work with any scanner.
4. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and are wondering what “digital darkroom” means then buy SilverFast. If you want a digital darkroom then you need to buy digital imaging software. If it sounds too scary then SilverFast and is sister products will likely be highly satisfying. They are wicked expensive, so if you always wanted Lightroom and Aperture, buy VueScan and one of those. SilverFast has a few nice features and as Steinhoff says, it integrates well with their other products. Stand-alone it is a fine choice if you are archiving a large number of negatives or slides.

All the magic happens after the scan. That is at the root of the rationale used to come to these conclusions. You need to do everything you can to capture the highest quality image. This is no different than wanted great glass and a high megapixel image sensor. As with any photography you want to get it right in the camera. That said, when we scan, we are taking another picture. Features beyond the basic but critical (e.g. setting white point, black point, ICE etc) are not required (e.g. color correction), since similar or better capability is found in other products.

I spent way too much time reviewing all of the pros and cons of each of these and Steinhoff does a great job offering a point of view. Try to spend less time on this one. It boils down to what you are scanning, what scanner software came with your scanner and if you already have and know how to use digital imaging software. Do not mind all the crazy hand gestures as they pick your pocket.

Scanner research began the minute I purchased my Mamiya. I knew I could get the local mini-lab work done, but it would cost and the result would not be very high quality. To really get the benefits of shooting film, a great scanner is required.

Drum scans are expensive. I am sure the quality is great, but I can’t justify spending the money on such high quality scans if I am not also making some money with my craft. This also means buying a drum scanner is out, even if its used. First, I live in a coop apartment where a drum scanner could fit, but it would have to also serve the role of sculpture. Second, from what I could read, they are extremely expensive to repair.

Flatbed scanners seem to be an option, certainly for those that shoot larger than medium-format. I even considered the Epson Perfection v750-M Pro as a relatively affordable high-quality machine. Almost all the forum posts I read said it was great, but not as satisfying as a dedicated film scanner.

Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is almost the only game in town for medium-format film scanning. They fetch $500 over list on Ebay, because they are hard to come by. From what I can gather, the other scanners in the Nikon line are well liked. Buying this model means there is the Nikon service and support available to keep the unit humming. Relatively speaking, this will be far cheaper than drum scanner service and for those that are trying to find the older Minolta scanners, it means actually having a product that is not discontinued. This scanner is almost twice the price of the Epson, but is much cheaper than the other alternatives.

If you are looking at the Nikon 9000ED then you have done a search on Ebay for used Imacon scanners. Imacon was purchased by Hasselblad a while back and are considered the best of the best. Unfortunately they cost as much as cars. Even ten year old models run over $3000 USD. I guess if money was no object then I would either have enough room for a drum scanner or a new Hasselblad scanner. Either way, today, these options are too rich for my blood.

Net: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is the highest quality, supported film scanner at the $2000 price point. Do not spend a lot of time debating flatbed vs. dedicated. I have seen images from the Nikon compared to the Imacon, where folks debate the differences. No one debates the Epson v750M Pro against either. It is a great scanner – I believe that – but it is not a fair comparison.

So, if mailing off your prints is not something that is palatable, you need to find someone local. Luckily for me, there are two labs walking distance from where I work on Madison Avenue – Duggal and LTI. They both do great work, but I like the people, vibe and price at LTI. I have no doubt Duggal does a great job for their higher volume clients, but I always felt out of place walking in there and everyone always seemed too busy. LTI is a further walk but they make the time to get your order right without taking any longer than necessary. They service some big names and do not make me feel insignificant. I am after all an amateur, but I do not know anyone that wants to be treated less than professional.

My basic order is often as follows:

• Process, print, scan.
• Push 1 stop.
• Glossy with white border.
• TIFF format.

I figure, prints are not much more than contact sheets and they are larger and easier to review. Even though I have an Epson Workforce 600 All-in-One printer, my time is worth something, so I rather they scan them with their machine. They provide the images on FTP or CD which makes archiving easy. Pushing a stop is usually to compensate for over exposing and wanting to bring back some of the highlights. Until recently I did not have a film scanner, so their scans were my digital originals, hence the file format being TIFF. Regardless of the photo labs quick scan quality, why start out with a JPEG!

As a teenager I would run around with my black Olympus OM-2n wishing that one day I would find myself with a Mamiya. It was what I saw in magazines and my medium-format camera experience went from a Yashicamat TLR to a Rolliflex TLR – a story all of its own. I had nice equipment, so the Mamiya was not an obsession, more of a dream. I love Lamborghini cars and one day I will have one. For now, it is a dream.

My first few shots with the RZ were using the Polaroid back. Polaroid had announced earlier in the year that it would stop manufacturing instant film, which was fine, I loved the results from Fujifilm even better. In the first weeks, I ran through a few packs of expired Polacolor and started to realize two very important things. First, I needed a better tripod. The Mamiya RZ is heavy and my little tripod was not up for the task. Second, I needed a light meter. Using the digital camera to do meter readings was cumbersome at best and I was still often left compensating for the film characteristics. I knew I needed these things, but I waited to make sure.

Lesson: If you can afford it, do not wait, just get what you need. It moves the conversation away from the gear and into the art of making images. The catch is in knowing what you need.

This is how it all began. The dream unleashed the sleeping giant which has compelled me to share my journey on the hybrid photography jet-stream. I know I am not alone, and yet we are scattered in our sharing.