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

I save scans in NEF, Nikon’s RAW file format. If you scan to  a RAW format, the color space settings are not important. If you scan to a TIFF the setting should be the largest color space, often Adobe RGB 1998. Some argue with this last point – fodder for another post.

Scan at the highest bit depth and work all your post edits at that bit depth. It provides more information for your image editing software to work with, offering noticeably better results.

For black and white negatives, do not turn ICE on, because it won’t work. The results from having it on are disturbing. On color negatives I set ICE to Normal.

Resolution is another one of those topics that is worthy of a post all its own. If I scan a medium format image at 4000dpi, 16bit color, the resulting file size is over 570MB. Steinhoff and apparently Nikon recommend scanning at 4000dpi, but scaling it to 50%. This results in a more manageable 140MB file.

Setting Nikon Scan resolution at 4000dpi and scale at 50%

I usually have image enhancer on, which adjusts brightness and color saturation automatically. I’ll do a follow-up with before and after with it on and off so we can figure out how much to appreciate the setting.

Almost every selection impacts the time it takes to scan.  Multi sample is one that will make you want to run back to digital. Setting it to 16x on a medium format negative takes upwards of 30 minutes. For now I leave it at 1x and scans are done in a much more reasonable time and look great.

Apart from setting the black and white point, I do as little as possible in the scanner software. For example, I do not do any sharpening in the scan. My workflow moves from scan to NEF to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.

My Nikon Scan settings are:

• File format: NEF (RAW)
• Bit depth: 16-bit
• ICE: Off (B&W) Normal (Color)
• ROC: Off
• GEM: Off
• DEE: Off
• Resolution: 4000 dpi
• Scale: 50%
• CCD Scan Mode: Super Fine Scan
• Scan image enhancer: On
• Multi Sample: 1x
• Focus: custom
• Level adjustments: custom

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.