What is better Nikon Super Coolscan 4000 or Coolscan V ED?

[Don]

I think Don's comparing Velvia to Kodachrome, but still "forgiving"
isn't a word I'd use to describe Velvia. I shot a few rolls of it and
then switched to Provia and Sensia as they are much easier to work with.

Actually it was Noons who mentioned Velvia although I think others may
have done so in the past. To be fair, I wasn't reading very closely.

But you're absolutely right about Kodachromes. After all I've been
through, scanning *anything* else is bound to be comparatively easy,
although last few rolls of 1988 vintage KCs were relatively painless.

On balance, it's not really KC which is the only problem, it's mostly
Nikon's (over)reaction to them.

Anyway, same question I asked John: Any specific ratings/speed you
would recommend in particular (for scanning)? What are you favorites?

Don.

 

[John]

It is now! ;o)

Far better than "magentatious" I would've used! ;o)

LOL! Oh - I like that!

No, no, right on topic!!

I often heard both Velvia and Provia being mentioned here but I really
read all that out of the corner of my eye because I switched to
digital, as I said. Actually, I may have confused them because when
you're not paying attention those names do sound somewhat similar.

I too have switched to digital, and unfortunately, however much I am
determined to continue to shoot film 'in parallel' (primarily because I like
to project colour slides), I always find myself reaching for the digital
because of the flexibility and feedback it gives me. It has also made me
lazy w.r.t. exposure - with the digital, I can check the histograms on my
first attempt and modify as required. Plus there is so much more latitude to
get a usable shot if not an optimised one. The potential for unpleasant
surprises is much reduced. Yes, I know I should bracket more with film, but
most of my photography is done 'on the fly' as it were, i.e. if I'm out and
about for some other purpose. My wife soon gets fed up hanging around
waiting for me, particularly since she uses a digital, usually on fully
auto, and gets better shots that I do in a fraction of the time!

Anyway, any specific ratings/speed you would recommend in particular
(for scanning)? Any favorites?

Don.

Speed wise, with Fuji transparency, your choice for fine grain is 100ASA now
that they have decided to discontinue Velvia 50. Last year, I shot a couple
of rolls of each of Sensia 100, Provia 100, Velvia 100F, and Velvia 50, with
the intention of doing a detailed comparison - needless to say, it is still
pending (and now pointless). I am not a grain lover at the best of times so
the smoother the better for me. I can still see the grain on Velvia 50 scans
with the Nikon 4000. At first glance, Provia 100 grain is no worse than
Velvia 50, but I haven't really compared them closely. I've never tried
Provia 400, so I can't comment.

Most of my Fuji shots have been on Sensia - I was happy enough with the
colour balance, but I used to use the faster stuff (200 & 400) for
flexibility, which was fine for projection but the grain was a bit of a
headache for scanning. I decided to look more closely at the professional
film range because of all the fuss that people make about how good Velvia
is - I wanted to see for myself. I would say that any 'advantage' of Velvia
relates to projection. For straightforward scanning, I think it's best
avoided. I wouldn't like to say which I would choose between Provia 100 and
Sensia 100. Provia wins on specification, but it's never that simple!

 

[Don]

I too have switched to digital, and unfortunately, however much I am
determined to continue to shoot film 'in parallel' (primarily because I like
to project colour slides), I always find myself reaching for the digital
because of the flexibility and feedback it gives me. It has also made me
lazy w.r.t. exposure - with the digital, I can check the histograms on my
first attempt and modify as required. Plus there is so much more latitude to
get a usable shot if not an optimised one. The potential for unpleasant
surprises is much reduced. Yes, I know I should bracket more with film, but
most of my photography is done 'on the fly' as it were, i.e. if I'm out and
about for some other purpose. My wife soon gets fed up hanging around
waiting for me, particularly since she uses a digital, usually on fully
auto, and gets better shots that I do in a fraction of the time!

I sure second all that! Since I switched to digital I too got
*incredibly* lazy! It's basically "auto everything" now, in part
because the results are so good and in part because of added
flexibility, all of which you address above. There's elbow room
everywhere and it's pretty much impossible to get a bad shot. Oh, I
still manage, but I really have to try hard - like shoot fireworks
with a 2 second exposure, hand-held, while riding my bike... ;o)

Oh yeah (with a nod to Monty Python) all that in winter, and without
taking my mitts off! ;o)

But seriously, I do shoot most of my casual stuff on my little bike
trips, sometimes indeed without even bothering to stop or dismount. Of
course there are times when I set up a shot meticulously or shoot in a
studio-like environment, but digital does make one become very lazy.

Speed wise, with Fuji transparency, your choice for fine grain is 100ASA now
that they have decided to discontinue Velvia 50. Last year, I shot a couple
of rolls of each of Sensia 100, Provia 100, Velvia 100F, and Velvia 50, with
the intention of doing a detailed comparison - needless to say, it is still
pending (and now pointless). I am not a grain lover at the best of times so
the smoother the better for me. I can still see the grain on Velvia 50 scans
with the Nikon 4000. At first glance, Provia 100 grain is no worse than
Velvia 50, but I haven't really compared them closely. I've never tried
Provia 400, so I can't comment.

Most of my Fuji shots have been on Sensia - I was happy enough with the
colour balance, but I used to use the faster stuff (200 & 400) for
flexibility, which was fine for projection but the grain was a bit of a
headache for scanning. I decided to look more closely at the professional
film range because of all the fuss that people make about how good Velvia
is - I wanted to see for myself. I would say that any 'advantage' of Velvia
relates to projection. For straightforward scanning, I think it's best
avoided. I wouldn't like to say which I would choose between Provia 100 and
Sensia 100. Provia wins on specification, but it's never that simple!

Thanks John! I hope to give them a whirl at year end, if all goes as
planned (famous last words, eh? :-/ ) and report my impressions then.

BTW, initially, I too resented grain quite a lot. Actually I was very
shocked at the first few scans and that's with the 2700 dpi LS-30!!!
But, in part because of LS-50 and 4000 dpi I'm sort of used to grain
by now. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say I find grain
reassuring because it indicates that the scanner focus is good.

Don.

 

[John]

BTW, initially, I too resented grain quite a lot. Actually I was very
shocked at the first few scans and that's with the 2700 dpi LS-30!!!
But, in part because of LS-50 and 4000 dpi I'm sort of used to grain
by now. Indeed, I would even go as far as to say I find grain
reassuring because it indicates that the scanner focus is good.

Don.

That's one way of looking at it. Unfortunately, it's also a two edged sword
if you are dealing with film which is curved and it isn't possible to get
the whole slide perfectly focussed in the scanner (I think you yourself have
reported these problems in the past?). The change in appearence of the grain
makes it all too obvious :-(

The key is to see it all as 'art'. Then it doesn't matter.

 

[Roger S.]

I haven't found significant grain differences between Velvia 50, Provia
100F and Sensia 100 and if you can't keep it in focus, try scanning
unmounted slide strips instead.
As far as exposure goes- keep the contrast under control and you should
do fine with a modern scanner! I rate Provia/Sensia at 100 and try to
preserve the highlights when I meter. Sensia's relatively forgving
with this and doesn't have a green cast for long-exposure night shots.

 

[Don]

That's one way of looking at it. Unfortunately, it's also a two edged sword
if you are dealing with film which is curved and it isn't possible to get
the whole slide perfectly focussed in the scanner (I think you yourself have
reported these problems in the past?). The change in appearence of the grain
makes it all too obvious :-(

Indeed, with cardboard mounted and severely warped Kodachromes the
difference in focus is staggering. And then the grain does "jump out"
quite a lot as one scrolls over into the sharp area.

The key is to see it all as 'art'. Then it doesn't matter.

Exactly!

Don.

 

[Don]

I haven't found significant grain differences between Velvia 50, Provia
100F and Sensia 100 and if you can't keep it in focus, try scanning
unmounted slide strips instead.
As far as exposure goes- keep the contrast under control and you should
do fine with a modern scanner! I rate Provia/Sensia at 100 and try to
preserve the highlights when I meter. Sensia's relatively forgving
with this and doesn't have a green cast for long-exposure night shots.

Thanks Roger!

Re unmounted strips: After the experience with severely warped mounted
slides I will never again have them come from the lab mounted! Oddly
enough, all my Kodachromes are mounted but Ektachromes are not. I use
the strip holder and it flattens them even more so scanner focus is no
longer a problem. Aligning the strip with the holes in the holder is,
but I found a few workarounds...

Don.

 

[Noons]

I'm slightly aghast at anyone describing Velvia as 'forgiving' - I would
have suggested the opposite!

You haven't been doing much KC or Ekta of late, have you?
Compared to those, Velvia is heaven.

I've just got back a roll of Velvia 50: most of
the shots are underexposed - partly my fault but also partly Velvia's. (Many
people rate Velvia 50 (actually in the process of being discontinued now) at
around 40 ASA - they reckon that Fuji deliberately over-rate it to increase
the saturation by slight underexposure - fine if you are projecting it, but
not if you are going to scan it.)

I'm confused: if you expose Velvia 50 at 40, you get overexposure.
Which
may improve the over-saturation but won't be the cause of your
underexposure? Or did I completely misunderstand your words?

Another thing: over here at least, Fuji has gone to great lengths to
discredit
the statement about Velvia 50 being discontinued - according to them,
totally false. It is still available and alive and kicking. So is 100
of course.

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductVelvia.jsp
confirms that 100 will "eventually" replace it, but no date whatsoever
has been set. As such, I wouldn't count 50 as "discontinued" just yet:
pros around these parts would have a fit if that was the case.

I intend enjoying at least another year of it, particularly now that
the
rb67 is nearly out of the 10000mile service. Of course, it's a good
idea to start trying 100 off.

Now all this is moot because the new 100ASA rated film which is replacing
the old RVP 50 is supposed to be correctly rated.

I'm about to expose my first 35mm Velvia 100 film, so far I've been
taking
advantage of the fridge stock of 50. Really looking forward to it.

However, the
charateristics of Velvia which people seem to like are (a) its saturation,
(b) its slight magentary cast (is that a word? ) and (c) its
contrastiness. (a) and (b) are irrelevant if you are going to scan it and
process it digitally, (c) is definitely not what you want.

And its definition and almost unnoticeable grain, which for scanning is

precious.

However, I do disagree with the saturation bit: I've never been able to

achieve the same results with "bolted-on" saturation and colour
casts as I can achieve by properly exposing film. It might be a
problem
with my scanning (8bit, small range), but it just ain't the same. If I
start
with a near perfect image, it's a no-brainer to get a super scan.
Otherwise, it's a royal pain in the proverbial: 8 bit doesn't give much
room for movement.

As for the constrast, I agree totally. But I'll live with that one to
get
the other advantages.

By all means try it and form your own opinion; however, for scanning, I
suggest Provia is a better bet.

Thanks for the tip. Will give it a go, I've got two in the fridge I've
been
meaning to try.

We're going a bit off topic here - I apologise!

Not at all: it's all to do with scanning and how best to take advantage
of it, no?

 

[John]

I'm confused: if you expose Velvia 50 at 40, you get overexposure.
Which
may improve the over-saturation but won't be the cause of your
underexposure? Or did I completely misunderstand your words?

Yes, you did - I'll rephrase it. I rated the Velvia at its specified 50 ASA,
which caused me to underexpose. I chose not to listen to those who rate it
at 40 ASA, and paid the price! However, that was not the whole story. Most
of the shots were over water and in my haste, I negelcted to compensate for
the meter's reading, hence compounding the problem. The underexposure itself
(probably about 0.75 - 1 stop in total) was really a product of my
incompetence; however, the point I was making was that whilst I might have
got away with it with other film types like Provia and Sensia, with Velvia
my shadows were completely blocked up - there was nothing there to rescue.

Another thing: over here at least, Fuji has gone to great lengths to
discredit
the statement about Velvia 50 being discontinued - according to them,
totally false. It is still available and alive and kicking. So is 100
of course.

http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/proPhotoProductVelvia.jsp
confirms that 100 will "eventually" replace it, but no date whatsoever
has been set. As such, I wouldn't count 50 as "discontinued" just yet:
pros around these parts would have a fit if that was the case.

I intend enjoying at least another year of it, particularly now that
the
rb67 is nearly out of the 10000mile service. Of course, it's a good
idea to start trying 100 off.

In that case, perhaps they were trying to boost sales. Nothing like a bit of
panic buying

I'm about to expose my first 35mm Velvia 100 film, so far I've been
taking
advantage of the fridge stock of 50. Really looking forward to it.


And its definition and almost unnoticeable grain, which for scanning is

precious.

Yes, but for scanning, Provia has this advantage too but without the
problems of the contrast. However, if you like Velvia's colour balance you
may find Provia somewhat lifeless by comparison, so it does hinge on the
ability to spruce it up afterwards. And since you're already having success
with Velvia, why change? You just need to keep a steady hand on the exposure
tiller

However, I do disagree with the saturation bit: I've never been able to

achieve the same results with "bolted-on" saturation and colour
casts as I can achieve by properly exposing film. It might be a
problem
with my scanning (8bit, small range), but it just ain't the same. If I
start
with a near perfect image, it's a no-brainer to get a super scan.
Otherwise, it's a royal pain in the proverbial: 8 bit doesn't give much
room for movement.

I have to admit, my own preference is for natural looking colours, so I have
never tried to 'bolt on' a colour cast. I cannot see why it cannot be done
in principle but having never really tried, I do not speak from experience.
There may be a practical limitation of the tools available: I know there are
those who dislike Photoshop's saturation adjustment control; some advocate a
move to Lab space for more pleasing adjustments. Also, whilst not all agree,
I would always recommend 16 bit for any drastic editing, if only to play
safe. Since I upgraded to CS2 which supports 16 bit adjustment layers, life
has been a lot easier.

 

[Noons]

incompetence; however, the point I was making was that whilst I might have
got away with it with other film types like Provia and Sensia, with Velvia
my shadows were completely blocked up - there was nothing there to rescue.

Yes, that's one of the unfortunate problems with Velvia. I tend
to expose it at 50 spot-on and haven't had many problems,
but you're absolutely right: over water it could easily fool the meter.
Thanks for the tip on Provia, I'll definitely give it a try.

In that case, perhaps they were trying to boost sales. Nothing like a bit of
panic buying

Too right: almost impossible to find Velvia 50 one week after that
rumour came out. All gone! It's back now, but it was annoying.

Yes, but for scanning, Provia has this advantage too but without the
problems of the contrast. However, if you like Velvia's colour balance you
may find Provia somewhat lifeless by comparison, so it does hinge on the
ability to spruce it up afterwards. And since you're already having success
with Velvia, why change? You just need to keep a steady hand on the exposure
tiller

Dunno, I like to try new film types. I'll definitely give Provia a
try.

move to Lab space for more pleasing adjustments. Also, whilst not all agree,
I would always recommend 16 bit for any drastic editing, if only to play
safe. Since I upgraded to CS2 which supports 16 bit adjustment layers, life
has been a lot easier.

One of the things that worries me with using Gimp: it only supports
8-bit at this stage and the boffins don't want to make it 16-bit
compatible
just yet: they're sold on including colour management first.
Which is absolutely not fundamental for amateurs. Ah well,
one day I might squeeze out for CS2 or the vuescan guy might
include easy curves into the product and do all that during scanning.