p.1 #1 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
It’s just hard to express how great this little scanner really is. The lens, light source, and digital ICE are, I think, why it’s quickly becoming my favorite scanner. The only thing I could wish is that it did 4x5. Even though I have a more advanced Creo scanner with higher resolution, I often prefer the Coolscan.
4000ppi is just right. The combination of that pixel dimension plus the 14 element lens Nikon made for this scanner, which is autofocus(!!!), resolves the detail present on the film in a way that seems just right. It’s not so high that the grain and detail get mushy. The image stays sharp and detailed all the way to 100%. At 300ppi you are making an about a 30x30” print from a 6x6 frame. Thats just a super practical size. And keep in mind, when scanning 120, even a flextight only manages 3200ppi.
Then you have digital ICE…I find this indispensable. The scans are SO CLEAN. Combine big film with high res and you are potentially in a retouching hellscape very fast, the Coolscan saves you from that. It’s honestly hard to go back to non ICE scanners like the Eversmart Supreme even though I can get 5600ppi out of it.
It’s kind of bummer that Nikon never updated it, and further a bummer that no one makes a scanner that comes close in 2025. Plustek is obviously trying but I think they won’t spend the money on a quality lens.
I’m running mine using Nikon scan on the 2009 Mac Mini that came with my Eversmart Supreme II. It’s just great software. The color conversions are awesome, and if I want more control I scan as a positive and use NLP. I understand most people are using Vuescan these days.
If you’re thinking about a scan set up and you do 135 and 120, join the Coolscan group on FB and look for a refurnished model. I would opt for the Nikon over a Flextight or drum scanner tbh. I think it’s that good. And if you only do 135, get a 5000, it’s great!
p.1 #2 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
I'm not sure it's underrated so much as it's lost its place for many. It's too easy to just use a high resolution digital camera for the job these days.
p.1 #3 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
speedgraphic wrote:
It’s just hard to express how great this little scanner really is...
This might be the first time I've ever seen the 8000/9000 series Coolscans referred to as "little" 😂
I really wish they'd included USB as a connection port. Every software and hardware interation it gets more and more arcane to keep a Firwire port up and running.
p.1 #4 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
freaklikeme wrote:
I'm not sure it's underrated so much as it's lost its place for many. It's too easy to just use a high resolution digital camera for the job these days.
Digital cameras don't have automatic IR-based dust correction, the colors can also be off and home-made lighting is typically subpar to the edges of the slide. At least Nikon has negative conversion built into the D850. The problem with scanners is that they're not well-supported today in hardware (firewire needed for Coolscan 9000) and software (Nikon Scan which has IMO the best algorithms GEM and ICE is not officially supported in current OSs but there may be workarounds).
But I agree with the OP that the scanner is great.
p.1 #5 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
freaklikeme wrote:
I'm not sure it's underrated so much as it's lost its place for many. It's too easy to just use a high resolution digital camera for the job these days.
DSLR scanning can be good but even the best rigs (I have a gfx100 scanning rig) are a world away from what the Coolscan is capable of.
p.1 #6 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
I'm not saying it's not great. I'm saying "underrated" probably isn't the right word for what was the gold standard scanner for home labs. "Underappreciated" or "underused" these days, yes, because technology and the bulk of its audience have moved on.
p.1 #7 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
I only had experience with LS-8000 and it was a no match to an Eversmart. Painfully slow, required multiple holder reloads to scan a roll, the software was not flexible enough for my needs, etc.
DSLR scanning sounds like a nightmare to me due to amount of dancing around involved and "opportunities" to get dust settle on my films.
I am talking about using film for making large prints not quickies for the Web
p.1 #8 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
The Coolscan 9k is faster than my Eversmart Supreme II. Where it falls behind is max resolution, and digging into those shadows in a really dense chrome. The Coolscan will band on certain dense chromes for example, however that banding can be fixed by using Super Fine mode. And then obviously with the ESII you have the larger formats, far greater capacity for multiple frames, fluid mounting etc.
My approach with the software is just to create a file that is as flat as possible. IMO no scanner software is any match with Photoshop or even Lightroom in 2025. I just get the scanner to not clip anything, and turn on ICE if I have it.
p.1 #10 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
Love mine. I actually bought a second 9000 and am going to sell my 5000. The 5000 is much faster at 35mm with the SA-30, however it doesn't work well if you want to scan a negative as a positive (frame identification).
p.1 #11 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
white wrote:
Does anyone have a workaround for the blooming you can get from 9000 chrome scans where bright high lights are in close proximity to dense areas?
How old is your Coolscan? The mirror may be dirty. I bought mine new and don't recall highligh blooming at contrasty areas.
p.1 #12 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
sirimiri wrote
How old is your Coolscan? The mirror may be dirty. I bought mine new and don't recall highligh blooming at contrasty areas.
I bought it new and it displayed this from day one. It is also a known issue with many if you do a search. Some say it is due to the protective glass over the sensor. It only shows up on chrome scans. I have checked for dust a few times.
p.1 #14 · I Adore the Coolscan 9000, Somehow it’s Underrated
I've seen refurbished 9000s in the range of $2500 or less. That's a steal for a professional scanner. If someone did not need 4x5 I'd rather have a Coolscan than an Imacon which often go for thousands more.
