Winging it with the Epson v750

[r.e.]

This weekend, I'm going to try using the fluid mount tray that accompanies this scanner. I'm not going to use Kami or Prazio or Lumina, principally for three reasons: I don't like the cost of these fluids and the need to have them shipped, I don't care whether the scanner fluid evaporates within minutes, and I don't like the idea of dealing with the fumes/ventilation. I've used Kami on a Creo flatbed, and while it works fine, I'd just as soon use something else. So today I went to my local art supply store, photo shop and drug store.

Here's what I got:

5 mil mylar (This came from the art supply store. It is likely to be a nightmare. I figure that this stuff can rival a television screen when it comes to attraction of dust. I may or may not use it. If it helps scanning, there is probably a good case for buying it in small sizes, boxed and interleaved.)

Dust-off (From the photo shop. I figure that I'll use plenty of it over time.)

Disposable cotton gloves (From the drug store, for handling negatives, much cheaper the same thing from the photo store.)

Huggies Baby Wipes (From the drug store, the closest that I could come to soft cloth, which may or may not be used for getting rid of air bubbles when a negative is covered in fluid. A roller (brayer), which I checked out at the art supply store, struck me as possible overkill. But if I decide that I need one, the art store is a block away. Given the scanning fluids that I'm going to try - see below - maybe my fingers will work just fine, kind of like finger painting in grade 1.)

Glycerine (From home, previously purchased from the drug store. I have no idea why drug stores keep this stuff in stock - I use it, with ink, as an artificial horizon for a sextant. In any event, I think that it is a possible alternative to volatile scanning fluids that is completely safe and soluble in water.)

OK, now for the guffaws:

KY Jelly (From the drug store, another possible alternative to scanning fluids, also completely safe and water based.)

KY Liquid (Didn't even know that liquid KY exists. The things one learns.)

ProPhot (From the photo store. These are wipes, imported from France, that may or may not be useful. If they aren't, I can always use them on my computer screens).

Distilled water (From the drug store. For cleaning off the glycerine or KY from the negatives and fluid mount tray, just thought that I'd try it instead of tap water).

To be continued...

[Gene McCluney]

Any water based fluid will cause the emulsion to swell and become milky, particularly color. This will also cause the emulsion to become soft and prone to very easily being scratched while wet. If you go through with this, you will have to rewash your negatives in the darkroom and hang them to dry, just as you do when you process them. KY is a water-based fluid/gel. The fluids that are designed for wet mounting do not cause the emulsion to swell.

[r.e.]

I'm sure that it will be necessary to rinse the negatives after and hang them to dry. I'll be using B&W ones that are disposable. We'll see what happens. Interestingly, it turns out that the principal ingredients in KY are glycerine and water.

Here's a discussion in which someone talks about using glycerine: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Hr2z

[Ed Richards]

That guy was using glycerine to scan paper, not negatives. You can also glue the emulsion to anything it touches with glycerine. If you do not want to use expensive, volatile fluid, use mineral oil. You will have to clean the negatives afterwards, but it will not affect the emulsion. I would look really carefully at the KY label and pull out my chemistry book - if it has an emulsifier, it could dissolve the emulsion.

[r.e.]

Ed,

If it dissolves the emulsion of a negative that would otherwise go in the trash, who cares? It's just a simple experiment that will take less than half an hour of my time. Either it will work, or it won't, and either way, I'll post what happened. And yes, I'm also planning to try mineral oil. I have some of that too.

If it doesn't work, I'm actually kind of interested in seeing what it does to the emulsion and image. It might be interesting, but then I like John Deakin's photographs.

[Doug Fisher]

Did you see my post to the other thread about how to get Kami fluid relatively cheap? It might be worth your time and your negatives' health.

The brayer/roller is a good thing to have and worth the investment. Most art stores have them but hardware stores often have the same thing for less. I am putting together a page for my website on how to assemble a set of fluid mounting supplies economically. I think a person can easily put together a set of supplies and for $45-60. That is less than the cost of ordering a single bottle of scanning fluid from the online fluid sellers who also sell the expensive kits.

If you want to live on the edge, there is a well know scanning guru who does professional scanning who has used high quality lighter fluid as a mounting fluid. He said he can't tell the difference between that and the results from Kami fluid.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[r.e.]

I'm just playing around and having some fun. If the glycerine messes with the negatives, I'm keen to see how. Will be trying this little experiment tonight or tomorrow a.m. and will post the results.

In the last week, I've been using a Mamiya 7 to try out streetshooting - focusing based on estimated distance and composing by just pointing the lens. Do that with an 80mm lens at f8 and you wind up with a lot of bad negatives to play with :) Now I know why sensible people do this with 35mm cameras and 35mm lenses.

[walter23]

Ed,

If it dissolves the emulsion of a negative that would otherwise go in the trash, who cares? It's just a simple experiment that will take less than half an hour of my time. Either it will work, or it won't, and either way, I'll post what happened. And yes, I'm also planning to try mineral oil. I have some of that too.

I'm trying to understand the value of perfecting a technique that destroys negatives. What are you planning to do? Take multiple copies (one for scanning / destruction and one for archiving)?

[r.e.]

I'm trying to understand the value of perfecting a technique that destroys negatives.

Curiosity?

Lots of people have deliberately damaged negatives, John Deakin being just one example.

In any event, I don't know what is going to happen. Nor does anyone else who has commented in this thread. So I'm going to find out :)

[r.e.]

First attempt at street photography, first attempt at scanning, first attempt at Photoshop (I think I have a few things to learn about Photoshop).

Should I sacrifice this negative to my experiment, or hang onto it?

Mamiya 7, 80mm lens, Ilford Delta 3200

[Don Hutton]

I really don't think that fine tuning your scanning with Ilford Delta 3200 makes any sense.

[r.e.]

OK, I won't spend half an hour finding out how glycerine interacts with a negative, I won't do anything, ever that could conceivably damage a negative before I throw it in the trash and I'll make sure that I don't scan an ISO 3200 negative until I am an expert scanner.

Actually, I am going to see what the glycerine does, but I promise that I won't post the results.

Everybody happy now :)?

[Don Hutton]

Sounds like you should have bought Kleenex while you were doing that shopping.

[Peter Lewin]

r.e.: I think you're feeling somewhat battered by all the comments about glycerin. There actually have been some other threads on alternative liquids for wet mounting. But...since we are very similar (new comers to both scanning & Photoshop) why not eliminate one variable, and just work on the scanning & PS learning curve by using the scanner without the wet mount accessory? I suspect we both have enough to learn that a little extra dust on those first few scans won't be the worst thing to deal with - if nothing else, we'll learn how to retouch it out!

[D. Bryant]

Did you see my post to the other thread about how to get Kami fluid relatively cheap? Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

No. What thread?

TIA,

Don Bryant

[r.e.]

Peter,

I'm not feeling battered. I simply come from an environment where people would say "cool, give it a go and see what happens", not present a litany of reasons to refrain from an experiment that takes no time and has no cost and the result of which they don't actually know themselves. And if it does react with the emulsion, as I said before, I am curious to see how. So I'm going to go ahead and not bother posting the results, because it's pretty clear that people don't want to know the results. No problem.

[Ed Richards]

r.e.,

Your original post seemed more like you wanted to work on better scan quality, not just mess around and see what happens. Messing around is fine! Since I do not give a hoot about the messed up negative school of photography, I will also not be disappointed if keep the results to yourself.:-)

The only caveat for messing around is watch and not screw up the scanner. The volatile fluids evaporate if you get them in the scanner (unless they explode) and are gone. Stuff with water in it that gets inside will be bad news, and mineral oil can also be a pain.

[walter23]

Curiosity?

Lots of people have deliberately damaged negatives, John Deakin being just one example.

In any event, I don't know what is going to happen. Nor does anyone else who has commented in this thread. So I'm going to find out :)

Very good points. It sounded like you were trying to find an alternative to expensive scanning fluids, so that you could get the highest possible quality scans, so I wasn't sure why you'd want to use an alternative that could wreck your negs. I'd be curious to see the results (and the above posted delta 3200 shot you deleted, because I haven't yet tried that film out).

[Bruce Watson]

You forgot razor blades. You'll likely need something to scrape the emulsion off the scanner glass when you are done (note the lack of a smiley face here).

Using any substance that contains water on a negatives is, well, let's just say it's ill-advised.

Just so you'll know, glycerin is an excellent "carrier" and is used in many topically applied drugs. It should do a dandy job of penetrating your emulsions and bringing with it any dirt and impurities that just happen to be along for the ride. And water, of course.

If you really want to try something cheap and dirty, it's conceivable that you'll have greater success with motor oil. It won't be colorless, that's true, but it's such a thin layer that you might not see it, and any color cast is easy-ish to remove in Photoshop. And, it will be very dry (little water) so the danger of turning the emulsion into a glue is considerably lessened. I don't have any idea how to remove it though, and I don't have any idea what the various additives are or what they'll do to the film or your scanner. It's clearly a use-at-your-own-risk kind of thing.

I'm continually amazed by the time and effort people will put into not using products designed for the duty. But if it's what you gotta do, it's what you gotta do.

[r.e.]

You forgot razor blades. You'll likely need something to scrape the emulsion off the scanner glass when you are done (note the lack of a smiley face here).

I'm continually amazed by the time and effort people will put into not using products designed for the duty. But if it's what you gotta do, it's what you gotta do.

Has it occurred to you that I might have a couple of sheets of glass around, cost $2.50?

The time and effort (about 30 minutes, unless it gets interesting) will be considerably less than the time and effort that has been spent trashing me for trying this.

The title says "winging it". I've said repeatedly that I'm playing around. I've said that I don't care if it damages the negatives and, if it does so, I'm interested in what the damage is. I've said that I'm just having fun. If you have a problem with that, fine, but you don't have to be condescending.

[r.e.]

The only caveat for messing around is watch and not screw up the scanner. The volatile fluids evaporate if you get them in the scanner (unless they explode) and are gone. Stuff with water in it that gets inside will be bad news, and mineral oil can also be a pain.

Thanks, I'm aware of the fact that it is a problem if fluid gets into the scanner. I'm thinking of trying a couple of things, not now but later, that would require sealing the glass. Maybe using gaffer tape, because it doesn't leave a residue, but that is something that I'd have to test first, not on the scanner bed.

[Doug Fisher]

>>No. What thread?...TIA...Don Bryant<<

It was here in this thread about Kami:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=223985#post223985

But here is my relevant text:

"Since this thread addresses Kami, I thought I would mention a relatively cheap source for their fluid. If you order a bottle directly through Aztek, they charge $10 extra for any order under $50 and shipping itself is $20+. Other fluid suppliers have a minimum charge of $75. Thanks to John Dean in Atlanta, I learned you can economically order a single bottle of Kami fluid for $29-ish plus $5 shipped to your door from Pitman Company (which has now bought Charette) at 1.888.274.8626 (I have no affiliation with this company!). I would suggest ordering it by phone and credit card because their website messed up my order and for some reason the customer service people are not good at tracking down website-based orders."

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[r.e.]

I'd be curious to see the results (and the above posted delta 3200 shot you deleted, because I haven't yet tried that film out).

Walter,

Here are a couple of Delta shots. Please understand that they represent an attempt to use a 6x7 camera with an 80mm lens on a street basis (people that I've never met, using neither the viewfinder nor rangefinder, both composition and focus estimated). Both are f8 or f11. They are my first attempt at scanning and first attempt at Photoshop. On one of them, in particular, the use of the healing brush, on the left hand side, is very hamfisted. I don't know anything about how to manipulate them for uploading. One is 96KB, the other is 38KB. But they may give you an idea of what the film looks like.

The photograph called Bus was processed at 3200. The photograph of the woman in a pub was pushed to 6400. Exposures in both cases were about 1 second. Both are cropped, but I want to play with the non-cropped versions. I think that I want to traditionally print the one on the bus, cropped less, just to see what happens. I think that the negative has some potential.

If they aren't completely level, it is because in both cases the camera was on my lap,. I've been playing with this street shooting business for about a week, and perfect orientation is one of many things that I have not mastered. I'm told that orientation can be fixed in Photoshop, but I haven't tried it yet.

[walter23]

The time and effort (about 30 minutes, unless it gets interesting) will be considerably less than the time and effort that has been spent trashing me for trying this.

I really don't think anybody has been trashing you. You asked questions, you got opinions from people who've been doing this stuff for awhile (not me - I just got my V750 last week). Nobody's trying to crush your artistic impulses here or put you down personally. It wasn't entirely clear that you understood the risks (to both your negatives and your scanner) and I think the fact that you got a number of warnings (assuming you were a newbie) and suggestions shows what a valuable community this is.

[r.e.]

Walter,

It shows me that several of the people who have commented have a different perspective than mine, which is fine. I just find some of the comments kind of negative.

For comparison, here is one on Acros 100, exposure about 2 seconds, processed normally. This guy reminds me a bit of Leonardo DiCaprio.

Assuming that I can figure out how to do this with a 6x7, I want to try stuff along these lines with a handheld 4x5, maybe even a 5x7 (which would definitely be pushing it), such as a Fotoman. That's why I asked a question a few days ago about a large format camera with no movements, and why I asked whether the Fotoman 5x7 holders might have a camera to match. But if I had any sense, I'd do it with a 35mm digital autofocus and 35mm or 50mm fast lens. I think that estimating focus at around f8 at fairly close range with a long lens would take a lot of practice. I'm finding that 80mm is plenty hard enough. Easier, of course, if one pulls back, and in any event, sharpness isn't everything.

The main reason that I got the Epson was that I'm shooting about a roll of 120 every day or two at this point and I want to use a scanner and Photoshop as a sketch pad. At the moment, I'm not planning to print digitally. However, if it turns out that I can use the scanner to do something interesting, apart from making technically correct scans, maybe I will.

Having looked at the photos as posted, my sense is that posting to the net darkens things a bit. Interesting if true.

[walter23]

I just find some of the comments kind of negative.

<Insert obvious pun here>

[r.e.]

Yup :)

[Gene McCluney]

We are just giving your our experiences and opinions based on a wide range of practice. You don't need our permission to try anything you like. Go ahead, try butter (for example) if you want to. It won't hurt us at all. Post your results.

[Bruce Watson]

...time and effort that has been spent trashing me for trying this.

The title says "winging it". I've said repeatedly that I'm playing around. I've said that I don't care if it damages the negatives and, if it does so, I'm interested in what the damage is. I've said that I'm just having fun. If you have a problem with that, fine, but you don't have to be condescending.

I've tried hard not to "trash" you, or to be condescending. If I've failed in that regard I apologize.

What I have tried to trash however, is the idea of using substandard materials in scanning in an effort to save a few pennies. You aren't the first to bring this up -- search the archives. It's such a bad idea that I don't want it to ever go unchallenged for fear that newbies will read it and think it's OK when it is not.

If it makes you feel any better, I also challenge other things. Like using gasoline as a shop solvent (really dangerous), working in a darkroom without ventilation, and using gasoline powered motors (lawn mowers, blowers, etc.) without hearing protection.

You are right that what you do is your business. Do what you do. What I'm trying to do is warn other people who read this thread that replicating your experiments can damage their film and their scanners. And for that, I do not apologize.

[r.e.]

I guess I just don't learn. I've just posted something about using a large format camera on the ocean: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23833&page=7

Quick. Post a lecture on the dangers of salt water.

[walter23]

I guess I just don't learn. I've just posted something about using a large format camera on the ocean: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23833&page=7

Quick. Post a lecture on the dangers of salt water.

At the risk of exacerbating the situation, I think it's time to get down off the cross you've cobbled together out of the assortment of impersonal remarks you've been getting here. I mean, christ, you're practically fishing for the pieces. Let us plebs go about our dullard business of uninspired, technical "art". You're perfectly free to go push the boundaries of creative expression without worrying about the conservative traditionalist herd of would-be mentors.

[r.e.]

A couple of people in this thread, as well a couple of people in private messages, expressed interest in the results.

I finally got around to trying this today and here's what happened.

I used pure glycerine, pure glycerine cut with water and two glycerine-based products (KY jelly and KY liquid) on negatives placed on a sheet of glass and between two sheets of glass.

I'll address the more dramatic predictions first. None of these substances dissolved the emulsion. Not only was there no need to use razor blades to get the negatives off the glass, the negatives did not react with the glass at all. Glycerine in all four forms washed off the glass and the negatives easily.

The first thing that I found is that glycerine's viscosity (i.e. "thickness") has an impact on what happens when it is applied. In its thicker forms (e.g. KY jelly) it reminded me, when I spread it over the negative with my index finger, of finger painting. This viscosity is picked up by a scanner, even when the glycerine is fairly dilute. It prevents a clean scan, and the effects do not strike me as interesting, although they might be if the glycerine was combined with a colour additive such as ink.

The second thing that I discovered is that when glycerine is applied directly to the emulsion and left for a few minutes, one can use one's finger or fingernail or whatever to etch the emulsion. I wound up with effects that are very similar to what one sees in John Deakin photographs that are damaged due either to Deakin's own lack of care, accidental or deliberate, or the way that some of his images were treated and manipulated by the painter Francis Bacon. If one wants to try this kind of thing, it might be interesting to try both glycerine and ordinary water and see whether it makes any difference in the effect or control of the effect. It might also be interesting to try vaseline.

No animals were harmed in the making of this film.

[PViapiano]

If the glycerine didn't dissolve the negative, why are you able to "etch" the emulsion if you leave it on there for a while? I don't understand...

[r.e.]

It softens the negative, as does water. If you don't understand, why not try it. It will take about 10 minutes to find out for yourself what happens. Believe it or not, contrary to some predictions in this thread, it will not result in what Anthony Burgess once called, in homage to the BBC, The End of the World News :)

[Ed Richards]

I do not think anyone said it would dissolve the negative - most of those are plastic these days. We were concerned that it would dissolve the emulsion, and it seems to do just that. As for gluing it down - did you try putting the negative with the softened emulsion, emulsion side down on the glass and running the brayer over it?

[r.e.]

Ed,

Here's what I wrote, exactly three posts back: "None of these substances dissolved the emulsion."

Is that clear enough?

As for the negative, emulsion side up or down, reacting with the glass, I said this: "Not only was there no need to use razor blades to get the negatives off the glass, the negatives did not react with the glass at all. Glycerine in all four forms washed off the glass and the negatives easily."

Is the foregoing not clear? You want to know the truth? Not only does the negative, either way, not stick to the glass, it curls as soon as the glycerine starts to dry. Which is why I started playing with sandwiching the negative between two pieces of glass.

If you don't believe it, try it yourself. It will take about 10 minutes, considerably less time than it took you and some other people to go straight off the deep end (in your case complete with a reference to not having time to consult a chemistry text) about trying this.

I'd be a lot more interested if you had something to say about how this relates, or doesn't, to the kind of look that one sees in John Deakin's photographs, both his and the ones that he did for Francis Bacon.

Sorry, but what you and some others had to say about this, and about what might happen, is funny. At the end of the day, it amounts to a bunch of people getting apoplectic about the dangers of fingerpainting.

[photobymike]

i use mineral oil.... then Kodak film cleaner to get the mineral oil of the my negative. It is a real pain but works well.

[walter23]

Here's what I wrote, exactly three posts back: "None of these substances dissolved the emulsion."

I think in this context, dissolving the emulsion means hydrating it or causing it to swell. As I understand it, hydrophobic organic solvents are used as mounting fluid because they keep the hydrophilic emulsion "dry" (as in, free of water - dehydrated, and not swollen and soft).

At least you've found an interesting way to scratch up your negatives. You could skip the glycerin step and just do that when you're washing the fixer off :)

[Rakesh Malik]

I think in this context, dissolving the emulsion means hydrating it or causing it to swell.


That's a little like saying that melting ice cubes means throwing them over the fence.

When you toss a sponge in water, it soaks up water and swells up... is it dissolved in the process?

[PViapiano]

This thread was a big waste of time...

[walter23]

That's a little like saying that melting ice cubes means throwing them over the fence.

When you toss a sponge in water, it soaks up water and swells up... is it dissolved in the process?

I didn't make the original statement about dissolving. I just read it as "hydrating", because from a molecular standpoint the processes are pretty similar (with the trivial exception that your solute (in this case, collagen-like protein strands aka gelatin) is heavily crosslinked and therefore not free to start diffusing away from the substrate / film base). The point is that a hydrophobic solvent would be a good choice if you want to avoid swelling (dissolving, hydrating, softening, whatever you want to call it) of the emulsion.

I agree with the next post though; I'm not even sure why I'm participating in this thread. I have no real position on this matter. Do what you will :)

[Rakesh Malik]

I didn't make the original statement about dissolving. I just read it as "hydrating", because from a molecular standpoint the processes are pretty similar (with the trivial exception that your solute (in this case, collagen-like protein strands aka gelatin) is heavily crosslinked and therefore not free to start diffusing away from the substrate / film base). The point is that a hydrophobic solvent would be a good choice if you want to avoid swelling (dissolving, hydrating, softening, whatever you want to call it) of the emulsion.


The only reason I raised that point is that dissolving the emulsion would be a one-way process. Hydrating it is not, even though it does apparently make the emulsion software and therefore easier to damage.



I agree with the next post though; I'm not even sure why I'm participating in this thread. I have no real position on this matter. Do what you will :)

It's more fun than working? :)