Betterscanning film holder

[Padu Merloti]

Just got my betterscanning film holder (thanks Doug!!) and I loved it!

It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind.

I made some tests dry scanning and then I went to wet scanning using kami fluid (I think I'm still high from the vapors... wow). I thought it would be more difficult but it was very easy. The only bad thing is that I bought one of the small recipients from mcmaster and it started accumulating some kind of goo at the bottom of it. Unfortunately some small bubles of it went to the glass and I didn't realize. It stained the tranny. I'll buy some cleaning fluid and try to clean it.

The difference in quality is just like night and day. The colors are more vivid and there's almost no noise (I don't use any scanner adjustment). I'll show an example later.

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree these units are superb and really help to extract the full potential of flatbed scanners.

[Daniel_Buck]

the film will be flat now as well :) I used them for my MF scanning, I have one on the way for my LF negatives.

[Padu Merloti]

The only thing I'm concerned is that I know I'm gonna break that nice anti-newton glass sometime...

Now a question... does it make a difference the emulsion side? is it better to face the glass or the mylar? So far I'm mounting it facing the glass.

[sanking]

The only thing I'm concerned is that I know I'm gonna break that nice anti-newton glass sometime...

Now a question... does it make a difference the emulsion side? is it better to face the glass or the mylar? So far I'm mounting it facing the glass.

A good substitute for anti newton glass is anti-glare glass sold in framing shops.

When scanning with the Betterscanning station I mount the negative with the base facing the clear, non-glare side of the glass, then it is placed in the station so that the film emulsion faces toward the CCD, which runs below the scanner glass.

Sandy King

[Padu Merloti]

A good substitute for anti newton glass is anti-glare glass sold in framing shops.

When scanning with the Betterscanning station I mount the negative with the base facing the clear, non-glare side of the glass, then it is placed in the station so that the film emulsion faces toward the CCD, which runs below the scanner glass.

Sandy King

Thanks for the glass hint

Ok, I did the same then. It is on their instructions to mount the film on the non-blur side of the glass and with the film on the CCD side of the glass, but they don't mention which side the emulsion should be turned to... and I wonder if that makes a difference or not.

[PViapiano]

Well, you wet mount the emulsion side, right?

[sanking]

Well, you wet mount the emulsion side, right?

In my procedure, which I think is exactly what Doug recommends, the film is fluid mounted base side to the clear (non anti-newton side) of the glass, then a piece of mylar is fluid mounted over the emulsion side. You rub the fluid out until there are no bubbles trapped between the mylar and emulsion, or the base and glass, and then tape off the mylar around the edges. Wipe off any excess fluid and place the glass in the frame, film on the bottom with the emulsion facing the CCD.

This orientation gives a reverse image, which you flip before scanning if your software allows, or afterwards in Photoshop.

I am using my Betterscanning fluid mount with both an Epson 4990 and with a Scitex EverSmart Pro. Works great with both machines.

Sandy King

[Helen Bach]

So there is nothing in contact with the anti-Newton side of the glass? What is the purpose of the AN glass? Is it just there in case you want to dry scan (with the glass reversed so that the film is in contact with the AN side)?

Thanks,
Helen

[sanking]

So there is nothing in contact with the anti-Newton side of the glass? What is the purpose of the AN glass? Is it just there in case you want to dry scan (with the glass reversed so that the film is in contact with the AN side)?

Thanks,
Helen


Some people have observed, Ernst Dinkla for example on the Luminous Landscape forum (quoted by Doug Fisher I believe on his website) , that the use of some type of diffusion between the negative and the light source gives a superior scan with flatbed type scanners. There may also have been some discussion of this on the LF forum, though I am not able to cite the thread at this time.

There must be something to this because the Scitex/Creo/Kodak EverSmart scanners, which are widely considered to be the sharpest flatbed severy made, have an anti-newton glass on top that is pressed down onto the negative or tranny via pressure from the back as you scan.

The concept obviously works, at least as utilized by the EverSmart scanners, because these scanners are extremely sharp.

Sandy King

[Helen Bach]

...

There must be something to this because the Scitex/Creo/Kodak EverSmart scanners, which are widely considered to be the sharpest flatbed severy made, have an anti-newton glass on top that is pressed down onto the negative or tranny via pressure from the back as you scan.

...

Thanks Sandy. I'm not questioning the use of AN glass for dry scans - that is quite normal - I was only curious about wet mounting when the AN side is not in contact with anything. If it was only there for diffusion I would have thought that there would be a better solution.

Best,
Helen

[sanking]

Thanks Sandy. I'm not questioning the use of AN glass for dry scans - that is quite normal - I was only curious about wet mounting when the AN side is not in contact with anything. If it was only there for diffusion I would have thought that there would be a better solution.

Best,
Helen

Helen,

OK, I see your point. For fluid mounting only I believe that Doug Fisher offers the Betterscanning station without the AN glass at lower price. I guess he must agree that the AN glass not necessary for optimum results with fluid mounting.

My analogy with the EverSmart mechanics was not relevant because with this system the AN glass on top is in contact with the transparency material being scanned.

Sandy King

[r.e.]

I'm struck by the following statement from the original poster:

"It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind."

That is tantamount to saying that this product is a waste of money.

As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.

There seems to be an absence of fully independent evaluations of these products. If they exist, I'd love to know where they are.

On the fluid mount side, the only independent test that I am aware of, and it did not include the Betterscan fluid mount because it did not exist at the time, is Ellis Vener's piece in which he endorsed the ScanScience mount.

Cheers.

[claudiocambon]

I'm struck by the following statement from the original poster:

"It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind."

That is tantamount to saying that this product is a waste of money.

As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.



I know this isn't your requested profile but I have used Doug's mounting system on my 4990 with only a drymount, and I found my scanner was off by only very little, but I'm glad I got it anyway because that little difference is perceptible. So I don't think it's a waste of money, although it may seem that the gain is merely incremental.

[Don Hutton]

I'm struck by the following statement from the original poster:

"It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind."

That is tantamount to saying that this product is a waste of money.

As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.

There seems to be an absence of fully independent evaluations of these products. If they exist, I'd love to know where they are.

On the fluid mount side, the only independent test that I am aware of, and it did not include the Betterscan fluid mount because it did not exist at the time, is Ellis Vener's piece in which he endorsed the ScanScience mount.

Cheers.
This product in it's most expensive iteration costs less than $100. That may or may not be a lot of money to you - personally, it adds several hundreds of dollars in value to my el cheapo Epson 4990 scanner.

I've used the betterscanning mounting station with an Epson 4990 for about 3 months - my observations:

1. The plane of focus for my particular scanner was way different from the Epson 4x5 holder. I achieve far better scans with the mounting station as a direct result of the easy calibration process for focus distance and being able to make my scans at the appropriate height which best suits my scanner.
2. I scan mostly B&W negs - I personally don't see a huge difference in quality between wet and dry mounting with the betterscanning staion on the 4990 - however - I achieve far better results with using it in preference to the Epson film holders because (A) I can position the film at exactly the optimum distance from the scanner and (B) Doug's method of holding the neg results in better scans due to much more consistent film flatness than the Epson holders allow - and you never get Newton rings from film sag down onto the scanner glass. If I shot chromes, I would expect that wet scans would result in a bigger differential between wet and dry scanning. On negs with greater Dmax and critical shadow detail, the wet scans do offer noticeable advantages in the shadow areas.
3. I can use the station to scan 4x5, 5x7 and whole plate negs. The set up process is well thought out and works accurately.

The Betterscanning station together with the $300 refurbed 4990 I purchased from Epson are by far the best value I have ever spent on digital imaging. However scanning is a process with many, many variables and requires an investment of time and knowledge to achieve the best possible results with given equipment.

[r.e.]

Thanks, that's very helpful.

Right now, I just use my Epson V750 to do draft scans for editing purposes. I send out anything serious. I've experimented with the fluid mount, which seems to work pretty well. Apart from the dry mounts, where there is clearly an issue about film flatness with the Epson mounts, I'm very interested in hearing comments from people who have tried both the Epson fluid mount and the new Betterscan mount.

Cheers.

[Doug Fisher]

There were a few questions posed here, so I thought I might offer some comments…

Helen - if I understand your question correctly, when you dry mount, you mount to the etched ANR side of the glass. Fluid mounting is done to the glossy side of the glass. When mounting to the glossy side of the glass, the ANR side of the glass is then a few mm behind the film and far enough “back” that the pattern does not have a noticeable effect on the image. There is a slight diffusion effect on the light that passes through the ANR surface but it really is hard to detect an effect since the glass I use is finely etched (although it isn't close to being "frosted”). The ANR glass is basically just a dual-use piece of glass where the glass in the fluid only version should really only be used for fluid mounting.

I went with ANR glass over museum/conservation glass due to the fact that often the museum/conservation surface is achieved via a coating process. Kami and other mounting fluids are powerful stuff and I was not confident the coating could hold up to it over time. Unfortunately this acid etched glass from Europe is rather expensive, so it does add to the cost.

You can experiment using fluid mounting with the emulsion side against the glossy side of the glass and then again with it against the mylar overlay. With fluid mounting, I believe the reason people don’t see a difference when flipping the film is because when there is fluid on both sides of the film, the layers of fluid seem to equal things out since it "fills in" the emulsion side of the film.

r.e. - as I state up front on my website's "comparison" page, the benefit of variable height will vary from scanner to scanner. If your scanner's optics' optimum film height happens to match your Epson holder or mounting tray’s height, then the variable height aspect will of course not show an added benefit in terms of sharpness (ignoring the differences offered in workflow).

If you want to see some independent verification that these scanners do have varying optics, please take a look at the following websites. The fact that Epson has also adapted variable height to its own holders also reinforces the concept of varying optics.
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html#Focus_spacing

http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/4870-shims.htm

Some scanners are helped a lot. There are some that are not helped. Keeping in mind the Epson scanner’s relatively “budget” optics, every little bit of extra resolution can be beneficial. With that said, and as I believe Ellis quoted me, my medium format film holders won't turn your Epson into a Nikon 9000 (and my mounting station won't turn your Epson into a Howtek!). I just offer an additional tool for the scanning toolbox that can be beneficial in many circumstances.

In regard to Kirk and Sandy's beta testing for me, I want to be clear they did it as a favor to me. I asked for their opinions without offering them compensation. They were very generous with their time and expertise and didn’t ask for anything in return. In the interest of full disclosure, I did let them keep their prototype pieces but these were *purposely* only offered to them *after* they had completed evaluations for me and there were no strings attached. While that could be construed as a form of compensation, their time was much more valuable than what they received (remember, these were just prototypes), so no doubt I am actually the one that is still “in debt” to them ;) They always were, and always will be, free to voice their opinions about my products.

I don’t always get by the forum, so please feel free to email me if you have any more questions and I will do my best to answer them.

Doug

[Padu Merloti]

Well, you wet mount the emulsion side, right?

I wet both sides. Wet the glass first, put the film - emulsion facing the glass - then I wet the film top surface and then lay down the mylar. I didn't need rollers, I removed the bubbles (which go away very easily) with a piece of lint free soft paper (especially designed for film), just as I saw in one tutorial video by Aztec (the guys that distribute kami fluid).

[Padu Merloti]

I'm struck by the following statement from the original poster:

"It took me a while to calibrate the best height adjustment, and in the end, it was really close to the epson height, but the fact that it is adjustable gave me peace of mind."

That is tantamount to saying that this product is a waste of money.

<snip>



The reasons why I bought it

1-wet mount
2-It seems sturdier than the fragile stock pastic holders
3-The capacity to adjust the height. Even though in my case the heights matched, I still want to have the ability to control it.

[Kirk Gittings]

As an owner of an Epson V750, I would love to hear the views of people who have used the Betterscanner film holders and/or fluid mount, especially the views of people who have not had beta tester relationships with Mr. Fisher.


You know what a "beta tester relationship" amounts to? Someone lends you a product that is almost ready for market. You try it out and give them your two cents. That's it. Big deal. It is usually a big waste of my time unless I have some actual need of the final product and want it designed right. That is why I rarely do it. This one was worth it, because I thought the one that came with the 750 was crap.

At least we don't post our snide innuendo's anonymously.

[r.e.]

You know what a "beta tester relationship" amounts to?

Yes, I do know. In many cases, it is a lot closer than what you are saying is the case in this situation. In the computer world, specifically Apple and Microsoft, the relationship of beta testers to the manufacturer is a standing joke. I have no way of knowing what the relationship is in this case, and so thanks for explaining your position on the relationship.

I said that I am interested in objective evalutations from someone other than Mr. Fisher and the people who beta tested for him.

This is entirely normal, and is not a reflection on you or him. That said, I also know that it is normal for beta testers to declare that they have carried out that function when they talk about a product. Among other things, it is transparent, which is kind of a good thing, and therefore enhances the beta tester's credibility. I don't know, I guess that I just think that this is pretty much obvious.

As I said, I would love to see completely independent, user evaluations of Mr. Fisher's products, including his new wet mount. I suspect that he knows that this is not only in the consumer's interest, but in his interest. Ellis Vener's review of the ScanScience product had the cachet of independence, and has certainly benefited ScanScience.

Given that Mr. Fisher's products have now been on the market for some time, I am hopeful that we will see such an evaluation in the near future.

I have no idea why you chose to attack me on a personal basis. It was quite odd, and took a terribly predictable form, so I'll just let it go. My bet is that you, like me, were taught in junior high school that responding to a substantive question with an ad hominem attack is one way of dealing with a question, but perhaps not the best way.

Meanwhile, I'd like to thank Mr. Fisher for his comments in this thread on his products.

Cheers.

[Kirk Gittings]

Why don't you buy one and do the test yourself.

[r.e.]

Why don't you buy one and do the test yourself.

You know, I can't think of any reason why you would ask me that question other than as a continutation of your ad hominem trip. It's really kind of odd. I mean, I've gone out of my way to say that I'm not questioning your credibility, so why can't you just drop it?

The fact is, I have Mr. Fisher's product on my radar screen, but I want to see an independent evaluation of it. I don't think that that is complicated. Because I mostly use the scanner for which his products are designed for editing, it isn't like I have to make a decision tomorrow. In any event, I'm a consumer, not a tester.

As it happens, I do know of a serious photographic school that uses the Epson V750 that just might be willing to do a test. I don't know, I'd have to ask them. I do know one thing, if they agreed to do it, and I was involved in any way, the test products would go back to Mr. Fisher and any acquisition of the products would be via arms-length purchase. To me, that is just basic. Better yet, maybe Mr. Fisher should approach a school that is prepared to test his products. As far as I know, his products, which are not in fact cheap when you add it all up, have yet to be evaluated by anybody who is independent. If I am wrong about that, perhaps someone could give me a reference. If I am right, maybe it is time that his products were independently evaluated.

I honestly don't understand why any of what I am saying is controversial. If it is, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Cheers.

[sanking]

As far as I know, his products, which are not in fact cheap when you add it all up, have yet to be evaluated by anybody who is independent. If I am wrong about that, perhaps someone could give me a reference. If I am right, maybe it is time that his products were independently evaluated.

I honestly don't understand why any of what I am saying is controversial. If it is, perhaps you could enlighten me.

Cheers.

You are basically suggesting that because Kirk and I tested a prototype of Doug Fishers' mounting station we have sacrificed our independence.That is nonesense! I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter. I don't know Doug Fisher personally and received no compensation for my testing of his product. I agreed to the testing as a professional courtesy, and because I was myself interested in how well the product would perform. I reported my findings to Doug, and have expressed opinions here on the LF forum from time to time, and that is that. Moreover, Doug has not used anything in my report to him to advertise or promote his product.

I know for a fact that my evaluation of this product was completely independent of any personal or financial interests, as are the opinions about it I have expressed on this forum. I am fully confident the same goes for Kirk.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

When I am in need and curious about a product that I can't find a decent review of, instead of whining about the lack thereof, I buy the damn thing and test it. If it does not do what was advertised, I return it. If it isn't any better than what I already have, I put it on Ebay and sell it. Nobody owes me a so called "independent review" (though in all honesty that is already what Sandy and I did).

How hard is this?

[Doug Fisher]

In regard to reviews, I won't play the "game" that many (but not all) media outlets require to get a product review published. You would be surprised to know how much "you scratch my back, I'll scratch your back" goes on with this and then the so-called reviews are just a re-hashing of the media kits (mistakes and all). Besides, I think the best "review" is the trend line that develops when the comments from actual real-world users are taken in aggregate. A few users’ comments may be overly positive and some will be unfairly negative, but the overall trend line is usually accurate. There are a few users who say they are working on their own reviews of the mounting station although these take time and I have yet to get word that anyone has actually finished one.

As Sandy has said, I have never used their comments as a marketing tool. They were only used for internal development.

I don't mind a debate about my product or whether I took the right path for marketing my product but I am very sorry to see that (when taken in aggregate) this thread introduces questions in regard to Sandy and Kirk's integrity. I didn’t know either one of them personally but I approached them to be part of my beta testing group because of their reputation in the education community and photographic community for being both respected artist/educators and adopters of technology for their art. If you read their posts here and elsewhere, you will see they are very generous in sharing their time and knowledge. There are a lot of people who enjoy receiving help off of the internet but relatively few who consistently give back. Kirk and Sandy take the time to give back. I am going to be really sorry if this whole incident decreases their willingness to continue to help others in the future.

[Bjorn Nilsson]

Hi all!
I got both the MF holder and the new mountingstation and I'm very pleased with both of them.
With my V700 the calibration was off, so the adjustment feature of these holders was very welcome indeed. I don't think that I would have considered these purchases "a waste of money" even if the scanning height of the scanner would have been spot on. The scanner may change with use and having the adjustability gives confidence.
The BetterScanning holders are in a totally different league when it comes to stability. It's like comparing a proper book with a paperback version.
Every time I used the Epson holders I wondered if this was the time a snap lock would break of if I would be in luck this time too. OK, it has not happened yet and probably newer will, as I'm using the BetterScanning products instead. I havn't read about anyone whose holder have broken down, as I havn't looked for any such reports. But again we're talking confidence.
Then there is the issue of film flatness. Some films are curlier than others in which case the MF holder does a better job than the Epson holder. (I havn't made any measurements, just pure eyeballing.) But for those really bitching (read curling Efke) pieces of film, wetmounting with the Mounting Station did the trick.
For LF film I think the Mounting Station is superb. As I also do 5X7" where the alternative would is to either just drop the film to the scanner glass "as is" or to very carefully wetmount the films to the scanner glass, the mounting station solution feels much better.
The wetmounting feature really was a confidence boost. Once I got the hang of it, I knew the film was flat and in the exact plane of focus. Also I knew that this is the best the scanner will perform. BTW, I'm also very pleased with the V700 scanner now that I have proper holders. :-)
Any downsides? Yes, the Mounting Station is slower to use than the regular holder. (The MF holder is as fast as, or faster than the Epson holder.) Also, I've managed to ruin a couple of these small nylon adjustment screws.
In all I'm very pleased with these holders. (If you havn't figured that out already...)

[sparq]

I would like to know your experience with dry mounting on the ANR glass - how good film flatness can you achieve with film sizes 5x7 and up? Do you have any tricks? Thank you.

[Martin Miksch]

I would like to understand why this holders arent made for Canon scanners, can I use another one on my 9950?
Regards
Martin

[audioexcels]

Some questions have gone unanswered, but I want to jump in here and ask just a few things more:

Sanking pointed out something relevent and irrelevent in a way, regarding the way the big time flatbeds use the glass. I am not sure that there was relevency here because, if I recall correctly, Sanking stated that Doug's system does not utilze the same procedure as the one used in the very sharp scans from the higher end flatbeds.

1) I'd like to know if there is a way to get this same system into an Epson or similar flatbed or if there is a way to improve this scanner in any way aside from what we have available at this time?

2) Regarding medium format and that the Epson cannot do as well as the Nikon 9000. Did the Brittish guy's review of the V750 not show that the two scanners are basically identical with "some" better shadow rendition by the Nikon 9000??? Why can't the shadows just be photoshopped and brought out more? I did this even with 35mm film and turned an image that I "wanted" to capture, into the one I did capture...well...who knows what I captured, but I was able to pull out the information in the dark areas without blowing out the background areas. So is the Epson just not at the same level as the 9000 and where exactly does one see this difference???...very large prints?...even in smaller prints? Or is the Nikon 9000 pricetag the illusion of final image quality achievement? I've seen, yes, not real life, scans of a 9000 and scans of a V700...the photos look identical. I see no difference in them at all..maybe I wasn't looking at the tiny specs of shadow detail though?

3) If the Nikon 9000 is indeed better, how much better or what exactly do people see that makes one buy a 9000 over the V750 or other Epson?

4) What size film negative from MF can the Epson match the 9000 or can it never match it?

5) Regarding LF images, exactly how much better is the best scan from an Epson vs. a drum scan? Same question from above...exactly what is it that people see in a print from say, a 5X7 negative through Epson and printed at 30X40 Vs. the same 5X7 negative printed from a Howtek scan at 30X40?


In terms of how this discussion generated:

1) If a "professional school photo place" uses the V750, what is an extra $100 when the scanner is already $10K less than a "professional drum scanner"???

2) If the better-scanning device doesn't do anything for you, sell it and lose $25...plain and simple. It's a $25 risk, not a $100 risk. These things will be bought by people for $75 vs. $100 if it is in the same condition or barely used, etc. I know I'd pay $75 even if it's only $25 more to get from Doug...it's still $25.

3) Why would people like Sanking and was it Gettings? use Doug's devices when they sell their work for a living??? Is any advertising involved when these two photographers, at least from what I have learned about Sanking who holds workshops around the globe, are world known photographers???...in other words, why does Sanking even post information on his techniques using the V series scanner...why would "anyone" that has the ability to teach workshops in interesting places around the globe even have an Epson to begin with??? What's the point owning such a piece of garbage when you can have the very best? Obviously, the scanner, the proof of these excellent photographers, and the fact that they contribute their ideas and help about how to properly do or just how to do the different techniques that they "personally" use themselves should be enough for "anyone" considering not just the scanner, but the possible alternatives on the market to get the best out of the Epsons.

Sanking stated that there is Scanscience and Doug Fisher's holders to choose from for use with the Epson scanner. He never said, look into Doug Fisher's holders and leave out the other options...he stated the available options, with no favoring and no suggesting one over the other. Actually, I was more inclined to look over at the Scanscience side of things because I have followed Doug's incarnation into this stuff since close to day 1.

On a final note, who gives a flying f if they were promoting the holders. "If" a professional is willing to risk their integrity and make a claim about a product knowing it is non-beneficial and a waist of money, they don't look too good afterwards now do they? I know if I had a name in LF world, I would not even say a word if I didn't feel that something I was using was benefiting my work. If anything, you just don't say anything and leave it at that...anyone asks how the product is, you can be honest and say it didn't do anything for me, or you can just tell the person to ask someone else.

Sorry for this long and drowning post.

[Martin Miksch]

...Did the Brittish guy's review ...

Forget him, he just allways claimes the newest Epson flatbed as nearly so good as filmscanners.
Regards
Martin

[Zn0rt]

I have an Epson V750 (and have had various other older models of Epson scanners, like the 4990).

And I shoot 6x6 Film (been doing it for more than 20 years.)

And I often scan my negatives.

And I can't use Mr. Fisher's negative holders, no matter how much I'd love to pay him to send me one or two.

The reason I can't use one of these groovie holders is that I cut my negatives into 3 x 4 strips. Thats _three_ strips of _four_ frames each. I've been doing it for 20 years. The reason for it is simple: in the darkroom I only have three strips of film to handle, and that makes working at the enlarger much easier and efficient. Suffice to say, I will not be switching over to cutting my negatives any other way, and certainly my PrintFile archival negative holders are made for 3 x 4 strips as well, so I'm obviously not the only one to cut his negatives like that.

Sadly, Mr. Fisher's negative holders are only long enough to hold about 3 and a half frames of 6x6 negatives. I've spoken to Mr. Fisher about this (several times in fact, last time was a few years ago): would it not be possible for him to produce the holder just a tad bit longer such that a full 4 frames of 6x6 will fit into each slot? The answer was no. So, that was the end of that.

Possibly that little detail something to consider if you are like me, and you cut your negatives into strips of 4 frames, instead into strips of 3 frames.

[Ted Harris]

Doug has never paid me to test anything, he has ever asked me to test anything. I have not tried his wet mounting station under discussion here. I have tried some of his earlier film holders and can tell you that they are way better made than holders offered by manufacturers. They are well enough made that Microtek thought seriously of offering his holders through their website and/or packaging them with some iterations of their scanners, that was several management and scanner generations ago.

The bottom line here is pretty simple, since the leap from prosumer scanners at less than a thousand dollars to high end professional scanners is a quantum leap in price I figure folks should be thankful for any small improvements at small cost. You will still not come close to equaling the performance of the high end scanners but you will add yet one more increment of improvement to your scans. If you can't or don't want to spend the money or the space for the professional scanners this is just another tool that may get you somewhat better images. If that matters to you (and strangely it doesn't to everyone) then you really should give Doug's stuff a try. Look at it this way, it costs about the same as a box of 5x7 transparency film.

[xavier deltell]

Two crops o the same photo unretouched.

1- epson holder

2- betterscanning holder dry mounted

3- original shot.

I don't know Mr.Fisher, only I have bought it the betterscanning holder.

Epson V750

[Zn0rt]

Oh, aside from Nova I see that Deville makes some print washers. Monochrom has them:
http://www.monochrome.de/cc/monoc/shop/rmiArt001.asp?key=wg&val=621&text=&mi=H9U9B1

They look nice, but are even more expensive than the Novas(!) But they have baskets, which could be cool, and are meant to be used with a pump that puts bubbles in there.

Still, I find Novas are rather ideal for the price.

-Z

[Kirk Gittings]

Oh, aside from Nova I see that Deville makes some print washers. Monochrom has them:
http://www.monochrome.de/cc/monoc/shop/rmiArt001.asp?key=wg&val=621&text=&mi=H9U9B1

They look nice, but are even more expensive than the Novas(!) But they have baskets, which could be cool, and are meant to be used with a pump that puts bubbles in there.

Still, I find Novas are rather ideal for the price.

-Z

Wrong thread?

[Kirk Gittings]

To further the point that Audioexcels is making (I think?)

I own both an Epson 750 and a Creo Eversmart (as does Sandy-he has a better model) and I have access to the newest Hassleblads and with all that I still have Ted do some scans for me on his superior pro flatbeds. And yes both Ted and I teach scanning workshops around the country at some very prestigious venues as does Sandy. The flatbeds like the Epson have their place in my workflow for quicky magazine work where I need Digital Ice. I also use it for proofing, before going through the trouble of a wet scan on the Eversmart or sending it off to Ted. It is very useful. A few years ago I even did many small exhibition prints on them which were very well received, but wouldn't hold up to my standards above 11x14. The amount of work that I put into a file requires that I start with a scan that will give me a larger quality print. Many people find the output of these machines adequate for their printing standards. We teach workshops with these because so many people use them and want to know how to get the most from them. Hence Doug's film holders. They work very well and help someone to maximize the output from their flatbed machines. That is why we recommend them, because they work well, plain and simple. Sandy and I did some beta testing for Doug on them for free, because we were interested in the product and respected Doug. Helping people get the most from these scanners is not the same thing as suggesting the scanners are the the cat's meow of scanners. We have stated, perhaps hundreds of times on this forum, the limitations of them. Doug's holders are helpful, but the scanners are what they are.

[Chris Strobel]

So the Betterscanning rigs only go up to 5x7?I have a Scanmax wet mount kit for 8x10 and my 4990, but the Betterscanning rigs look to be much better quality.

[D. Bryant]

So the Betterscanning rigs only go up to 5x7?I have a Scanmax wet mount kit for 8x10 and my 4990, but the Betterscanning rigs look to be much better quality.
Chris,

The Betterscanning wet scanning adapter will handle up to about whole plate size (6.5 x 8) but not 8x10. IMO, the quality and craftmanship of the Better Scanning wet plate adapter is a much better than the Scanmax product.

Don Bryant

[Zn0rt]

Wrong thread?

Oops, yes. My appologies. :p

[Chris Strobel]

Chris,

the Better Scanning wet plate adapter is a much better than the Scanmax product.

Don Bryant

Maybe the Better Scanning wet plate adapter is better for 4x5 or 5x7, but at this point it looks like the Scanmax is clearly superior for full 8x10 negs :)

[sanking]

The flatbeds like the Epson have their place in my workflow for quicky magazine work where I need Digital Ice. I also use it for proofing, before going through the trouble of a wet scan on the Eversmart or sending it off to Ted. It is very useful. A few years ago I even did many small exhibition prints on them which were very well received, but wouldn't hold up to my standards above 11x14. The amount of work that I put into a file requires that I start with a scan that will give me a larger quality print. Many people find the output of these machines adequate for their printing standards.

Like Kirk, I own both an Epson flatbed (4990) and a Creo EverSmart Pro. I use the 4990 for all of my proofing because it is fast and is connected to an Intel Mac running the penultimate version of MAC OSX. I have also been very satisfied with the 4990 in terms of its ability to make high quality prints up to about 14X20 from scans of 5X7" original negatives. But the 3X magnification is as far as I would go with the 4990, though one could fudge with 5X7 negatives with good interpolation up and appropriate use of unsharp masking.

For anything other than 5X7" (for example, 6X7cm and 6X9cm formats where magnification of the original up to about 6X - 8X is expected) the EverSmart Pro is much superior to the 4990. By much superior, I mean that the effective resolution of the EverSmart Pro is almost twice what I am able to get with the 4990. I also use the EverSmart Pro for scanning ULF film in 7X17 and 12X20 size.

To get the optimum results from one of the Epson prosumer scanners I strongly recommend 1) fluid mounting, and 2) tests to make sure that the material to be scanned is at the optimum distance from the CCD. A good fluid mounting station that allows one to optimize focal distance can give a significant boost to scanning results. This has been widely documented by folks with a lot of experience and knowledge, Ctein for example in a recent issue of Photo Techniques.


Sandy King

[Maretzo]

Any sensible difference between Betterscanning design and Scanscience design (on Epson V700)?
Serge