fluid scanning

[JessJ]

Is there anyone who have ever used Lumina on their scanning work. In your experience, does it really show the difference? I am about to purchase one myself. Any thoughts on this is greatly apreaciated. Thanks in advance.

Merry Christmas and a Colorful New Year to All!
JesJ

[Kirk Gittings]

Do you mean the Lumina fluid?

[JessJ]

Yes. http://www.scanscience.com/files/lumina2.html

[Kirk Gittings]

Are you asking, does it show any difference over dry scanning or over other wet scanning fluids like Kami? You are not being very clear.

[JessJ]

Thank you Kirk for the reply.
I am convinced that they yield better result than dry scanning. But I wish to hear from people who actually uses them (Lumina fluid).

JessJ

[Dave Aharonian]

I bought the Lumina fluid from Scanscience and I've been using it to wet mount 5x7 negs on the glass tray of my 1800f scanner. Does it work? Yes, it does work. Is it a pain in the ass? You bet! I'm using it because every now and then I get newton rings that are very annoying. It works perfectly to prevent the rings, but you need to be very meticulous with removing ALL the tiny air bubbles that can be trapped in the fluid. It take s a bit of time and in the end it works well, but in all honesty, I can't say the scans are any better than those I do in the 4x5 glassless tray that comes with the scanner. If I had a glassless tray for 5x7 (I tried making one without a lot of success) I wouldn't bother with wet mounting. That's my 2 cents worth!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I use Lumina fluid. A while back, I read all the hype that was being generated on this site about wet scanning, so decided to give it a go. Friends who had used it swore to me that they got more detail and better luminosity from their scans this way than dry. I've run a bunch of comparisons on en Epson 4990 between using wet mounted and dry, and have come to the conclusion that wet mounting makes no improvement at all compared to using the 4X5 film holder that comes with the scanner. It does make the scans a lot dirtier, though, so cleaning them up takes longer, on top of the extra time and hassle to wet mount the film in the first place. I don't wet mount 4X5s I can scan in the film holder. The only time it really makes sense is when I'm scanning 4X10s or 8X10s directly against the glass, since it eliminates Newton's rings. You do need to be careful about air bubbles and getting dirt and dust stuck to the fluid, and then there's the not very pleasent fumes given off by the stuff, not unlike lighter fluid or mosquito repellent (DEET), as well as extra time to set up and clean up the wet mounts.

Others I know who scan older or scratched film claim that it does make a significant improvement for them, so YMMV.

[Stefan]

To evaluate wet scanning to see if it is what you want you can use some inexpensive products from your local store.
I made some experimenting during my Canon 8800F review (http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_8800f_review/8800fpage8.html) by using regular window glass and Zippo fluid (Cigarette lighter fluid)
I have also heard that baby oil is usable as scan fluid but a bit messier.
I later found an even better solution by buying a glass photo holder 10X15 cm
buy a larger one if you intend to scan larger stuff this glass is thinner than regular window glass and is easy to get.
How i did it:)

Put some zippo fluid on the glass bed of the scanner (Make shure it doensn't get inside the scanner)
Put the film to scan in that fluid "emultion side down".
Put some more fuid on top of the film.
Now take your window/pictureframe glass and put it on top of the image.
With a soft clean ragg gently squeze out the airbubbles.
If the bubbles refuse to go away, lift the glass and add some more fluid.
Wait a short while to make sure no bubbles enters the scene again.
Scan the image as usuall and compair it to a dry scann.
Is it worth it?


(I plane to make a special web page for DIY wet scanning kit later!)
a remark for step 1, if you intend to wet scan this way in the future, then I suggest you put some sealant
around the edge of the scanner glass to make sure that the fluid stays on the outside ( I suggest Silicone sealant or epoxy adhesive )

Regards/ Stefan
www.stockholmviews.com
http://www.stockholmviews.com/canon_8800f_review/8800f_images/wetmount.jpg

[Peter De Smidt]

Stefan's idea is a good one. On problem, though, is that the negative is probably not at the ideal height. I use a piece of glass with the corners shimmed to the height that testing shows to be best for my scanner. I than using Kami fluid and Aztek scanning mylar to mount on the bottom of the glass sheet.

My observations are that that the biggest gain is from keeping the negative perfectly flat. The grain is equally sharp across the whole image. In addition, the grain size with very grainy film is minimized a bit. Actually, imo, the grain enlargement caused by scanning is lessened a bit. If you can keep the film flat enough without wet-mounting,(any you don't get Newton's rings,) and you're scanning fine-grained film, then there's no need for you to go to the trouble of wet-mounting.

[Stefan]

My review of the 8800F indicates that optimal focus is right on top of the scanner glass.
If you refer to Epson V700 / V750, this also seams to be the case on those scanners as long as you set the scanning software to "Film (with Film Area Guide)".
It is a different story If you use the Epson film-holders and set the software to "Film (with Film Holder)" than you use the high res lens that has focus approximately 3mm above the glass (I have been told).

/Stefan

[sanking]

I have been using fluid mounting for a couple of years with several different scanners, and with both MF and LF negative film, both color and B&W. Here is what I have found.

1. The appearance of grain is definitely minimized with all formats, from 35mm to LF. However, this is a lot more important for the smaller formats that for LF. To some extent grain can be reduced in post-processing with anti-noise software, but the best place to suppress it is in scanning if possible.

2. Fluid mounting increases micro-contrast, which can enhance sharpness. This also can be replicated to some extent in post-processing with unsharp mask. Fluid mounting can not actually increase real resolution, since that is purely a product of the hardware and software.

3. Fluid mounting allows for spacing of the film at the plane of best focus. Important for both MF and LF film, but not important for scanners that auto-focus.

4. Fluid mounting eliminates newton rings.


Once the procedure is learned fluid mounting is only marginally more time consuming than wet mounting, and with reasonable care there is no reasons the scans with should be dirtier than with dry mounting. However, I personally do not fluid mount my LF negatives any longer since I now have a scanner that is auto-focusing and with a scanning bed that prevents newton rings. I fluid mount all MF negatives.

Ctein has an article on fluid mounting in a recent issue of Photo Techniques. He tested small format material and came to the conclusion that fluid mounting definitely produces a better scan. But don't expect miracles.


Sandy King

[Peter De Smidt]

My review of the 8800F indicates that optimal focus is right on top of the scanner glass.

/Stefan

Hi Stefan, Good work. My Canon 9950F gives the best results with the emulsion .5mm above the glass. Everyone should test their scanner, as Stefan did, as it's easy to do, and I've seen people report some pretty significant variations.

-Peter

[kipdent]

Hello everyone--

I thought perhaps an image comparison I recently did between dry and fluid mounting on a Scitex EverSmart Pro II scanner would help those curious about the technique to see the improvements it can make. As Sandy says, there's a big benefit, and physics is physics--I suspect the scanner type or fluid brand does not really matter as much as just doing it versus dry scanning. Here's the link to the image comparison:

web.mac.com/kip/iWeb/fluid

Take care--

Kip

[D. Bryant]

Hello everyone--

I thought perhaps an image comparison I recently did between dry and fluid mounting on a Scitex EverSmart Pro II scanner would help those curious about the technique to see the improvements it can make. As Sandy says, there's a big benefit, and physics is physics--I suspect the scanner type or fluid brand does not really matter as much as just doing it versus dry scanning. Here's the link to the image comparison:

web.mac.com/kip/iWeb/fluid

Take care--

Kip
Wow, that's the most startling example of wet vs dry scanning I've yet seen on the web. Thanks for posting.

Don Bryant

[kipdent]

Thanks, Don--and I agree. I'm continually amazed at the improvement fluid mounting makes. On this particular scanner, I remember being elated at dry scans, then when I tried fluid mounting I became speechless!