Wet mounting - now I have some questions

[Charles Boileau]

Ok so I went thru the website and I read most of the posts on wet mounting.

I understand it much better now. Unfortunately, this leads to even more questions:

Premise: I'm about to buy a V700 from epson

1.Techniques

Some people talk about using a special wet mount (IE: betterscanning.com) some mount them directly to the glass fluid with mylar on top, or use a ANR glass fluid with mylar etc... From what I can see the easiest would be to buy a wet adaptor. But what are the real advantages of using these different techniques?

What about the software? Is the software with the V750 that much more better. I didn't find a clear answer on that either.

FLuids

This is where it gets interesting: Ok so we have a flurry of different companies that manufacture different products. But some people use mineral oil and even naphtha. From working with naphtha I know that it can leave rings or streaks if it's not properly cleaned or evenly dried. What about mineral oil? How do you get mineral oil off your scanning bed without making a mess?

Finally, cleaning the negative:

So this is well and dandy, but how do you clean and dry your negatives after wet mounting? I'm sure that the "professional" products probably just dry by themselves but, what about mineral oil of Naphtha?

I've just spent allot of money on my camera. I already own a scanner that doesn't enable me to scan 4x5. And 4x5 scans in Montreal can be costly. So I'll have to buy a new scanner. But i'D like to get the most out of it without spending a fortune. Anyways, if ever I need to do a crazy enlargement it will probably be for work and in that case I'll get my client to pay for it. But more than likely this will not happen because I work in cinematography more readily than photography.

Can anybody enlighten me?

Thanks for all the help!

[Bruce Watson]

I can't help you with the Epson scanners -- I run a drum scanner myself. Having years of experience drum scanning, and years of experience reading various forums and newsgroups about scanning I can perhaps give you some hints.

The reasons to fluid mount vary, and the results vary from machine to machine. Some machines benefit greatly from a fluid mount, some do not. Drum scanners were designed for this; all drum scanners with which I'm familiar excel with fluid mounts.

In general what you get from a fluid mount is a filling in of the films' imperfections (such as scratches) on both sides of the film, so these don't show. You eliminate Newton's rings. With most scanners you'll see an improvement in tonality -- a "smoother" scan. I find this especially pleasing with LF films which are already considerably smoother than smaller formats.

I advise using only materials designed for this duty. I've been using the Prazio products for years with good results. They are, I think, rebranded SDS products from Germany. It's a whole family of products designed to work together for film scanning -- an anti-Newton mounting fluid, a drum cleaner (clean the mounting fluid off your scanner), and a film cleaner (clean the mounting fluid off your film), and scanner wipes (to apply the cleaners). The drum cleaner and film cleaner are *not* interchangeable so you need both. ScanScience makes similar materials as does Kami.

It's true that you could hang your film to dry after mounting with the above products. There is the risk of leaving a residue on the film however so I always clean film with film cleaner. It's quick, easy, and safe, and you can immediately put the film away without having to wait.

If you aren't going for much enlargement (say, less than about 4x) you may find that fluid mounting is more trouble than it's worth to you. Like much else what you see in the final print is often directly related to the level of enlargement.

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Bruce. I use Prazio mounting oil, mylar and film cleaner. The supplies seem a little cheaper than Kami, and I prefer the Prazio mounting oil to Kami for wet-mounting on a flatbed. You will have to clean your film after using Kami or Prazio mounting fluids, no matter what they say.

I've heard very good things about Doug Fisher's holders for Epson scanners, but I haven't used them, nor do I own an Epson.

It's very important to have the negative at the best height, which you'll only be able to determine by testing.

[Tyler Boley]

Prazio is scaling back, some things will no longer be available. Give them a call and stock up. Really a shame, great people, great products.
Tyler

[Peter De Smidt]

Ouch. Thanks for the heads-up, Tyler. I'll have to do some stocking up.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

A couple years back, I was convinced from all the hoopla that wet mounting was the one thing I needed to take my scanning to the next level (the so called "magic bullet"). I invested in a scanning platform for my 4990 from Scan Sciences that would support both 4X5 and 8X10 film. This cost about $300, almost as much as the scanner did. I used the shims to vary film height, and found the ideal height for my film (which worked out to the same height as the Epson film holder that came with the scanner). I did numerous test scans, dry vs. wet mounted, with 4X5 Velvia that is super sharp (shot with a 150 apo-sironar-S) and has very fine print lettering that you can't read with the naked eye on the film but looks very sharp with a 4X loupe. Not only did the wet mounted scan show no improvement in sharpness over the ones in the film holder, they were actually much dirtier from all the dust that got stuck in with the wet mounting solution. In addition, it is nearly impossible to get out all the air bubbles from the mounting solution, and it leaves a residue on your film as well. Currently, I only use the wet mounting to scan 4X10 and 8X10 film, simply because I don't have a film holder for it. With these sizes, it makes the film lie flatter and the scans are a bit sharper as a result, although they take a lot longer to clean up in Photoshop. I only use my 4990 scans to make enlargerments up to 3X (rarely up to 4X); if I needed anything larger, I'd get a drum scan, where wet mounting really does seem to make a difference. As mentioned above, from the consumer scanners, you are probably better off not wet mounting. Oh, and did I mention that the scanning fluid releases noxious toxic fumes, somewhat of a cross between lighter fluid and deet?

[Charles Boileau]

Alright.

Thanks for all the info. It seems that it might be a tad overkill for me to wet mount (for the moment).

Now, about height and shims. Is this relevant in dry mounting? And is it dependent on the scanner or on the film. Once I find the right height, will it ever change?

Thanks!

[Peter De Smidt]

Yes, whether wet-mounting helps significantly really depends on each scanner. It does allow one to keep the negative perfectly flat. If you are new to scanning, I'd work on getting the best scans using standard methods first. Once all of that is dialed in, you can then try wet-mounting and see if you really gain anything. Once you get to that point, and if you decide to try it, I'm sure that some of us would send you enough materials to try it for a reasonable amount.

Yes, height is very relevant with all scanners that don't autofocus, which is the majority of consumer scanners. Will it change with different films? Probably not enough to matter much.

The important points with scanning:
1. Keep the negatives and equipment very clean.
2. Keep the negatives flat.
3. Find the ideal height for the emulsion.
4. Scan without clipping shadow or highlight detail.
5. If you are scanning bw, try scanning as a color positive, and then examine all of the channels in Photoshop. Often one of the channels, usually the green, will give the highest quality. Some scanning software allows you to pick which channel is used to make a BW image.
6. If you are scanning color slides, a great way to get very accurate color is to use Wolf Faust's color targets and make icc files for the types of films that you use.
7. Test your scanner to see if special features actually help. For example, multi-pass scanning might lower noise, but unless the film and scanning head stays in exactly the same position for each scan, you'll probably get a softer scan.

[Charles Boileau]

Now, aren't scanner holders supposed to be calibrated?

Also, how would I go about shimming my holder? I've doing an internship at Panavision for the past three months, and we use different thickness (of very thin) sheets of plastic to shim the lenses to the right flange depth.

Would these work?

Thanks

[Peter De Smidt]

It depends on what holder you use. Some, like Epson's own holder or Doug Fisher's holder, have ways to change the height of the film. Otherwise, you can take a piece of single-sided anti-glare picture framing glass. This glass has a fine texture on one side. On the smooth side of the glass, use opaque material with an area cut out the size of the negative you want, making it just a little bigger than the actual image size. This allows a little of the film base to show through, which can be helpful in not clipping shadow detail. You can now tape the negative with the back side to textured side of the glass. I use blue painter's tape. If you tape properly, which involves keeping the negative under a little tension, you can keep the negative pretty flat. Now place shims in each corner of the glass plate. Set on scanning bed, being careful not to block the calibration area. If you make your sheet of glass an appropriate size, you can align it by putting it in one of the corners farthest from the calibration area. You can use whatever you'd like as shims. I use tape. Make a scan. Add another shim under each corner, and make another scan. You don't have to do the whole negative, especially if working with 4x5 film. Make sure to label each file. Now examine the scans in photoshop. Find the sharpest one. That's the height you want to shim. If you'd like, you can use a micrometer to measure the spacing every time you add a shim.