fluid scanning

[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!