wet/dry mounting on flatbed

[jetcode]

The problem here is that it's nearly impossible to make anything close to a valid comparison between a fluid mounted scan and a non-fluid mounted scan when looking at a computer monitor. The pixel pitch isn't even close to a real print, and the monitor is a light source while a print is a reflective source.

I have similar problems trying to look at a small print trying to figure out what it will look like as a bigger print. I have to make some full-sized sections to see how important parts of the image scale up. Because sometimes I imagine it correctly, and sometimes not.

Prints, like the ground glass, don't lie.

that's true however there is grain visible in both images that looks nearly identical so the computer images are serving their purpose as far as I can tell

[Paul Ewins]

What is the function of the Mylar? Is it to protect the film when you use the roller to remove air bubbles? Is it to allow you to use fluid on both sides of the film?

I'm wondering whether to try fluid mounting with my Epson 2450 (for 4x5) and possibly with my Nikon Coolscan 8000 for 35mm and 120. As I would need to modify a carrier for the Nikon I want to try and understand all of the variables before I start.

thanks,
Paul

[sanking]

What is the function of the Mylar? Is it to protect the film when you use the roller to remove air bubbles? Is it to allow you to use fluid on both sides of the film?

I'm wondering whether to try fluid mounting with my Epson 2450 (for 4x5) and possibly with my Nikon Coolscan 8000 for 35mm and 120. As I would need to modify a carrier for the Nikon I want to try and understand all of the variables before I start.

thanks,
Paul

Paul,

For some basic information about fluid mounting with consumer flatbed and dedicated film scanners like your Nikon 8000 I would suggest the following two sources.

http://www.scanscience.com/

http://www.betterscanning.com/

Best,

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

that's true however there is grain visible in both images that looks nearly identical so the computer images are serving their purpose as far as I can tell

You miss my point. I apologize for not being more articulate. Sigh...

This is like comparing cars by comparing reviews in car magazines. You can do it, yes, but will you understand what it actually means to you without driving the cars in question? For example, the total cornering forces a car can take before sliding is interesting, but if the car feels so bad in getting there than none but a skilled and trained test driver will ever bother to take it to the limit, does it really have any meaning to you?

Whatever. All I'm saying is that unless you are going to be showing your images on computer monitors, you shouldn't be making decisions based on computer monitors. If you are going to be showing prints, you should make your decisions based on prints. This is obvious to me but clearly not to many other people.

It's easy enough for you to test this hypothesis on your own -- you need not believe me. Make the prints and compare them to each other. Then compare the 100% pixels views in Photoshop. See what you see, think what you will, come to your own conclusions.

Why guess when you can know?

[jetcode]

Bruce ... I didn't miss your point ... I own and operate a Cezanne Elite and found Adrien's posts quite beneficial considering there is to date little real data to evaluate concerning wet/dry scans. The images I am viewing here are specific to this test and I find them very useful. I am not considering prints here. I am considering scans because I have requests for wet mount on my scanner. Do these images represent an absolute? What does?

You miss my point. I apologize for not being more articulate. Sigh...

This is like comparing cars by comparing reviews in car magazines. You can do it, yes, but will you understand what it actually means to you without driving the cars in question? For example, the total cornering forces a car can take before sliding is interesting, but if the car feels so bad in getting there than none but a skilled and trained test driver will ever bother to take it to the limit, does it really have any meaning to you?

Whatever. All I'm saying is that unless you are going to be showing your images on computer monitors, you shouldn't be making decisions based on computer monitors. If you are going to be showing prints, you should make your decisions based on prints. This is obvious to me but clearly not to many other people.

It's easy enough for you to test this hypothesis on your own -- you need not believe me. Make the prints and compare them to each other. Then compare the 100% pixels views in Photoshop. See what you see, think what you will, come to your own conclusions.

Why guess when you can know?

[Bruce Watson]

Bruce ... I didn't miss your point ... I am not considering prints here.

Then... you did, in fact, miss my point.

[jetcode]

Then... you did, in fact, miss my point.

I did and I still stand by Adrians images as a useful comparison, not perfect, not empirical, but very useful.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've been getting results similar to Adrian's with wet-mounting, at least with some films. I did make a set of test prints. At 12x16 I could notice a slight improvement with the print from the wet-scan, but it was small. I'd expect that the results would be bigger with bigger prints. Of course there are lots of variables here.