How do you digitize 8x10" sheet film?

[pkr1979]

Hi all,

Im just curious to know how folks do this. I started of with an Epson V700. I tried several pieces of anti newton ring glass... and none worked. I did wet scanning on the bed - but this made such a mess I gave up that too. I got rid of that scanner and got hold of a Scanmate F8+, however, this broke down before I really got to use it - and I have no idea how to fix it.

These days Im considering a drum scanner if I can get an affordable one... Based on my previous experience I am a little reluctant to do that as they are out of production and lacks support. My other option as I see it is to ge the Epson 12000XL... at least its supported, but I dont know the quality of it... and Im not so sure I’ll use that much money on a scanner. Am I missing out on something?

Cheers
Peter

[Oren Grad]

The 12000XL won't be any different from the V700 in this respect, in that both of them involve putting the sheet film directly on the glass.

What kind of film are you scanning, and how exactly are you scanning it? Most B&W negatives have enough "tooth" to the emulsion side that just putting the film on the glass with emulsion side down (against the glass) should be sufficient to avoid Newton's rings.

[Alan9940]

I'm curious why wet mounting to the bed glass was such a mess? I've been do this for nearly 20 years with my Epson Expression 1680 Pro without issue.

[Peter De Smidt]

Digital camera scanning is also an option.

[pkr1979]

Im not scanning a lot of BW. Mainly Provia, but also Ektar and Portra 160. It didnt really matter if I scanned with the emulsion face down - newton rings would usually occur.

When wet scaning on the bed I would always have to remove the tape from the calibration area, and then try to clean... but I never really got the hang of it. The unclean calibration area would cause stripes... I just assumed this could be easier on an 12000XL considering its larger bed. Im not familiar with the 1680 Pro, how does it differ from the V700?

I think Id prefer an easy way of scanning, but I might opt for using my dslr.

[DaveF]

There's of course the method that Ben Horne and others use with Epson V700/750/800/850 for 8x10: a silicone rubber petfood mat cut to shape, from which you suspend the film from by securing the edges to the mat with tape, with a central cut-out for the film area to be scanned and outside edges sized to fit the scanning mask required. It seemingly works because the silicone mount is thick enough to allow the scanner to focus on the film pretty much correctly; thickness of the silicone mat is between about 1.5-2mm. Someone somewhere ought to have the original measurements for it, but you can probably DIY using one of the other size Epson plastic film mounts as a rough guide, just centring the cut-out for 8x10, and, when measuring the cut-out, making it a few mm smaller on each side than a typical sheet of 8x10 for overlap to allow the very edges in the film rebate to be taped taut to the mat. Digital scanning would seem to me pointless with 8x10, esp. as you've already got an Epson scanner which will work brilliantly.

[Pere Casals]

I started of with an Epson V700. I tried several pieces of anti newton ring glass... and none worked.

What 8x10 film are you scanning ?

With BW film place the emulsion facing down to the glass, and that's all !!! (as mentioned...)

Just also ensure that yout film is flat, if it isn't then keep it inside a big book a few days.

This was scanned with emulsion up and it has several newton rings, for example under the van: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/23276488430/in/dateposted-public/ (this was my first 8x10 shot.)

This one (my second shot) was scanned with emulsion down (with the area guide alone), no newton ring: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/in/dateposted-public/ (this was the second one).

Film is HP5 in both cases.

Some 8x10 color films require wet mounting on glass to avoid newton rings, because emulsion side is also very smooth, but it's really easy to do it. Anyway, with a drum you need also to wet mount...

[Alan9940]

Im not familiar with the 1680 Pro, how does it differ from the V700?


Yeah, sorry, I forget these new Epson scanners have that calibration area. The 1680 Pro (about 15 years old now) just has a bed of glass. I run painter's tape around the edges to keep scanner fluid from sneaking under there.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I use an Epson V750.

[Ben Calwell]

I have an Epson V700, and for 8X10 I just the put the neg down directly on the glass. So far, no problems.

[Bruce Watson]

Am I missing out on something?

I think you are, yes. That doesn't mean that you'll think so, which is fine, but you did ask...

What I think you're missing out on, is a reason to do this. Most people seem to shoot 10x8 with the intent of contact printing. If you're going to scan, why are you using 10x8? You'll gain almost nothing from scanning 10x8 over scanning 5x4.

That said, drum scanning 10x8 is certainly doable. But it's certainly a PITA also. If you're going to scan 10x8 I suggest looking for a professional flatbed. But I doubt anyone makes them any more.

If you're sure you want to drum scan and you're sure you want support and maintenance (and you're willing to pay for them), you'll need to be looking at Aztek scanners. They are, I believe, the last company in the world still making and selling drum scanners, parts, supplies, and service (but also check to see if ICG in England is still functional; if they are substitute "ICG" for "Aztek" all over this paragraph because that would be a heck of a lot closer to Oslo than Los Angeles is). Perhaps the most cost effective thing for you to do then is to coordinate with Aztek to see if you can find a used Aztek scanner in the US close to Aztek. Have them clean / tune / refurbish it and ship it to Norway or wherever you need it. It'll be expensive, but hopefully you won't have to do it again. Just a thought.

If it were me (and it clearly is not) I'd proof off one of the Epson consumer flatbeds. If the proof showed sufficient promise to warrant a professional scan, I'd get one made. As in, I'd send the film to Lenny Eiger (on this forum) and pay him to do his thing. Why? It would save you the expense of buying and maintaining a drum scanner, the time and frustration (you wouldn't believe me if I told you) of learning how to do a proper fluid mount on a drum, and the time making scan after scan after scan learning how to use the software to get the most out of the scanner. Instead, send your film, and a check, to Lenny. But probably that's just me. And I used to be a pretty good drum scanner operator.

You can learn from my mistakes, or learn from your own. Whatever makes you happy.

[DaveF]

What right do you have to tell people how they should enjoy their photography? This forum really gets my goat in this respect sometimes. People here come to learn and share not to be shot at. Many people do get a lot out of shooting 8x10 beyond traditional printing methods, I'm certain.
'Why are you using 10x8?' For the pleasure?? But he doesn't have to justify it.
Thank you.

[pkr1979]

I shoot 810 because I really enjoy the slides. So the intent isnt so much to have them scanned - however, it is a nice and easy way of storing and displaying them. I do believe you when you say doing drum scans is quite the effort - if I fully comprehend it is another matter. I would probably be happier learning from your mistakes - however, my mother says Im not, apparantly, capable of learning anything - except the hard way ;-) What do you mean by proofing one of the Epsons by the way?

[pkr1979]

Thanks Dave :-) I sold the Epson to get the F8+. However - I am considering getting a new one and try to take out the glass in that scanner, cut the glass from the F8+ to fit it to the Epson and use that glass in that scanner instead - as I know that particular ANR glass actually works.

[Alan9940]

What I think you're missing out on, is a reason to do this. Most people seem to shoot 10x8 with the intent of contact printing. If you're going to scan, why are you using 10x8? You'll gain almost nothing from scanning 10x8 over scanning 5x4.


I mostly contact print 8x10 in the analog darkroom, but if I want an enlargement from that neg scanning/printing via the desktop is the only way I can do it.

[sanking]

Thanks Dave :-) I sold the Epson to get the F8+. However - I am considering getting a new one and try to take out the glass in that scanner, cut the glass from the F8+ to fit it to the Epson and use that glass in that scanner instead - as I know that particular ANR glass actually works.

You don't need to take the glass out of the Epson scanner. The best option in my opinion to scan 8X10" materials on the V700 or V800 is fluid mounting, with the media mounted to the bottom of a sheet of glass spaced just a bit off the glass. Buy a sheet of window glass cut to the size of the existing glass, and glue small washers as spacers at the four corners. Mount the negative or transparency on the glass with fluid mount, negative side to the glass, cover it with a thin sheet of clear polyester, and tape around the edges with blue masking tape. Now place the glass on the scanner, negative down, and choose Film with Film Area Guide in Document Type of the Epson scanning software. The washers will place the plane of focus just above the level of the scanner glass, which generally is the best point of focus with this setting.

It is possible to get very good results in fluid mounting negatives and transparency materials with the Epson V700/V800. Not as good in absolute terms as one could get with a drum scanner or professional flatbed, but perhaps good enough for your purposes. And setting up a drum scanner or professional flatbed can be a lot of hassle, and expensive to farm out.

Scanning with the film placed negative side down on the scanner glass (without fluid mounting) gives pretty good results, but not as good as fluid mounted, and with many film you will get AN rings scanning this way. Fluid mounting, if done correctly, always enhances scan quality.

Sandy

[Bruce Watson]

I shoot 810 because I really enjoy the slides.

Fair enough. Usually not much wrong with doing what makes you happy.


So the intent isn't so much to have them scanned - however, it is a nice and easy way of storing and displaying them. I do believe you when you say doing drum scans is quite the effort - if I fully comprehend it is another matter.

It's not so much that the physical act of drum scanning is difficult. Although drum scanners are big, noisy, slow, and hot (my old ColorGetter 3Pro dumped 900W into the room while running, which will heat up a room even in the winter). The problem is more mental -- there's a lot to understand about how all the settings interact and effect the resulting image in the scan file. How to balance graininess with perceived sharpness, that kind of thing. And the only way I could find to learn it was to scan the same film over and over and over, modifying a single setting per scan, then looking at the differences. And most of those differences are hard to perceive, especially at lower magnifications. But really, if you can learn to use movements on a view camera, you can learn to drum scan. It just takes longer to learn drum scanning -- you don't get that "instant gratification" you get by tilting the lens stage and watching the image change on the ground glass. Instead, you have to change a setting, then scan for an hour, then pull the file into your computer and look at the result, knowing that the dot pitch of your monitor is going to be considerably different than the dot pitch on a print, and that your monitor is a light source, while a print is a reflective source. It just takes a lot of practice is all.


I would probably be happier learning from your mistakes - however, my mother says I'm not, apparently, capable of learning anything - except the hard way ;-)

You must be my long lost brother! My mother used to tell me the same thing. And she was correct of course. What more proof is needed beyond my learning to drum scan?


What do you mean by proofing one of the Epsons by the way?

I was assuming (it's usually bad to assume, which I illustrate all the time, such as now) that if you were scanning you want to use negative films. Because you'll get better color accuracy for one thing. And you'll have lower densities to scan through for another, which makes scanning with a consumer flat bed feasible. If you're going to scan tranny film, you really need the high end light source and high sensitivity of PMTs to read through densities out to around 3.6 or higher (who knows? Kodak's step charts stopped at 3.6).

So what I meant by proofing from an Epson consumer flatbed scanner was that you could scan a color negative 10x8 film on it, use the scan software (or a photoeditor) to do the negative -> positive and mask subtraction so that you could look at a positive proof on your computer screen and decide if the film was worth printing.

But since you are using slide film, you don't really need to do that -- you can just put the film on a light table and evaluate it right there without any manipulation at all. That is, the tranny is WYSIWYG.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are you actually trying to do? If you're scanning just to have "a nice and easy way of storing and displaying them" then I'd avoid drum scanning. I'd only go the drum scanning route to make prints; think of a drum scanner as a digital darkroom enlarger. It'll give you all the shadow detail from your tanny, and as much resolution as you need to make a really large print. Which you'd only want if you were making such a print. There's nothing much else to do with a full size scan file.

If you're scanning just for an easy-to-pull-up file, or for the web, a consumer flatbed is more than enough. No, it won't see very far into the shadows of your transparency, but most computer monitors aren't sufficiently calibrated for that to matter too much anyway.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

My V850 does very well at scanning and I can make prints from a 4x5 up to over 50 inches. 8x10s would be similar. I don't have too many issues with shadows as long as my exposure was good and I do the conversion properly.

[Bruce Watson]

You don't need to take the glass out of the Epson scanner. The best option in my opinion to scan 8X10" materials on the V700 or V800 is fluid mounting, with the media mounted to the bottom of a sheet of glass spaced just a bit off the glass. Buy a sheet of window glass cut to the size of the existing glass, and glue small washers as spacers at the four corners. Mount the negative or transparency on the glass with fluid mount, negative side to the glass, cover it with a thin sheet of clear polyester, and tape around the edges with blue masking tape. Now place the glass on the scanner, negative down, and choose Film with Film Area Guide in Document Type of the Epson scanning software. The washers will place the plane of focus just above the level of the scanner glass, which generally is the best point of focus with this setting.

It is possible to get very good results in fluid mounting negatives and transparency materials with the Epson V700/V800. Not as good in absolute terms as one could get with a drum scanner or professional flatbed, but perhaps good enough for your purposes. And setting up a drum scanner or professional flatbed can be a lot of hassle, and expensive to farm out.

Scanning with the film placed negative side down on the scanner glass (without fluid mounting) gives pretty good results, but not as good as fluid mounted, and with many film you will get AN rings scanning this way. Fluid mounting, if done correctly, always enhances scan quality.

Sandy

Yes, what Sandy says.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Don't forget to use the bar that comes with the V700/800/850 in the calibration area to tell scanner to use the low res lens for 8x10, or you will not get the full scan of image. I bought the ANR for 8x10 from Better scanning. If needed, I can use small shims to raise it. I only fluid mount, which I have found to be much better than dry mounting. Easy to do as well. If I do not need to raise the image, I would wet mount directly to scan glass, place ANR glass over wet-mounted negative and then scan. I think there are some options depending on how much focus is off, if any.

[cowanw]

Digital camera scanning is also an option.

I will expose my ignorance; why is this not an increasingly better way to do it?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Not that simple and it brings with it a whole other set of problems.

[cowanw]

Why and what? please and thank you.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Mostly making sure your optical axis is perpendicular to film, film is flat, no light reflections. Using a macro lens of at least 100mm means having to reposition film for several shots and then stitching. Plus finding optimal f-stop, exposure setting takes time. Typicall f/8 is good. I have played a bit with it and for what my V850 can do it has better resolution than my 5DMKIII’s sensor.

You won’t be taking a single image of a 4x5 or larger. But if you develop a method and optimize it would do well however, I can scan my film faster than I could with a dslr. And of course there is the bayer filter to deal with and the antialiasing the camera does. Of course most of this is minor stuff. It is the setup that takes time. You could do tethered capture to your computer to avoid the step of saving to memory card and then downloading to computer. But you still gotta stitch at least 9 images or more.

I am sure others who do it regularly will have a better view point and are pretty quick at it. I have been working on a design, but my scanner does quite well and my next upgrade is to a drum scanner or better in the future for color negs and slide film.

[Peter De Smidt]

I didn't use a 100mm or longer lens. I used a 75mm Rodagon D at f/4. Alignment is critical, but the same can be said about making big enlargements with an optical enlarger. One can easily control exposure, whether through light source adjustment or camera settings, something that's much more challenging with a scanner. With a digital camera scan, one knows when one's optimizing image capture, as opposed to doing a software manipulation on captured data. If needed, one can use multiple exposures, without moving anything and so no sharpness hit, if one really needs to, such as with very dense film.

[DaveF]

Re. digitising, more than half of my 5x4s are digitised with D800E/85tilt-shift/macro rail on a light box using a four-frame stitch. This has been doable and produced very good results, esp. as the 85PC-E is a brilliant lens. Compared with my new Epson V850, however, it's quite a bit more effort and requires more room to work and more top quality equipment to work well.
I did also see if there was a way of replicating this technique, with a stitch of more frames, for 8x10. But perpendicularity – even with a tilt-shift lens, a top of the range tripod/head/macro rail –, questions about desired resolution, and the amount of effort required soon made this seem foolhardy. If you limit yourself to a stitch of 4 frames or fewer, there doesn't seem to be any point at all doing 8x10 this way, since you might as well just shoot 5x4s and get a decent digitation/resolution that way.

[Peter De Smidt]

Sure, it's very easy to simply buy a turn-key scanning solution, but it's not that hard to put together a system that can easily take way more than 4 frames. I used 25 frames for 4x5, for example. Many of us have most of the equipment needed already. I'm not saying it's the best option, or that everyone should do it that way. I have a very good dslr scanner, but I mainly use my Cezanne. When that dies, though, it's nice to have options other than an Epson scanner or another very old professional machine.

[pkr1979]

As of now I am very tempted to make my own mistakes and get into drum scanning - simply because their availability seems easier and cheaper then high end flat beds. I know, I know... this isnt the right motivation to get into drum scanning - but Im sure It'll be an educational experience. If I had been able to get the ScanMate F8+ up and working I would do that - but I am not. The experience I had with the Epson V700 was just too annoying to go down that route again... although, it seems like several people here gets good scans with those machines. Now I just need to convince my better half that this is an awesome idea :-)

It seems to me that there could have been more scanner/scanning options then either the Epsons or the drum scanners...

[Peter De Smidt]

Sprint scan, Imacon, Eversmart, Coolscan, Minolta Dimage, Plustek, Fuji Lanovia, Canoscan.....

[Pere Casals]

The experience I had with the Epson V700 was just too annoying to go down that route again... although, it seems like several people here gets good scans with those machines...

Me... I'm one feeling I obtain really good results with V850 for LF. But YMMV, of course.

See... just adjusting image with a few clicks in PS one can good get really good results:

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150020-Scanner-Comparison-2019-Epson-Flatbed-Eversmart-Flatbed-Drum-Scanners&p=1479178&viewfull=1#post1479178
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4857/46755757932_c7010da815_o.jpg

The upper left (see titles) is the crop V700 crop, adjusted with a few clicks, and ressembling the output of expensive gear.


I'm not alone:
https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://petapixel.com/2017/05/01/16000-photo-scanner-vs-500-scanner/

Also if you go to the Collaborative scanner test: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/

then download samples, and separately optimize the crops, you may find the same than me:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8561/28420386682_d481942db8_o.jpg


No doubt that a drum is a way, way better scanner than a V850, but many times there is no difference in the result, in special for LF and if the man editing the images is a bit proficient in Ps.

Of course for 35mm I would prefer a roll film scanner, or something better. But many LF shots have total (or near total) contrast extintion at 2500 dpi (50lp/mm), so using an expensive piece of gear may offer little benefit. A Ferrari and a Fiat 500 have same acceleration, top speed and down force in traffic jam, and a bicycle may be faster... In Monza circuit it's another thing.

If you have a proffesionally LF scanned sample that it's way better than the V700 scan, please let me know, I would help you to obtain a close match.

Also I've to say that I think that the V850 is not Pro gear, perhaps it's semi pro, someone that would be scanning all day long would not like the V850 as a workhorse.

[rdeloe]

Camera scanning is a viable option, but it has limitations. As Peter explained above, many people already have the needed gear. Peter built a very cool semi-automatic system that is described in the long "DSLR scanning" thread. I built a cheap manual solution and described it here: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?150162-Camera-scanning-on-the-cheap-an-example-approach I'm scanning 4x5 negatives at 2,666 ppi, but the same concept would work just fine for 8x10 (albeit with a lot more pictures). You could shoot at 2,000 ppi and still have a very detailed file.

Aligning everything is actually simple. I use the same trick as darkroom workers use to align their enlargers (a mirror). In my setup I'm making 12 frames for a 4x5 negative, and getting those 2,666 ppi using an APS-C Fuji camera with no anti-aliasing filter. The final resolution is more than adequate for my current needs, and the time it takes is very reasonable. From fluid mounting the film to stitching the 12 images together takes maybe 5 minutes.

But... the major limitation of camera scanning approaches is that some pictures don't stitch because of the contents, e.g., a landscape where the top part of the picture is a clean sky will not stitch automatically. I've tested problem pictures using Lightroom, Photoshop, PTGui, Microsoft ICE... no luck. For difficult pictures that won't stitch you need to be able to use a system that stitches them based on known physical positions rather than contents (and that means using a system's like Peter's that allows for that kind of precision). This is a situation where an actual scanner wins.

--------------

Something else to keep in mind that I'm struggling with now is the impact of the sensing technology on the look of the resulting "scan". I'd like to standardize on one developer so I've been making careful, controlled comparisons of HC-110 and Xtol for HP5+ negatives. According to Kodak, Xtol at full strength is supposed to provide better shadow detail, grain and sharpness than HC-110 at Dilution B (1:31). From what I can see, any differences on the negative are lost when camera scanning. In other words, I find it very difficult to see a difference between the Xtol and HC-110 negatives; they both look equally good. I need to do more testing, but I'm becoming convinced that the characteristics of the digital camera sensor overwhelm the subtle characteristics of the negative. It's not simply about resolution either. A digital sensor isn't film so we shouldn't expect a camera scan (or a scanner scan, which is still a digital image) to look like film. I'm going to be sending out some negatives for drum scanning soon and I'm curious to see whether or not (and how much) more faithful the drum scan is to the characteristics of the negative.

Of course there's a whole other variable, which is the printing side. If you're scanning with the intention of printing, e.g., on an inkjet printer, then the subtle differences you might be able to see on the negative with a loupe are most likely not going to be visible in prints. First, there's what the scanning process does. Second, the printer, the driver, the ink and the paper have a major impact on what the print looks like. I use an Epson 3880 and print with a monochrome inkset via Quadtone RIP. Test prints at 16x20 size of my Xtol versus HC-110 negatives are indistinguishable.

To be clear, I'm not really seeing a "problem" here! I'm pleased with the results and getting the prints I want. In that context, the details and quirks are not particularly important to me.

[Tin Can]

Pere, an eyeopener!

Thanks for posting evidence.

[Thom Bennett]

Back in the old days if we needed to copy a transparency we would tape it to a piece of white plexiglass, light it from behind, and shoot another 4x5. Perhaps this method could be used with a high-end digital camera (50MP?) to achieve a digital image that could be enlarged, etc.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

In the end, whatever the choice to digitize, it comes down to the operator and their skill.

[Pere Casals]

Pere, an eyeopener!

Thanks for posting evidence.

No... not at all. Thanks for openning my eyes:

187354

[aaronnate]

You don't need to take the glass out of the Epson scanner. The best option in my opinion to scan 8X10" materials on the V700 or V800 is fluid mounting, with the media mounted to the bottom of a sheet of glass spaced just a bit off the glass. Buy a sheet of window glass cut to the size of the existing glass, and glue small washers as spacers at the four corners. Mount the negative or transparency on the glass with fluid mount, negative side to the glass, cover it with a thin sheet of clear polyester, and tape around the edges with blue masking tape. Now place the glass on the scanner, negative down, and choose Film with Film Area Guide in Document Type of the Epson scanning software. The washers will place the plane of focus just above the level of the scanner glass, which generally is the best point of focus with this setting.

It is possible to get very good results in fluid mounting negatives and transparency materials with the Epson V700/V800. Not as good in absolute terms as one could get with a drum scanner or professional flatbed, but perhaps good enough for your purposes. And setting up a drum scanner or professional flatbed can be a lot of hassle, and expensive to farm out.

Scanning with the film placed negative side down on the scanner glass (without fluid mounting) gives pretty good results, but not as good as fluid mounted, and with many film you will get AN rings scanning this way. Fluid mounting, if done correctly, always enhances scan quality.

Sandy

I know absolutely nothing about scanning but I do know about washers. There is no industry standard in metal or plastic washer thickness. I know this because I owned a boat repair shop and still have several thousand washers at least, from many different manufacturers in many different sizes. Even different production runs from the same supplier will differ in thickness. I am of the firm belief that metal thickness descriptions are mere suggestions. Even proudly made in the USA items differ. O-rings on the other hand are very consistent. So is cork/rubber gasket material

If it were me and I wanted to do this (hopefully in the near future) I would go the O-ring or cork gasket spacer route on the sheet of glass. Consistent thickness and won't scratch anything.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I know absolutely nothing about scanning but I do know about washers. There is no industry standard in metal or plastic washer thickness. I know this because I owned a boat repair shop and still have several thousand washers at least, from many different manufacturers in many different sizes. Even different production runs from the same supplier will differ in thickness. I am of the firm belief that metal thickness descriptions are mere suggestions. Even proudly made in the USA items differ. O-rings on the other hand are very consistent. So is cork/rubber gasket material

If it were me and I wanted to do this (hopefully in the near future) I would go the O-ring or cork gasket spacer route on the sheet of glass. Consistent thickness and won't scratch anything.

I work in Aerospace analyzing structures. We use peel shims that are accurate at thicknesses of .001 in. So it is very easy to shim something accurately. Sheet metal is also quite standardized on thickness. You can get AL like 0.016 or 0.008 thick that is very standard. You would probably do more harm to it cutting out what you need than anything else.

If you can get a small amount of peel shim, that is what I would use. Also, you can buy standard thickness shims that are quite accurate on thickness.

You could measure the washers and come up with several that are the same thickness and use those as well.

[Tin Can]

Shim tape is cheap

https://www.mcmaster.com/shim-tape

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Shim tape is cheap

https://www.mcmaster.com/shim-tape

Nice!

[pkr1979]

All right then. I just got hold of a ScanMate 11000 - Im getting in to drum scanning. Wish me luck B-)

[Tin Can]

Luck!

[Jim Andrada]

Good luck.

I thought I was going to drum scan and eventually I figured out that the mounting workflow wasn't for me so I went with an IQsmart flatbed and I realy like it.

But the negs that Lenny scanned for me on his Premier were really nice to work with. I hope it works out for you.