PDA

View Full Version : KAMI wet mount scanner kits



PMahoney
24-Sep-2006, 12:12
Any recommendations as to where I can purchase (online) a wet mount kit for an Epson 4990?

Thanks in advance,
Peter

Bruce M. Herman
24-Sep-2006, 12:42
Peter,

The Kami fluid is highly flammable. You may have trouble having it shipped. When I purchased it for a standard flatbed scanner some years ago, I contact the US distributorship and they were able to give me the name of a local company that could order it. I still paid the shipping, but somehow they could get what I could not.

Best wishes.

paulr
24-Sep-2006, 20:28
a local service bureau might sell some to you if you ask nicely.

Kirk Gittings
24-Sep-2006, 20:35
try

http://www.aztek.com/Products/Aztek%20Imaging%20-%20Scanning%20Supplies(main).htm

and

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/WETMOUNTING/?yguid=197497774

and

http://www.wetmounting.com/

Chris Strobel
25-Sep-2006, 20:58
Any recommendations as to where I can purchase (online) a wet mount kit for an Epson 4990?

Thanks in advance,
Peter

I got the kit for my 4990 from these guys.Got both 4x5 and 8x10 adapters.Works great!

http://wetmounting.com

PMahoney
26-Sep-2006, 14:05
Thank you all for your responses. I appreciate the help.
Peter

Ron Marshall
26-Sep-2006, 14:35
How much does wet-mounting improve contrast, sharpness, etc. in scans compared to dry-mounting, with consumer scanners.

Greg Lockrey
27-Sep-2006, 07:36
Thanks, Kirk.

sanking
27-Sep-2006, 11:48
How much does wet-mounting improve contrast, sharpness, etc. in scans compared to dry-mounting, with consumer scanners.

I fluid mount 5X7 and 7X17 negatives with flatbed scanners, and medium format negatives with a Leafscan 45. There is a significant increase in contrast, and especially with something I will call micro-contrast. There is also a reduction in grain appeareance, and any scratches on the base of the film are eliminated or minimized. Newton rings are also eliminated. Resolution is not improved.

Some of the scanning kits are reasonably priced, but one can make their own for practically nothing. All you need is a piece of glass about 1mm thick X length X width to fit over the glass of your flatbed scanner and a few pieces of aluminium about 1/32" thick X 1/2" to 1" wide. Cut the aluminium to size to form a frame the size of the largest negative you plan to scan, center it on the glass and glue it down with epoxy. To scan, you pour some mounting fluid in the frame, put the negative emulsion side down, and tape it down. The frame is important because it forms a damn that prevents the scanning fluid from running off the glass and possibly into the scanner.

I have used the Kami fluid but find that it sometimes evaporates with very long scans so I use Johnson Baby Oil whenever the scan will take more than about five or ten minutes. After the scan I wash the negative in a tray of hot water to which I add a degreaser, then hang to dry. This is all very easy to do and does improve significantly the quality of the scan.


Sandy King

Ron Marshall
27-Sep-2006, 13:17
Thanks Sandy, I will give it a try.

Kirk Gittings
27-Sep-2006, 21:37
Sandy. How hot is the water and how long do you wash it? That scares the crap out of me because I have accidentally done that a couple of times over the years because of an odd plumbing situation and the emulsion swelled and came off.

sanking
27-Sep-2006, 22:28
Sandy. How hot is the water and how long do you wash it? That scares the crap out of me because I have accidentally done that a couple of times over the years because of an odd plumbing situation and the emulsion swelled and came off.

Kirk,

I understand your concern. When I started to fluid mount I ruined a negative by soaking it in negative cleaning fluid. The directions clearly stated, "rub the cleaning fluid on the negative", but I figured, well, why not soak the fellow. Big mistake!

Back to the question. You don't need high temperature to clean a negative fluid mounted with an oil such as Johnson Baby Oil. I use temperature of about 100º F, with a mild liquid dishwashing degreaser, and a bit of hand agitation. After a couple of minutes all of the oil is gone, then I give the negative a rinse in running water of 2-3 minutes and hang to dry. I have never had a problem with emulsion swelling working this way, and so far I have worked with FP4+, TRI-X 320, TMY, BPF 200 and Tmax-100 and Tmax-400.

With the Kami fluid you just wipe off the excess solvent and hang to dry. But, as I mentined, if the scan takes a long time the Kami fluid may evaporate, so for very long scans an oil works better.

Sandy

PMahoney
28-Sep-2006, 10:23
Thanks Sandy, I'm going to give that a try before purchasing a kit. Thanks for the advice.

Peter

Ron Marshall
29-Sep-2006, 15:01
Sandy, what type of tape do you use to tape down the film?

The reason I ask is concern over sticky glue residue on the film after the tape is removed.

sanking
29-Sep-2006, 15:26
Sandy, what type of tape do you use to tape down the film?

The reason I ask is concern over sticky glue residue on the film after the tape is removed.

OK, I fear some folks are going to jump all over me for this, but here goes.

First, I tried the special tape sold by Aztek that is supposed to prevent the sticky glue residue. It did not. OK, maybe I got the wrong tape, but in any event I decided to try a few tapes from the commerce and settled on blue masking tape. It works fine, is very inexpensive readily available, and does not leave residue.

Sandy

Ron Marshall
29-Sep-2006, 20:33
Thanks Sandy, a simple economical solution.

sanking
29-Sep-2006, 20:41
Thanks Sandy, a simple economical solution.

Ron,

BTW, in an earlier message I suggested that you use 1mm thick glass for the fluid mount glass carrier. However, you may want to try the slightly thicker 2mm/ 3/32" (=0.85") window glass first since it is much more rigid than the very thin 1mm glass, and depending on your scanner, may actually place the negative at a more optimum position than the thinner glass. As I mentioned in another post, I tested with glass of both thickness and found no difference in results between the 1mm and 2mm thick glass. That being the case, the use of the 2mm thick glass is much more advantageous since it much sturdier. I broke several pieces of 1mm thick glass just by picking it up in the wrong place.


Sandy

Ron Marshall
29-Sep-2006, 20:50
I'll do test scans 1mm above and below the negative carrier height to see if it makes any difference with my 4990, probably not.

If not the window glass should be cheap. Thanks again Sandy.

Michael Heald
30-Sep-2006, 03:48
Hello! How much does the quality of the glass affect the scans? Best regards.

Mike

sanking
2-Oct-2006, 11:44
Hello! How much does the quality of the glass affect the scans? Best regards.

Mike

Plain soda lime float glass works fine for me. There are speciality glass that have better transmission, especially in the UV wavelengths, but I don't believe they would provide much improvement in this application.

Sandy

jim kitchen
2-Oct-2006, 14:49
I invested in a piece of Tru-Vue "Museum Glass," and although it is rather pricey, it works very well. I do however, pay great attention to the surface of the non-reflective film, located on the back of the Museum Glass, since I do not want to scratch this surface. Lastly, you should not cover the calibration gap with your makeshift piece of glass, since this will introduce banding in the scanned image.

jim k

sanking
2-Oct-2006, 15:53
Lastly, you should not cover the calibration gap with your makeshift piece of glass, since this will introduce banding in the scanned image.

jim k

Interesting. I cover the calibration gap with the glass and have had no banding problem with either the Epson 4870 or Microtek 9800XL. What scanner are you using and wonder what causes the banding?

Sandy King

Chris Strobel
2-Oct-2006, 16:50
I have used the Kami fluid but find that it sometimes evaporates with very long scans so I use Johnson Baby Oil whenever the scan will take more than about five or ten minutes. After the scan I wash the negative in a tray of hot water to which I add a degreaser, then hang to dry. This is all very easy to do and does improve significantly the quality of the scan.


Sandy King

I tried the kami since Aztek is just down the street from me.I now use the Lumina Super Fluid.It still evaporates, but not nearly as fast as the kami does.After I'm done I hang the neg to dry just like with the kami, but it takes longer and leaves no residue.I haven't been doing this very long and can't imagine using baby oil, sounds like quite a mess.I havent had any problems with long scans.Also as far as the glass thickness thing, I scan with the glass on top and the trans scan overlay on the bottom as per Scanmax instructions.Have not tried it the other way.If anyone has tried it both ways I'd be interested to hear about the difference.



Chris

Ron Marshall
2-Oct-2006, 17:43
Has anyone tried a solution of an humectant, such as glycerol, and water as a wet-mount fluid? If it works (no idea) it would be cleap, nontoxic, easy to clean. The question is how much would it retard the evaporation rate.

sanking
3-Oct-2006, 14:42
I haven't been doing this very long and can't imagine using baby oil, sounds like quite a mess.I havent had any problems with long scans.Also as far as the glass thickness thing, I scan with the glass on top and the trans scan overlay on the bottom as per Scanmax instructions.Have not tried it the other way.If anyone has tried it both ways I'd be interested to hear about the difference.


Chris

To clairify, I don't use the baby oil unless necessary. However, it definitely works better with some negatives, say those that have a bit of curl, than the solvent fluids. And cleaning the negative of the oil is really not that big a deal. As I said, a couple of minutes in a warm rinse with a few drops of adegreasing liquid detergent and the oil is removed.

However, I have been scanning some 7X17 negatives that have no curl at all and these scan perfectly with the Kami fluid and no tape. I don't sandwich the negative, as Scanmax recommends. I just place the negative emulsion side down over the fluid and push out the bubbles with a clean cloth.

Sandy

jim kitchen
3-Oct-2006, 20:08
Dear Sandy,

I had an Epson 4990 and now own a 750...

While laying the negative emulsion side down on the scanning glass, I would cover the negative with the 3mil glass. My first attempts covered the calibration gap, and severe banding occurred on both scanner models. I cut the glass to a shorter length, so not to cover the calibration gap, and the banding disappeared. It seems that the scanner can acquire noise from imperfect glass, when the calibration gap is covered. I changed the quality of the glass in my process because of this possible issue. There is a school of thought, indicating that the calibration gap should be covered to include and correct the colour of the glass during a calibration, but I do not and probably never will, resulting from my experience with banding issues.

jim k

sanking
4-Oct-2006, 10:01
Dear Sandy,

I had an Epson 4990 and now own a 750...

While laying the negative emulsion side down on the scanning glass, I would cover the negative with the 3mil glass. My first attempts covered the calibration gap, and severe banding occurred on both scanner models. I cut the glass to a shorter length, so not to cover the calibration gap, and the banding disappeared. It seems that the scanner can acquire noise from imperfect glass, when the calibration gap is covered.

jim k

So you are covering the negative with glass? Are you using fluid between the glass and the negative?

This appears very different from the way I work. As mentioned, I just place the negative emulsion side down on the carrier glass and rub out the bubbles with a clean cloth. I don't put anything over the negative. Some people tape a piece of thin mylar over the top of the negative, with fluid in between. I tried using glass once over the negative, with fluid, but found it impossible to get rid of all of the bubbles.

In any event I always have had the carrier glass cut so it fits snug into the scanner, covering the calibration gap, and I have not had any problem with banding with either of the two flatbed I am currently using.

Sandy King

jim kitchen
4-Oct-2006, 11:28
Dear Sandy,

For the moment, I am not using any fluid between the glass and the negative, and I lay the glass on top of the negative, pressing the negative's emulsion against the scanning bed glass, and the negative is set within the boundaries of the Epson film guide holder. I use the glass to keep the negative flat during a scan. The anti-reflective film on the back of the Museum Glass prevents moire, as it touches the back of the film. I obviously modify the image in Photoshop afterwards to correct the orientation of the negative.

I will, however, change that approach shortly to try to realize the benefits inherent to the wet mounting process. I read an article, submitted by Ernst Dinkla, on the Yahoo ScanHi-End newsgroup that intrigued me, and I shall try his approach to fluid mounting with a flatbed scanner. It is not unlike your method, but there are differences, and Ernst discusses the focal point of the lenses, the orientation of the film and a few other points of interest. It is interesting reading. If you are interested, it is the message number 13858 within the Yahoo ScanHi-End newsgroup, located here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/message/13858

You should be able to read this message, but you will probably be asked to submit your Yahoo Id, and password...

jim k

sanking
4-Oct-2006, 13:17
Dear Sandy,

For the moment, I am not using any fluid between the glass and the negative, and I lay the glass on top of the negative, pressing the negative's emulsion against the scanning bed glass, and the negative is set within the boundaries of the Epson film guide holder. I use the glass to keep the negative flat during a scan. The anti-reflective film on the back of the Museum Glass prevents moire, as it touches the back of the film. I obviously modify the image in Photoshop afterwards to correct the orientation of the negative.

I will, however, change that approach shortly to try to realize the benefits inherent to the wet mounting process. I read an article, submitted by Ernst Dinkla, on the Yahoo ScanHi-End newsgroup that intrigued me, and I shall try his approach to fluid mounting with a flatbed scanner. It is not unlike your method, but there are differences, and Ernst discusses the focal point of the lenses, the orientation of the film and a few other points of interest. It is interesting reading. If you are interested, it is the message number 13858 within the Yahoo ScanHi-End newsgroup, located here: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/message/13858

You should be able to read this message, but you will probably be asked to submit your Yahoo Id, and password...

jim k


Jim,

Thanks for the link. I will have a look at the article.

I was curious why you were not having any trouble with Newton rings with the glass over the negative, but now I understand why you are using the museum glass. In fact, I have done the same thing in scanning 6X9 negatives with my Leafscan 45 using a glass mount. Some of the films I have scanned, HP5+ in particular, have such heavy curl that they won't stay flay even when taped down, so I used a piece of framing glass with the UV coating on top of the negative. This glass has a very light frosted side, perhaps like the museum glass you are using.

Sandy

jim kitchen
4-Oct-2006, 16:26
Dear Sandy,

No problemo...

I purchased this glass: http://www.ilovemuseumglass.com/aboutmuseumglass.asp from a local framing shop. I also incorporate this specific glass within my framed images for the galleries, and glass reflections totally disappear. I think it this is an outstanding product, but painfully expensive. I should also indicate that I am trying a piece of acrylic, where I can not and do not have the exact part number presently, as a replacement for the museum glass. I found acrylic to be just a bit tougher than glass...

The idea came to me when I visited this site: http://www.scanhancer.com/ I desired an alternative to glass, while covering the negative for safety reasons, and resulting from the earlier mentioned banding issues I encountered. Museum Glass is fantastic, but acrylic provides a superb diffused light source for the scanned negative. I will not go back to glass. The owner of this website was very helpful, but he would not reveal the source of the material, for obvious reasons. Erik mentioned he would cut me a piece of his source material to the required dimensions, for a minimal price, so I could experiment with it, but we did not finish our discussion. Erik was quite considerate and very helpful...

As an experiment, I sought out a local acrylic supplier, and I tried two types of acrylic, where one is brilliantly white and manufactured for light tables, the other duller and grey. The duller grey acrylic performs the best, because it seems to allow more diffused light to reach the negative, compared to the denser white acrylic. The shadow areas in my negatives are wonderfully recognized because I believe more diffused light reaches the sensors through the scanned negative. I recommend this acrylic approach to anyone. A scanned negative through a diffused light source is rather a joy to behold, and my results are too similar to Erik's web page to dismiss. I do not scan colour negatives or transparencies, so I do not know whether this material might affect the resultant image with a possible colour shift. I hope that wet mounting will improve this effort too. I will try to identify the source and part number of the acrylic to pass the information along. The acrylic is not manufactured to optical standards, but then again, I always drum scan my best negatives, so I did not consider any optical quality issues within the acrylic. Once I find the information I will post the manufacturer, and the possible part number. I plan to marry Ernst Dinkla's approach and the use of acrylic, to see whether the results are worth the effort. I think they will.

jim k

Michael Heald
6-Oct-2006, 07:08
Hello! It would appear that the best liquid is that which would have the same index of refraction as the film base, wash off the film with no residue, and have no fire hazard or physical effects on teh user. Tough order.
The liquid will decrease the light dispersion from a scratch on both the emulsion and non-emulsion side. However, the liquid won't affect any loss of silver density, should the scratch be on the emulsion side. Similarly, the liquid will decrease the light dispersion caused by irregular grain (that is, larger grain of faster films).
Air has an index of refraction of 1.0. I couldn't find the index of refraction of the film base, but I presume it is close to glycerin and fused silica, about 1.46.
Water has an index of 1.33, vewgetable oil of 1.47, and 80% sugar solution of 1.49.
From this, even plain water should yield a significant improvement if a person feels that wet mounting is advantageous. High quality cooking oil would work, except it would be difficult to clean off the film.
Probably the best liquid would be 80% sugar water - non-toxic and non-flammable, and washes off easily. I am not aware of any studies about the effects of sugar water on developed film, but my gut feeling is that it would be minimal. Best regards.

Mike

erie patsellis
14-Oct-2006, 08:15
Jim,
I use a similar approach, using a piece of translucent white styrene (relatively thin, around .030 thick). as long as I make sure that the calibration window is covered as well, the scans come out every bit as good as the ones I (used to) send out. Like you, I scan B&W, though I've tried a few color negs and had excellent results also.

If someone is interested in this approach, I have several pieces I can send out, for the cost of the postage.
erie



Dear Sandy,

No problemo...

I purchased this glass: http://www.ilovemuseumglass.com/aboutmuseumglass.asp from a local framing shop. I also incorporate this specific glass within my framed images for the galleries, and glass reflections totally disappear. I think it this is an outstanding product, but painfully expensive. I should also indicate that I am trying a piece of acrylic, where I can not and do not have the exact part number presently, as a replacement for the museum glass. I found acrylic to be just a bit tougher than glass...

The idea came to me when I visited this site: http://www.scanhancer.com/ I desired an alternative to glass, while covering the negative for safety reasons, and resulting from the earlier mentioned banding issues I encountered. Museum Glass is fantastic, but acrylic provides a superb diffused light source for the scanned negative. I will not go back to glass. The owner of this website was very helpful, but he would not reveal the source of the material, for obvious reasons. Erik mentioned he would cut me a piece of his source material to the required dimensions, for a minimal price, so I could experiment with it, but we did not finish our discussion. Erik was quite considerate and very helpful...

As an experiment, I sought out a local acrylic supplier, and I tried two types of acrylic, where one is brilliantly white and manufactured for light tables, the other duller and grey. The duller grey acrylic performs the best, because it seems to allow more diffused light to reach the negative, compared to the denser white acrylic. The shadow areas in my negatives are wonderfully recognized because I believe more diffused light reaches the sensors through the scanned negative. I recommend this acrylic approach to anyone. A scanned negative through a diffused light source is rather a joy to behold, and my results are too similar to Erik's web page to dismiss. I do not scan colour negatives or transparencies, so I do not know whether this material might affect the resultant image with a possible colour shift. I hope that wet mounting will improve this effort too. I will try to identify the source and part number of the acrylic to pass the information along. The acrylic is not manufactured to optical standards, but then again, I always drum scan my best negatives, so I did not consider any optical quality issues within the acrylic. Once I find the information I will post the manufacturer, and the possible part number. I plan to marry Ernst Dinkla's approach and the use of acrylic, to see whether the results are worth the effort. I think they will.

jim k

jim kitchen
21-Nov-2006, 23:00
Dear Group,

Just a follow-up note to those that might be interested, regarding my experimentation while using an acrylic diffuser and Sandy's recommended use of Baby Oil, during a scanning exercise on my Epson 750...

I found the source of the acrylic, and thank you Jay Wenner:

For the Grey acrylic: W2447 <==== the one I used...
For the White acrylic: W7328 <==== too dense...

The source is here: http://www.plexiglas.com/acrylicsheet/technicaldata/maintenance/white

I puchased a six inch acrylic roller, made by Testrite Instrument Company, Model 46LB Acrylic Brayer at an artist supply shop. I also purchased a sheet of Mylar, frosted one side, and cut the Mylar into 12"X12" squares. The acrylic is cut to size, where the acrylic rests on top of the scanner's glass bed, supported by Epson's plastic film guide. The acrylic butts up against the bottom edge of the scanner's glass bed, and the acrylic does not cover the calibration opening. The plastic film guide acts as a spacer between the negative and the scanner's glass bed.

My process:

1. I squared and I centered the negative onto the acrylic;

2. I taped one edge of an 8X10 negative to the acylic, with black artist tape, where a cloth material is embedded in the tape, acting as a hinge, and it is very sticky;

3. I liberally poured Baby Oil onto the acrylic, and I let the negative fall into the Baby Oil, with the emulsion side of the negative coming into contact with the Baby Oil;

4. I placed the Mylar on top of the negative to protect the negative while I used the roller to squeeze the negative into the Baby Oil;

5. I tried to remove every last trapped bubble in the Baby oil, but found it difficult;

6. I taped the remaining edges of the negative onto the acrylic;

7. I removed the Mylar and cleaned the surface of the negative with tissue;

8. I placed the acrylic onto the Epson Film Guide, with the non-emulsion side of the negative facing the scanning bed glass, effectively hanging the negative above the scanning glass;

9. I scanned the negative with the Monaco iT8 calibrated scanner, using 48bit RGB and 3000ppi, resulting in a 3.63gb scan;

10. I use this method to bring the RGB file to grey scale: http://weblog.slower.net/archives/3 where the negative is reduced to 1.2gb.

My results are quite phenomenal, considering the mess the Baby Oil makes. I will, however, return to the artist supply store to look for a better roller, to squeeze the negative against the oil and the acrylic. The manufacturer of the Brayer Roller, offers different sizes, and with different materials, such as a rubber. I will try another roller to see whether there is an improvement in removing the last remaining air bubbles, trapped in the baby oil. I did not try to scan the negative at different heights above the scanner's glass bed, because my negative is quite sharp as it is. Actually, it is very sharp. I will continue to test this method on a few more negatives that seem to be a problem lately, because for some unknown reason my latest supply TMY has a shiny appearance on the emulsion side of the negative, compared to the previous boxes of film. This seemingly shiny emulsion is the cause of the annoying newton rings, which I did not have earlier. Whether you have the patience or not, and don't mind smelling like a kid again, you should try this method to see whether it works for you...

Anyway, good bye newton rings, hello contrast, hello shadow detail, and hello sharpness...

jim k

Ted Harris
22-Nov-2006, 06:49
Sorry to come in late. A few additional points. One Kami is not the only game in town. Prazio also makes a entire range of mounting products. I use both theirs and Kami depending on the job. For most scanning jobs a very light liquid, like Prazio's spray-on 'Anti Newton Ring' fluid will do the job; btw this stuff does not evaporate quite as fast as Kami giving you a bit more leisure to get the scan setup. Emember you will need to clean the film afterwards.

Finally, Sandy is right on with blue painters tape. No reason to use anything else.

Lenny Eiger
26-Dec-2006, 19:50
Any recommendations as to where I can purchase (online) a wet mount kit for an Epson 4990?
Peter

You don't need one. All you need is some Kami fluid, some acetate overlay film and some tape. And a squeege or brayer (roller). If fact, it has been shown that the sharpness of scanning without the extra devices is far superior.

Half of the Kami fluid being sold these days is being used on flatbeds. If you like, contact me offline and I can help you acquire all this stuff...

Lenny

Andy Eads
27-Dec-2006, 11:44
The various fluids for wet mounting must not disolve or be absorbed by the emulsion or base. Further, the processing methods some older color negative and transparency materials used a stabilizer as the last wet step before drying. I would be very cautious using water or oils to mount these materials. My brother, the chemist, suggested that the commercial fluids were one of the heavier alcohols and were unlikely to cause the problems mentioned above.

Aaron van de Sande
3-Jan-2007, 19:13
You guys might want to try using PEG instead of mineral oil. You should be able to wash this off later without any soap.

Another thing to try would be washing the mineral oil off with heptane, but only if you know how to handle dangerously flammable solvents.

Doug Fisher
5-Jan-2007, 07:40
Aaron -

>>You guys might want to try using PEG instead of mineral oil.<<

Can you please give us more details on "PEG?"

Thanks,
Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Jay W
8-Jan-2007, 06:37
By PEG, I assume he means polyethylene glycol, which (as I remember) is very soluble and can be dissolved in water to a point of making almost gel-like liquids.

Jay

Ted Harris
8-Jan-2007, 07:22
Any of the 'heavier' mounting fluids are real overkill unless you need to deal with sever scratch issues. For that matter wet mounting itself is often overkill (not always but often). Nothing wrong with the 'heavier' fluids just that they mean more cleanup time and effort.

One of the things not mentioned is cleaning in advance. I use compressed air (not the little consumer cans) on all my film before scanning to make sure all (or as much as humanly possible) particulate matter is gone. I realize few are going to use an industrial compressor hookup like I do but if you are using 'canned air' make sure there is no damaging propellant.

r.e.
8-Mar-2007, 18:24
I have some glycerine at home because I play around with sextants, and glycerine makes a good artificial horizon. I was thinking of trying glycerine with an Epson v750 that I just purchased. Unlike Kami, Prazio and Lumina, it is cheap (a litre is under $10), available from any decent drugstore (no shipping, etc.) and there are absolutely no issues regarding safety. Unlike mineral oil or baby oil, it is completley soluble in water, no detergent required.

I just did a search and came across this discussion: http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Hr2z

What I found interesting about that discussion is that one participant in particular, a fellow named Julio Fernandez, had no substantive criticism of glycerine. That's interesting, because he is one of these guys who recommends products in internet fora while neglecting to mention that he has an interest in selling the product, in this case Lumina.

Anyway, has anyone tried glycerine?

Dick Hilker
9-Mar-2007, 07:33
Sandy, since I use my flatbed for other kinds of scanning, do you think the use of some kind of caulking compound under the aluminum frame (rather than glue) would be adequate to contain the oil?

Doug Fisher
9-Mar-2007, 07:53
I would be more inclined to do it at the scanner bed's edges just to make sure the oil doesn't ge any farther inside the scanner than necessary. When I took apart one of these and removed the glass (built a frame without glass to see if it would improve things - it didn't), the glass was attached by both some removable tabs and sticky foam tape all the way around the glass. The foam tape seemed like it would absorb liquids. If you do the caulking inside the scanner, it will allow your fluid to penetrate this foam and I don't think that would be good either in the short run or long run, especially if you are going to use an oil of some type.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

Doug Fisher
9-Mar-2007, 08:38
Since this thread addresses Kami, I thought I would mention a relatively cheap source for their fluid. If you order a bottle directly through Aztek, they charge $10 extra for any order under $50 and shipping itself is $20+. Other fluid suppliers have a minimum charge of $75. Thanks to John Dean in Atlanta, I learned you can economically order a single bottle of Kami fluid for $29-ish plus $5 shipped to your door from Pitman Company (which has now bought Charette) at 1.888.274.8626 (I have no affiliation with this company!). I would suggest ordering it by phone and credit card because their website messed up my order and for some reason the customer service people are not good at tracking down website-based orders.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

r.e.
9-Mar-2007, 09:40
Since it looks like no-one has tried glycerine, I'm going to try it this weekend. If anyone is interested, I'll post my impressions. If one doesn't mind rinsing negatives (e.g. one is doing a small number of scans, so the speed of using a volatile fluid that rapidly evaporates isn't necessary), glycerine may be a very attractive alternative.

Martin
14-Mar-2007, 20:15
Hello,

Where is the calibration gap on the Epson 4990? (Back near the hinge, front near the handle to open or one of the sides) In addition, how wide is the calibration gap?

What I was thinking was to use a clear acrylic sheet with Mylar hinged, then the negative sandwiched in-between with mounting fluid (baby oil). Then turning it so the Mylar is facing the flatbed glass. Is it safe to assume the baby oil is safe for B&W, transparencies, and negatives? Therefore, it would be something like this:

Clear Acrylic
Negative /w fluid on both sides
Mylar

^Shims

Scanner bed glass

Then I could use some sort of shim to bring the sandwich up to the optimal focus. How does this sound? I had read you can get somewhat better results if you had to only scan through the Mylar as opposed to the sheet of acrylic or glass.

Finally, what could I use for shims and what is the best method for finding the optimal focused height?

Here are the supplies I am looking at ordering to complete this project.

LINK (http://www.tapplastics.com/shop/product.php?pid=255&)

LINK 2 (http://www.tapplastics.com/shop/product.php?pid=334&)

Thanks for your input!

Kind Regards,
Martin

ki_
13-Jun-2012, 12:07
Sorry for reactivating this very old thread, but I like to add some information.


glycerine may be a very attractive alternative.

I've just tried out wet scanning on my Epson 2450 Photo.

First I tried it with glycerin/glycerol (different name for the same thing) and putting a piece of glas on top, glycerin on both sides. As someone told before I just could not get rid of the bubbles.

Then I bought baby oil (penaten is the equivalent of johnson over here in germany) and tried it with the same setup. Again too many bubbles.

Then I found this thread and tried it with the negative, emulsion down, fixed it on one side with a tesa tape (scotch tape)
and put the baby oil under it. Then squeezed out any bubbles. This worked fine.

I wanted to make a comparison and tried the same setup with glycerin/glycerol. It worked a bit less fine. First it just did not put enough tension to keep the whole negative down. At the corners it flew off. Not really a problem, but baby oil just worked better for me.
But the main problem was, that glycerin washes off the emulsion. I kept the negative attached for about one or two hours and noticed afterwards that the rinsing water got a little bit pink. Also when I wiped off the glycerin from the scanner the napkin got pink as well. (I used Fuji Acros 100).

From the scanning results both are fine but glycerin reduces grain better than baby oil. I did not leave the negative so long in contact with the babyoil but for security reason I would prefer the baby oil. Both substances require a cleaning of the negative after the scan. This little drop of dish cleaner doesn't make the oil so much more less convenient than the glycerin for me.

Maybe I will do some testing with pure gelatine or some gummi bears, putting them into baby oil respectively glycerine to see if it behaves different.

Here are some 50 % crops (1200 dpi):

baby oil:
75276

dry:
75277

glycerin:
75278

reduced sice:
75279

Sorry, it is not a large format picture – only 6 x 6 from my Rolleiflex. But I think it is helpful anyway.

Noah A
14-Jun-2012, 06:51
...
But the main problem was, that glycerin washes off the emulsion. I kept the negative attached for about one or two hours and noticed afterwards that the rinsing water got a little bit pink. ...

For me it simply isn't worth the risk or the time spent experimenting. I know Kami is expensive. But Aztek sells cases of four bottles for $117 which works out to less than $30 each. That's a pretty good deal. And they let you split your cases between mounting fluid, drum cleaner and film cleaner. My current bottle of Kami lasted me almost a year, and I do a fair number of scans. So the cost over time is very reasonable. I just bought a case of 2 bottles of Kami and 2 bottles of drum cleaner, I expect it to last quite a long time.

Also, in purchasing from Aztek you're supporting a company that still services drum scanners, and offers good free advice on high-end scanning. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, just a happy customer. They've literally saved me thousands of dollars. In fact their free phone support has saved me the expense of shipping them my scanner for repair several times.

How much are your negatives worth to you? Using some other kind of oil that could damage your film or cause you to need to clean it excessively just seems a bit silly when you consider the price of film, processing, etc.

Just my opinion, obviously...

polyglot
14-Jun-2012, 16:17
I wanted to make a comparison and tried the same setup with glycerin/glycerol. It worked a bit less fine. First it just did not put enough tension to keep the whole negative down. At the corners it flew off. Not really a problem, but baby oil just worked better for me.
But the main problem was, that glycerin washes off the emulsion. I kept the negative attached for about one or two hours and noticed afterwards that the rinsing water got a little bit pink. Also when I wiped off the glycerin from the scanner the napkin got pink as well. (I used Fuji Acros 100).


If your acros is pink, it is insufficiently washed - not necessarily so poorly as to affect the archival life of the film, but you haven't washed all the anti-halation dyes out yet. If your mounting fluid is extracting pink, that just means the pink dye is soluble in that particular mounting fluid, not that the mounting fluid is washing off the emulsion. After all, the wash water comes out pink by removing the dye but does not wash off the emulsion.

Which is not to say that glycerol doesn't damage your emulsion - I would be wary of anything vaguely water-soluble/compatible because it might swell or soften the emulsion, or worse, bind to it. Petroleum-based mounting fluids like Kami or fine machine oils are certainly a better option IMHO.

ki_
16-Jun-2012, 06:12
If your acros is pink, it is insufficiently washed …
Thanks for your advice, I've guessed something like this already.
I water my negatives following the so called ilford method: Water in the tank, tilting 5 times; watering and tilting 10 times; watering and tilting 20 times.
Now I've read that one should let it stand for 5 minutes before pouring out the water. I never did this, maybe that's the reason for bad watering results.

@Noah A:
Of course you are right. If you are frighten, that these liquids could harm your negatives you shouldn't look for homebrewn solutions.

polyglot
17-Jun-2012, 23:47
Thanks for your advice, I've guessed something like this already.
I water my negatives following the so called ilford method: Water in the tank, tilting 5 times; watering and tilting 10 times; watering and tilting 20 times.
Now I've read that one should let it stand for 5 minutes before pouring out the water. I never did this, maybe that's the reason for bad watering results.


I used the Ilford method for a while and have not had problems with the stability of the negs, but they're only about 3 years old. They are quite pink.

More recently, I went to using a variant of the Ilford method with 5 changes of water in a Paterson tank and progressively longer stands at each stage (up to a few minutes with a couple inversions every 30s): negs come out much clearer.

Now, I just wash in my Jobo because I process in there. 4-5 changes of water over 10 minutes give completely clear negs.