Wet Mounting on an Epson 4990

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hello all,

I'm currently researching wet mounting transparencies on my Epson 4990. A few questions:

1) Can I wet mount directly on the scanner glass? I did dry scans both in the film holder and against the scanner glass. Apart from some slight Newton's rings when directly on the glass, it did not seem to have any effect on the sharpness of the scan.

2) Any thoughts on fluids? I've been warned that the Kami fluid has toxic fumes making it hard to work with. Is the Lumina fluid avalable from Scan Science more user friendly?

3) Has anyone used the kit available from Scan Science? If so, what benefits does it have over direct mounting on the glass?

Thanks!

[Kirk Gittings]

1)yes
2)yes
3)not much if you make your own mask

[Bruce Watson]

2) Any thoughts on fluids? I've been warned that the Kami fluid has toxic fumes making it hard to work with. Is the Lumina fluid avalable from Scan Science more user friendly?

Kami fluid is Naptha based. The MSDS shows that it is not toxic. It doesn't even recommend ventilation IIRC. What I've been told by other drum scanner operators is that Kami is very volitile. Enough so that it can evaporate before you finish the mounting process -- you have to be quick to use Kami. That may be what is generating reports that its hard to work with.

Personally, I use the Prazio Anti-Newton Oil (http://prazio.com/mounting.shtml) for drum scanning. This too is Naptha based, but it evaporates considerably slower than does Kami fluid. It's easy to work with, but you will want to clean the film with a film cleaner when you are done (Kami says you don't have to clean Kami fluid off film, but there are reports that it leaves some residue so I always recommend cleaning film as part of the tearing down of any fluid mount). Clean the scanner with drum cleaner. I highly recommend the Prazio fluid mounting products.

I have no experience with Lumina products which appear to be relatively new to the market.

[Kirk Gittings]

Kami fluid may be non toxic but it gradually dissolves the fluid mount adapter that comes with the 750 pro. Some users suggest that it also will gradually dissolve the edges of the glass mount in the scanner bed also with repeated use.

[Ted Harris]

I use Prazio Anti Newton Ring spray most of the time and move up to heavier Prazio fluids when necessary to mask scratches.

[Bruce Watson]

Kami fluid may be non toxic but it gradually dissolves the fluid mount adapter that comes with the 750 pro. Some users suggest that it also will gradually dissolve the edges of the glass mount in the scanner bed also with repeated use.

It apparently works pretty well with acrylic drums used in drum scanners which is its design function. There's some controversy over whether or not it can craze drums that have not been annealed properly, but many people have used it for years and are very happy with it.

If the Kami is in fact reacting with a plastic, the reaction could indeed have toxic by-products. But I would think that Epson would know about the three different families of mounting fluids on the market and would have tested with them. And would have warned if any of them were doing this. I'm not saying that it's not happening -- just that it's strange if it is.

I know that one can etch glass with hydrofluoric acid (don't try this at home!). But Kami dissolving glass? I'm skeptical of that one.

[Frank R]

This sounds like a lot of advertising hype on the part of Lumina. Just because they make a slightly less volatile fluid does not make Kami fluid suddenly corrosive, poisionous or explosive. Kami is an industry leader with years of experience. Lumina is an upstart that is badmouthing the competition to gain market share.

If you seal the edges of the glass where it meets the scanner body with Kami tape you will do two things: it will prevent any fluid from contacting the plastic body and it will prevent any fluid from migrating under the glass and getting inside the scanner.

[Ed Richards]

> It doesn't even recommend ventilation IIRC.

I do not know what MSDS you are looking at, but the one I am familiar with shows naptha as toxic, as well as very explosive:

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Precipitation_Naptha_ASTM-9926174

Just think gasoline and you have a pretty good fix on naptha.

[walter23]

Yeah, naptha is camp stove fuel (and I've used it a bit for fire juggling, but switched to kerosene and lamp oil as they're less volatile and therefore burn longer).

It's pretty volatile stuff, and I don't doubt that it evaporates in seconds. Don't smoke around it (though with the small amounts you'd probably use for a wet mount it'd be gone in no time - damage to your scanner would be a bigger concern from a fire I'd suspect).

[Kirk Gittings]

Edges of the glass mount....I mean the plastic frame that the glass sits in. Sorry.


This sounds like a lot of advertising hype on the part of Lumina.

Epson is quite capable of mistakes like this. This problem has been noted by many people since the 750 release. Lumina just capitalized up on it. It is very old news on other forums. It is part of the reason for the development of the after market wet scan frames-using materials that will not dissolve. Scan science is just the first. Others are coming. I am beta testing one of them next week.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Brian,

I pre-scan my 8X10 negatives with the Epson 750, and I currently use the acrylic with baby oil procedure, where the negative is oiled and mounted to the acrylic, the air bubbles are removed with an artist's six-inch rubber roller with a piece of architectural drawing acetate over the negative to protect the negative while using the roller; the negative is hung upside down about one millimeter above the glass, while the correctly sized acrylic rests on the Epson film guide. I scan the black and white negatives with an IT8 calibrated scanner as RGB, and convert to grey scale later.

The negative is centered and taped to the acrylic to trap the baby oil. The negatives are cleaned with a mild dilution of "Dawn" dish soap when I am done. There is another thread about this subject where Sandy et al, discussed this procedure. It just works...

The scans are quite outstanding with this simple, but messy process.

jim k

[Jim Ewins]

I'm ready to wet mount mine in Elliot Bay. Again some kind of curuption and the scan is black on my iMac. It still works well on Windows XP. Must be the software?

[Kirk Gittings]

Jim,
I wish there were some easy way to test the archival properties of that work flow and other scanning fluids. Kami has been around forever. I have trans that were scanned with it 30 years ago which are doing fine and others that have been scanned dozens of times with it with no problems. It may be fine but baby oil and dish soap makes my skin crawl. I know Sandy swears by it, but there have also been some references by West Coast Imaging about the destructive problems of using oils as amounting fluid. I emailed them about this but didn't get an answer.

How long have you been doing this?

[jim kitchen]

Dear Kirk,

To tell you the truth, not very long, since it started as an experiment to see whether I could diffuse the light source with a piece of acrylic, and improve the image quality with the baby oil too. Surprisingly enough it does just that...

The baby oil comes off with a very dilute solution of mild dish soap, such as "Dawn." I chose this dish soap, since they use it to remove crude oil contaminants from wildlife. I know this is not very scientific, but my negatives seem to be very clean at the end of the process, and for the moment I feel comfortable about the mild detergent solution, where I use one, or two drops per litre of H2O. If there is an issue, and you have a valid point, it might surface tomorrow, or twenty years from now. I do not know the answer, and I did not consider whether the baby oil could be an archival issue where the baby oil could react with the film's emulsion, while initiating the experimental process.

I wonder if we have a resource chemist, within the group, that might be able to possibly answer this question?

jim k

[Ed Richards]

I am sure you could wash them in Photoflow, which no one worries about. If it is a black and white silver negative I do not see why the oil would matter, as long as you got it off. Are you oiling the back side, or the emulsion side? If you oil the back side and try to keep the emulsion clean, it would seem that there would be no problems. Perhaps someone could stick a negative in a jar of baby oil and give us monthly updates.:-)

[Bruce Watson]

> It doesn't even recommend ventilation IIRC.

I do not know what MSDS you are looking at, but the one I am familiar with shows naptha as toxic, as well as very explosive:

http://www.sciencelab.com/xMSDS-Precipitation_Naptha_ASTM-9926174

Just think gasoline and you have a pretty good fix on naptha.

I'm looking at the one for Kami mounting fluid. Naptha-based isn't the same as pure Naptha.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Ed,

I mount the negative, emulsion side to the acrylic, while using the baby oil...

I press and squeeze the oil out using a six-inch brayer, where I place a protective sheet of acetate on top of the negative while rolling the brayer. Baby oil migrates to the non emulsion surface of the negative through an open edge while doing this action, but I clean this excess oil off the negative with a chamois. I am impressed by the quality of the scanned negative, where it is truly difficult to describe the difference between a negative laid on top of the glass compared to using the baby oil between the negative and the acrylic. As I mentioned earlier, the negative is hung about one milimeter above the scanner's glass bed with the negative's non emulsion side facing the scanning glass, while the acrylic rests on top of the Epson film guide.

This method eliminates all my issues with rings in the scanned image. This process however introduces a few minute air bubbles that do not impede the quality of the scan, and they are easily removed in Photoshop. I have not perfected my approach while using the brayer. I tried this approach with the baby oil, the acrylic, and the Epson scanner, to see whether I could improve the quality of my pre-scans before I shipped the selected image off to be drum scanned, and I really wanted to see whether the difference would be significant enough to warrant the cost of the drum scanned negative. For the moment, I am satisfied with the quality of the scan, but the drum scanned image is sharper with greater shadow detail. Improving the sharpness of the image within Photoshop is not a problem, but dealing with the lack of shadow detail is quite challenging, if not impossible. Recalibrating my scanner and my scanning process seem to require a minor review.

As a side note, when an air bubble is reviewed within Photoshop to the surrounding balance of the properly mounted negative, one can easily recognize the difference in the presented image quality. The difference is not subtle, where the image under the air bubble is lighter in tone, not as snappy as the image with the oil, and not as smooth. This process is messy, but the process does produce a very useable scanned image with excellent image characteristics...

I decided a few months ago to continue with this process experiment because I like the difference in the scanned images, and I like the thought of possibly saving a few hundred dollars between drum scans. If I generate another scanned image with an air bubble, I will post a small image here to show you the difference that I just mentioned...

jim k

[Ted Harris]

Jim, part of the problem may be the residue that is left on the negative, especially the emulsion side. It is unlikely to be anything you will see when scanning on a consumer scanner but the amount of crud/number of tiny scratches that show up when you scan on a hig end scanner is amazing. None of this is anything you would ven have seen if you had previously enlarged the negative if you had been using a diffusion enlarger. Believe me it's there and I would worry a lot about the baby oil/dove approach. Dove especially since, while it is mild it is not pure soap but has some other stuff in it. May be fine for cleaning wildlife but wouldn't tecommend it for a negative, at lest not unless I knew to a certainty what it contained and how whether or not it wa leaving residue itself. Again, Prazio and others make cleaning fluids that work fine. Alcohol works fine. Why take chances?

[Ron Marshall]

Why can pure water not be used as a scanning fluid? Emulsion swelling? Low viscosity?

[Bruce Watson]

Jim, part of the problem may be the residue that is left on the negative, especially the emulsion side. It is unlikely to be anything you will see when scanning on a consumer scanner but the amount of crud/number of tiny scratches that show up when you scan on a hig end scanner is amazing. None of this is anything you would even have seen if you had previously enlarged the negative if you had been using a diffusion enlarger. Believe me it's there and I would worry a lot about the baby oil/dove approach. Dove especially since, while it is mild it is not pure soap but has some other stuff in it. May be fine for cleaning wildlife but wouldn't tecommend it for a negative, at lest not unless I knew to a certainty what it contained and how whether or not it wa leaving residue itself. Again, Prazio and others make cleaning fluids that work fine. Alcohol works fine. Why take chances?

Indeed. Why take chances?

For my film, and anyone else's film that I scan, I only use products designed for the duty. The major scanning fluids are all designed to improve optical clarity and to fill in the small scratches and imperfections all film has. These fluids work well with the drum and film cleaners to clean quickly and leave extremely little residue. In particular, the film cleaners do not soften and swell the emulsion and they remove with a single wipe. The importance of this can't be over emphasized. Scrubbing film on either side is a recipe for disaster in the form of scratches.

I don't know about anyone else, but my biggest cost by orders of magnitude is the time and resources required to make the photograph in the first place. Being in the right place, setup on the right part of the scene, when the light is right is often something I can't redo. Thus the result of the shoot -- my negative -- is quite valuable to me. I wouldn't dream of endangering my negatives with sub-standard materials in the scanning process. I can't imagine why anyone would.

[Bruce Watson]

Why can pure water not be used as a scanning fluid? Emulsion swelling? Low viscosity?

Primarily emulsion swelling. It would glue the film to the drum and destroy both. Or, it would glue the film to the flatbed glass and have to be razored off, destroying only the film.

[jim kitchen]

Dear Bruce and Ted,

I appreciate your feed back...

I care for my negatives and my work just as much as you do, but I currently believe Baby Oil is inert, and although the diluted dish soap could be a source of incremental contaminants that could harm or alter the negative's image quality, I really do not have enough empirical information to know that answer presently. I do clean the negatives gently and without incremental tools, other than my own finger tips in a dilute soapy bath followed by a thorough rinse of fresh H2O, then again my nails might need clipping. :)

That said, I don't believe I am taking chances, I am experimenting with this process, and it does work. If one does not explore, experiment, and periodically think outside the box, how would we learn? Hopefully, I will discover that Baby Oil is safe to use and the dish soap does not affect the process negatively, and if they are indeed a harmful combination, I hope I find out sooner instead of later. I will heed your warning and complement my efforts by investigating the use of Prazio too.

jim k

[PViapiano]

What is this acrylic that is being mentioned? Where can I see a picture of it and where do you order it?

Thanks!

[Ed Richards]

I think Prazio makes a gel, which might work very well for your purpose. As long as this is a black and white negative, I am not so worried about the baby oil, although I would probably use mineral oil instead - it does not claim to make your baby's behind soft. I would use photoflow as the detergent because we know it is clean.

I like the idea of hanging it from the acrylic. Do you use translucent plastic to better difuse the scanner light?

[jim kitchen]

The acrylic is normally referred to as plexiglass, and the acrylic I happen to use, comes from a local plastic supply business...

The material happens to be made and, or simply sold by this firm: http://www.plexiglas.com/acrylicsheet/technicaldata/maintenance/white where I purchased two separate pieces from a local plastic supply business, properly measured and cut to fit the Epson scanner's glass bed where the measurement does not impede the scanner's calibration area. I purchased a grey acrylic: W2447, and I purchased a white acrylic: W7328 to determine which one might perform best. The grey acrylic works best for the moment, since it allows more light to reach the negative, compared to total dispersion and less light reaching the negative with the denser white acrylic. I do not know how this might affect a colour negative or transparency, but if the calibration incorporates that information during the process, any effect upon a colour negative or transparency might be neutralized.

I wanted to see whether the acrylic would improve the scanner's ability by dispersing a softer diffused scanning light across the negative, where I use the oil to mount the negative with the emulsion side to the acrylic, preventing Newton rings and to keep the negative completely flat during a scan. As I mentioned earlier, the negative hangs above the scanner's glass bed, supported by the Epson Film Guide where the transparency light shines through the acrylic into the suspended negative and ultimately into the scanner's receptors. I have not expanded my investigation whether the negative is at the correct height above the scanning glass, but that will happen later this month once I find a few shims to set the various heights. The material is not optical acrylic, and although better quality acrylic happens to be available, I did not investigate that avenue. I calibrated my scanner with this acrylic material while using an IT8 transparency.

I should take a moment to thank Jay Wenner for finding the source of the acrylic information too. I hope this helps in your research.

jim k

[neil poulsen]

I've been scanning 5x7's on my Epson 4870 using two sheets of Durst 5x7 negative carrier glass, both anti-newton. This is fairly thin glass, although a little thicker than the height of the scanner's templates for film. It's also about the best optical glass one can purchase. I get just perceptibly sharper results from a 2.25x2.25 negative placed between the two 5x7 sheets of glass when compared to using the same negative mounted in the medium format template.

I've been noticing some newton rings on one scan using the glass approach. Perhaps I've got it upside down. Frankly, I'm not sure how to tell the difference. So, I'm thinking about using a fluid mount approach on a single sheet of glass.

[phil sweeney]

I use Prazio Anti Newton Ring spray most of the time and move up to heavier Prazio fluids when necessary to mask scratches.

Hi Ted,

How do you apply the heavier fluids and where do you purchase Prazio products?

[Bruce Watson]

Hi Ted,

How do you apply the heavier fluids and where do you purchase Prazio products?

See my first post in this tread -- got a link to the Prazio website.

[Joerg Krusche]

Hi,

I am using film cleaner applied to the glass plate of the flatbed scanner, then film with emulsion side down, then film cleaner again on the back of the film, all covered by a large sheet of Mylar (thin polyester sheet). Excess liquid and air bubbles moved to the side of the mylar with some repro wipes. The result is reduced and smoother grain, better color saturation, small defects/scratches on film are suppressed, and no newton rings of course. The entire process is less than a minute, at the end of the scan you just peel off the Mylar, solvent residue dries away in less than a minute and leaves a clean negative, a very simple and efficient process. This assumes that sharpness is focussed on the glass surface, btw experiments with higher boiling or higher viscosity or oily liquids were much less enjoyable. Any scan now regardless of magnification is run now liquid mounted.

Best regards

joerg

[phil sweeney]

See my first post in this tread -- got a link to the Prazio website.
Thanks I got the link and they are sending prices. Anyone know if the heavier fluid can be put in a spray bottle to apply? I am thinking the heavier fluid might be desirable also.

I'd also like to try the fluids with mylar and see if I can make a sandwich for a few negatives for contact printing that are problematic because of scratches in the base in light tone areas that are then very hard to spot on the print. As long as I can avoid getting any fluids on the paper I think it will do the trick.

[sanking]

Just to set the record straight, I use baby oil only with very long scans where the low viscosity often results in separation of the negative from the glass. For other work I use Kami fluid since clean-up is less of a problem. Separation of the negative from the glass with long scans is a problem in my work because I don't use a sheet of mylar over the negative. The mylar, IMO, causes more problems than it is worth.

Johnson Baby Oil was recommended to me by someone with years and years of experiene with drum scanning, with the full assurance that it was entirely safe for this purpose. I am not aware of tests that show that any of the other fluids used for mouting negatives are any safer than baby oil, and unless someone can point me to such tests I will assume their concern that baby oil is not safe amounts to no more than speculation. I will certainly re-consider my use of baby oil if any evidence is available that it is less safe than fluids such as Kami and Prazio because I value my negatives just as much as anyone on this forum.

As for negative clean-up, I discussed the possible negative effects of degreasers with a former film engineer from Kodak. His primary concern was that many household degreasers work at a fairly high pH, which in theory could allow swelling of the gelatin in the film emulsion. For that reason I tested the pH of several different degreasers and selected one that works at neutral pH.

Sandy King

[jhogan]

Does fluid mounting on a flatbed make a great deal of difference in the quality of the scans? Is anyone familiar with test results that can quantify (or at least illustrate) the difference between dry and wet in terms of sharpness?

Is it worth the time/mess/costs?

Thanks for replies... J

[phil sweeney]

Sandy,

Could you lets us know what you are using for cleanup? I am trying to wetmount 8 x 10s on a 1800. I liked the mineral oil best (vs the thinner antinewton fluid) but the edges started to separate from the oil so I could not get a successful complete scan. I'd like to try the baby oil. I may make a custom tray that allows me to use more fluid or oil.

[sanking]

Sandy,

Could you lets us know what you are using for cleanup? I am trying to wetmount 8 x 10s on a 1800. I liked the mineral oil best (vs the thinner antinewton fluid) but the edges started to separate from the oil so I could not get a successful complete scan. I'd like to try the baby oil. I may make a custom tray that allows me to use more fluid or oil.

Phil,

It is a dishwashing liquid called Sun Light Ultra, distributed by a company called Phoenix Brands out of Stanford, CT. If you can not find this particular brand I suspect that there are many other dishwashing liquids that will work just as well.

The solution cleans faster if you use it warm.

Sandy