wet/dry mounting on flatbed

[adrian tyler]

i'm about to scan a large quantity of negatives and thought i'd run a dry/wet test on the iq3 scanner.

a lot of my archive has been printed traditionally quite a few times and in those cases oilmounting is essential to avoid long and difficult, sometimes impossible, hours retouching, however in this case the negs are new and the results suprised me.

the oilmounts are very slightly sharper, but all the information is there in both scans, i don't know if the enclosed is helpful, identical scans, dry & wet, both treated and sharpened in exactly the same way.

best

[John Brady]

Hi Adrian, I have the iq2 scanner.
What method are you using to oil mount?
Are you sharpening first with oxygen and if so what are your settings?
Which film is this in your example?
I am assuming the scan on the left is dry and the right is the wet, is this correct?
I think the left image looks better, the one on the right seems to have some small white artifacts. Kind of strange if that is the wet scan.

I would be more interested in seeing a comparison of blue sky or less textured surface as a comparison, those are the areas I always struggle with and have considered wet scanning for.

Sorry so many questions but I am truly interested in wet scanning with this scanner. Ted was my go to guy when I had questions about this scanner, he is truly missed.
john
___________________
www.timeandlight.com

[adrian tyler]

hi john,

the film in 160nc in 120 rolls, the scan on the left is dry, ignore the white artifacts that's my fault not cleaning miticulosly enough for the test.

i mount by taping the neg first then taping maylar over, oil down the taped side then gently roll over with a roller to get rid of any trapped air.

i always get a "raw" 16bit scan from oxygen and do the rest in ps.

i'll post some "neutral" areas later.

[John Brady]

Thanks Adrian!

[adrian tyler]

you can appreciate here the formation of the grain, smoother when oilmounted.

[Brian K]

Adrian I'm curious as to why you tape the neg first? My experience has been if you tape the neg the mylar doesn't sit evenly over the neg and you create a higher possibility of air bubbles that way. My process, and who knows I could be doing it wrong and if so would love to be corrected ( I miss Ted), is to lay down some oil, lay the neg onto the oil, apply a little more oil on top of the neg, place the mylar over the neg, tape one side of the mylar first, then roll out the bubbles, then tape the remaining 3 sides of the mylar.

[adrian tyler]

hi brian,

i learned from a repro house, i don't know if it is the best but it works for me, and these guys have been wet mounting for decades.:

lay neg aligned, tape one edge (start of the direction you are going to use the roller), fill taped edge with oil.

lay maylar over neg, tape same edge as neg, fill taped edge with oil.

gently "roll" the maylar flat, and pass the roller over, starting from the taped (oiled) edge.

i generally don't have to tape the other edges as i can measure the oil pretty precisly using this method, however a wee bit of tape on the opposite edge from the first tape helps.
adrian

[Kirk Gittings]

That is a great method Adrian, I just tried it on my Eversmart. Works like a champ.

[Brian K]

Adrian, I'll give it a try. Thanks

[sanking]

Another method you may want to consider is to fluid mount the negative between two over-size pieces of thin mylar, and then place this on the bed. This will prevent fluid from getting on the glass. I am reluctant to mount the negative directly on the glass foir fear of later scratching it in cleaning off the fluid.

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

I can't help it, but the poor use of terminology is killing me. It's not "wet mounting" because we use anhydrous fluids -- zero water involved. It's also not really "oil mounting" because the modern mounting fluids really aren't oils (though people have in the past used mineral oil, it's really sub-optimal for scanning, not to mention really yucky). That's why we call it fluid mounting which is the accepted industry description.

Sorry. Just drives me batty. Saw a poster on Photo.net saying that one should use water to mount film for scanning. Almost gave me a heart attack. Using anything containing any amount of water to fluid mount film for scanning is an invitation to disaster. As in "remove the film from the scanner glass with a razor blade" type of disaster.

So please use the standard terms. Have pity on an old man. ;)

[sanking]

That is a great method Adrian, I just tried it on my Eversmart. Works like a champ.

Kirk,

BTW, I wanted to mention that I have started to use a slightly different work-flow in scanning B&W negatives with the EverSmart Pro. As you know, and I believe this may be the case with your JAZZ as well, the driver does not save high bit files, even though the analog to digital conversion is in 16 bit. Previously I used this work flow.

1. Scan in RGB, making as many corrections as possible in the pre-scan.
2. In Photoshop immediately convert to 16 bit RGB, and then to 16 bit Grayscale.
3. Make any remaining corrections in 16 bit.

This method minimizes loss of tones from rounding and it has worked nicely for me. I now use the followimg method, which the histogram suggests is even better.

1. Scan in RGB as before, making as many corrections as possible in the pre-scan.
2. In Photoshops conver to 16 bit RGB, but do *not* convert to Graayscale.
3. In CS3 use Adjustments > Black and White and adjust the tonal values by sliding the color bars. You can get some pretty amazing improvements working this way compared to changing the file to Grayscale.

And this method is fantastic for scanning color negatives or slides that you plan to print a B&W images. It gives you just incredible control over contrast with virtually no danger of posterization.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Sandy.

[Ben Hopson]

What fluid and tape work well for mounting? Sorry for the basic questions. I am new at using an Eversmart Supreme, just a few test scans so far, and have not yet tried out the "fluid mounting" possibilities.

Very informative thread btw.

Ben

[Brian K]

Sandy doesn't mounting the film between 2 layers of mylar create a few issues? Such as loss of sharpness because you are basically placing a piece of mylar in the optical path, and at the point of focus, between sensor and film. Also the possibility of getting newton rings because you are now placing smooth mylar against the glass surface. I have the AN glass on my IQ3 and I still see Newtons if I don't have the film in wet contact with the glass.

[sanking]

Sandy doesn't mounting the film between 2 layers of mylar create a few issues? Such as loss of sharpness because you are basically placing a piece of mylar in the optical path, and at the point of focus, between sensor and film. Also the possibility of getting newton rings because you are now placing smooth mylar against the glass surface. I have the AN glass on my IQ3 and I still see Newtons if I don't have the film in wet contact with the glass.

I am really not sure. I have made a few scans with the film fluid mounted between two sheets of mylar and did not see any newton rings. And I have never seen newton rings with the film placed emulsion side down in contact with the bed of the scanner, which has a AN coating.

As for sharpness, I have not been able to see any loss of sharpness with the sandwich.

I got this idea from someone who who sandwiches the negative between mylar for scanning on an Imacon. It seems to work fine for me, and at least prevents concern about scratching the AN coating in clean-up.

On the other hand, I honestly don't see any practical advantage in fluid mounting with the EverSmart unless you plan to make really high magnification enlargements. I think Ted Harris said as much on this forum with reference to high-end flatbed scanners like the IQSmart. Lord knows we will certainly miss Ted's guidance in these matters.

Sandy

[adrian tyler]

On the other hand, I honestly don't see any practical advantage in fluid mounting with the EverSmart unless you plan to make really high magnification enlargements. I think Ted Harris said as much on this forum with reference to high-end flatbed scanners like the IQSmart. Lord knows we will certainly miss Ted's guidance in these matters.

Sandy


that's why i wanted to post the images, ted always questioned the necessity of fluid mounting on the iq, and the tests have bourne this out. however there is a time for fluidmounting, huge enlargements, damaged or worn media, etc.

[jetcode]

Adrian,
Great information and thanks for sharing.

To be honest I see so little difference between wet and dry that I am inclined to believe wet is not worth the extra hassle. In the first series there is a slight sharpness but only one test was made. I think it would be good to test a few pieces of film. In the second series I cannot easily tell that grain has been reduced by wet process.

[Bruce Watson]

On the other hand, I honestly don't see any practical advantage in fluid mounting with the EverSmart unless you plan to make really high magnification enlargements. I think Ted Harris said as much on this forum with reference to high-end flatbed scanners like the IQSmart. Lord knows we will certainly miss Ted's guidance in these matters.

The purpose of fluid mounting is make an optically cleaner scan. Mainly, the fluid used fills in the scratches and imperfections in the glass, the emulsion, the back side of the film, etc. It also supposedly will dissolve and wash away some of the surface dirt, etc. The end result is less noise from non-image elements; in the end, a smoother looking print.

Clearly, the effect in the final print will increase with increasing magnification of the original. It's more important to fill in the little micro-scratches when the same little micro-scratches become more visible, yes?

What I find in drum scanning (not directly comparable, but it's what I have to offer) is that I can see the increase in smoothness in big smooth tones (like skies for example) all the way down to 2x enlargement. As the enlargement level goes up, the increase in smoothness goes up by a similar amount.

The question is, what is this improvement worth to you? Many people would say that they can't see the difference between a fluid mount and a non-fluid mount until 4x or more, even on a drum scanner. To me the effect is pretty striking.

All this means is that, like most everything in LF photography, it depends greatly on the photographer, the image, processing, scanning, printing, print size, print intent............ That is, it depends on what's important to you, which is why the phrase YMMV keeps coming up.

[Bruce Watson]

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

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

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

[jetcode]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Ewins]

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

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

thanks,
Paul

[sanking]

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

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

thanks,
Paul

Paul,

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

http://www.scanscience.com/

http://www.betterscanning.com/

Best,

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

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

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

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

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

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

Why guess when you can know?

[jetcode]

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




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

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

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

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

Why guess when you can know?

[Bruce Watson]

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

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

[jetcode]

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

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

[Peter De Smidt]

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