Any tips on using scanscience with MF systems?

<p>I've spent all my spare time in the last week trying to improve my scans with the scanscience system. (I'm using Provia 645 exposures with an Epson V700). I've come to the tentative conclusion that some grain clump smoothing is possible with MF sized exposures (see below), but that it's questionable whether that is worth the time and money. (Using scanscience for LF systems is another matter, where perfect film flatness is highly sought after).<br>

So I'd like to ask other MF users of the scanscience system about their experiences. Are you getting any better results than I am? Are you getting the greater dynamic range, contrast, sharpness, and color saturation that Julio asserts is possible? <br>

I think I'm following all the instructions to a tee. But I'm open to suggestions.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

<p>Evan,<br>

I use a Nikon 9000 and switched to Scanscience fluid scanning (645) to primarily avoid the newtonian rings that I was getting with the anti-NR glass film holder. This was my primary reason.<br>

I noticed only a slight improvement in sharpness, however, scanning without ICE was a slight improvement and getting rid of the NRs was a big plus. I did show the individual at Scanscience my results and, if I recall correctly, he was shocked that I was not getting more sharpness from the fluid scans.<br>

One issue I had was dust on the film. Try to remove any dust or particles that will get into the fluid.<br>

When scanning film, I scan with fluid for the reasons stated above.<br>

Kind regards,<br>

Derek Jecxz<br>

<p>Thanks Derek.<br>

I discovered another hiccup. The flimsy paperboard film holder from scanscience had been buckling a bit, so the nominal 1.6mm height was actually closer to 3 or 4 mm's. So I put a couple of small pieces of foam on top of the holder. That forced it down on to the bed when the lid was lowered. Then I recalibrated and found out that the best height for my machine was 2.7mm's. Luckily, the betterscanning.com film holder can go down to that height. <br>

Anyways, as the figure below shows, that got rid of the chromatic aberration (I think that's what it's called) seen in the photo above. Hopefully, that wasn't just a fluke. If I could be sure to get rid of those red and blue fringes reliably, that might make the wet mount system worth it. <br>

But again, as for sharpness and color saturation, etc, I can't notice any difference. The smoothing effect also helps, but whether it would be noticeable on a print is another matter. <br>

BTW, I checked out your website. Amazing photos! Keep up the good work! "Boots" reminds me of a stretch of fence north of Sylvan Lake, Alberta, where the farmer had nailed an old baseball cap to each fence post. It must stretch for the better part of a mile.</p><div></div>