Nikon Coolscan 9000 Wet/Dry Scan Comparison

I finally got around to comparing the results of wet vs. dry scans. The link shows a much-reduced jpg of a scan

of a 6x9 image captured on Fuji Astia and scanned at 4000 dpi (a boring shot from outside my front door). The

scanner was focused on the white 'For Sale' sign text on the right of the frame, and the 100% crops are from the

top part of the moped which is right of center. The wet scan clearly exhibits better flatness, but there is also

improved contrast.

 

I used Lumina fluid and supplies from Scan Science. Preparing the film takes a bit of practice, but I am getting

better at it. And, for me, it's worth an extra 2 - 3 minutes (prep time should drop as my skill level increases).<div></div>

Dry scan crop:<div></div>

Wet Scan 100% Crop:<div></div>

Robert,

Thanks for taking the time to post these samples. I have wet mounted on a 9000 also, and as your samples show the really big difference is in the detailed parts of the images. Makes shooting medium format worth the trouble!

Brian

Wet scanning improves focus by improving film flatness, improves contrast and in my experience gives you more shadow detail.

I had to prove to myself that it's worth the extra effort. I'm sold!

Same set up as you (Nikon 9000) and I'm also very pleased with the results. I began wet scanning about a year ago

and I rapidly got used to the few extra minutes in prep. My only complaints (minor) are bubbles and dust - but it is

the best alternative to Newtonian Rings -- which were ruining many scans -- in addition to the benefits already

mentioned above.

 

I am wet scanning my remaining exposed film (I've gone digital) and I use Lumina from Scan Science - they are very

helpful -- http://www.scanscience.com

 

Derek Jecxz

 

www.jecxz.com

How would I best test the effect on DMAX?

Robert

<P>

you could try the same method as me <A

HREF="http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2008/03/using-epson-flatbed-scanners-for.html" target="_blank"><b>here</b></A>

<P>

the stepwedge wasn't very expensive.

It will take me a while to get to this, but I will test it eventually.

Robert

 

I look forward to seeing your test! Thanks for publishing your findings (as I've been wondering about buying a 9000 myself).

What holder are you wet mounting in? I have the Nikon rotating glass holder, looks great but I think wet is the way to go.

 

Tell me more..

Sorry about the delayed response.

 

I use a very thin piece of glass that I bought as part of a kit from Scan Science. It fits into the standard Nikon adapter.

<p>Robert, I'm getting a 9000 and I didn't order the glass carrier. I think I'm going to get my glass set from ScanScience with the Lumina. I know nothing about this area of scanning yet. Let me ask, with the plates you get from Lumina, can you use them and scan with out using the fluid? Is one of the plates anti-Newton glass?<br>

Is that how you performed the test above??</p>

<p>All the best and happy new year!</p>

<p>I've been very happy with my scanner and now have over 1,500 scans completed.<br>

The Scan Science plates are not AN glass, so you can only use them with fluid. For non-fluid scans the Focal Point glass is very good. Robert Martin posted pics of his own custom cariier on pnet a few years ago. Looks quite nice.<br>

<br /> An alternative is to use a single sheet of Focal Point AN glass. It's cut to fit the standard MF carrier, but it's too thick for the clamps to lock securely. I'm considering grinding it out a bit to fit the glass - a project for the New Year.</p>