upscan

<p>Hi Phillip:<br>

The Epson V700 is a fine scanner if your film is on the proper film plane. On the holders for the V700 it is unlikely your film will be flat or at the optimal film plane for your scanner. You will have a flat film plane if you fluid mount. You can see some sample scans at www.fluidmounting.com. The optimal film plane for the Epson V700 is about 2.1 mm to 2.5 mm. Varies according to the unit in question. With the Epson you will be able to scan to 18X18" prints. The Nikon is a fine machine and with it you can scan to prints about 30" from MF. I wonder if you will justifify the extra expenditure.</p>

Robert: Others have reported and confirmed your findings and these are explained in

http://www.wetmounting.com/Fluids.html

 

Also, using the scanner's tray lessens the benefits of fluid scanning due to the additional refraction from the chunk of thick glass which is interposed between the image and the sensors. As you are scanning lots of negatives it would be worthwhile looking for better and safer ways.

Aqueous products are not recommended for photo film cleaning because water swells and softens the gelatine, making easily susceptible to damage. Brillianize contains 83% water. Acrylic coated prints on the other hand should not be damaged by this product, with the caveat that you should assure yourself such is the case.

 

As to fluids, Dave, I think when you mentioned fluids you meant ScanScience, not Applied Science. ScanScience fluid does not damage film, prints, or acrylic drums. The file "Film Cleaning" in that web site has additional info, although acknowledging that your main concern was prints.

Hi Christofer: You need to study the issue of color gammuts, color spaces, etc., and there is no better place to do it than in the Bruce Lindbloom web site, to my mind one of the world's true experts in the field. Another excellent source is Bruce Fraser's Real World Photoshop, he has other books specifically on the subject.

 

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?LabGamutDisplayHelp.html#IntegerLab

 

In short sRGB is a narrow and quite limited color space which fits the limited gammut of ink jets but for archival purposes hardly worth bothering with. I leave to your research to investigate the rest.

BTW, the Nikon is a great machine. Enjoy.

Scott: Results of a similar undertaking as yours are shown in http://www.wetmounting.com/Scans3-BW.html

 

These scans were made by fluid scanning on the Epson 4990. Fluid scanning can be done on the V700 as well as the V750 and for that fact any flatbed scanner. Users seeking professional results use fluid scanning but opt out of the basic gadget provided with the V750.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

The surface irregularities in Anti Newton glass are what break up the interference waves. While these irregularities do work effectively against Newton Rings, they do so at a price: they degrade the image. To illustrate the point, putting AN glass in front of your camera lens would degrade the image; Why then put it in the path to the scanner's sensors? Fluid scanning also eliminates Newton rings but at no cost to the image, quite to the contrary it upgrades it. Fluid scanning (wet mounting) can be implemented with the scanner's standard carriers -requires no special carriers, and is quite a straight forward technique, that takes about 2 minutes / mount. It actually saves considerable time by eliminating altogether the need for ICE. Check on www.wetmounting.com.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Peter: Grainy images are typical of dry scans. What you are after is only obtainable with fluid scanning, -so called wet mounting. With dry scanning, the better the scanner, the sharpert and more unsightly the grain. People expect (wrongly) that a better scanner should give the creamy, smooth, ungrainy looks but that is a self contradictory expectation: A better scanner's output is truer to what it sees so if what it sees is a grainy image, it outputs a grainy image in unwelcome detail. The problem is NOT with the scanner but with the scanning technique. Dry scanning, natural as it seems, is a flawed technique abandoned long ago with drum scanners. The fact that scanner manufacturers still promote it has more to do with commercial realities, than with optics. It is easier to sell a PHD scanner (as in push here dummy) than a scanner that on the surface is perceived as a PHD scanner, as in requiring a PHD for its operation. Yet, fluid scanning is no more difficult than making a sandwich. No PHD required. For more details on the technology look at www.wetmounting.com

The various scans shown there illustrate the point.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Dust control involves several measures. Controlling humidity helps eliminate static electricity which attracts dust to materials that can store it. Storing film in plastic creates a capacitor, which attracts static. Glassine envelopes are better. Conductivity is important also, as for example, not having static prone carpeting and wearing conductive shoes -leather instead of rubber, will also help drain static from the body. Wearing static prone clothing should be avoided: use cotton instead of synthetics. An air purifier or an electrostatic filter if you have central heating will help. Air conditioners remove humidity from the air so does heating. Static Master brushes are excellent and I thoroughly recommend them. The half life of the polonium strip is about 18 months, but that does not mean the brush dies in 18 months, only that 1/2 its power is lost in 18 months. I have had SM brushes that function perfectly after 6-10 years. Finally, fluidmounting / fluid scanning tackles dust without degrading image quality, gives other benefits well beyond dust control.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Going to a drum scanner will give you the benefits of a higher resolution, but most importantly, it will yield all the benefits of a fluid scan, which are greater brilliance, color saturation and smoother gradation among others. However you can also get the same benefits on your Nikon if used as a fluid scanner. Dry scanned images can never quite attain the same looks as drum scanned images because of light scattering. You'd be amazed at how good your Nikon is if used as a fluid scanner. See www.fluidmounting.com

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Hi Steve: The MT 1000XL is intended for any use from 35 mm to large formats. Fluid scanning is used for scanning all formats. With smaller formats the ability of fluid scanning to extract the most detail makes it particularly useful and with larger formats, its ability to achieve total film flatness makes it imperative. Fluid scanning is not a new technique and is quite simple. The important thing to understand is that it is an optical technique that eliminates the light scattering which is the bane of dry scanning. A fluid mounted slide or neg has a brilliance and tonal range that sets it apart, even to the naked eye. Its ability to fill in scratches is useful with any film but particularly with vintage collections.

Julio

www.scanscience.com www.wetmounting.com

Hi Steve: The MT 1000XL is a very excellent machine. Please see the comments from one user Ed Gurie, in the 'about us ' page in www.scanscience.com who wrote: "I only want to tell all those who believe in Wet Mounting that this is the best scanning operation next to drum scanning. I have had 2 drum scanning experts look at several of these wet mounted scans. They could not believe they were not done on this scanner. Ed used the MT 1000XL. Also, the exact same project (size excepted) was accomplished with the Epson 4990, by two people, who did a set of comparisons of dry ad fluid scans. You can see their work in the page entitled 'Scan 4, B&W". The MT will enable you to give bring your treasured images with full justice into the digital world. It is a scanner built for the more the demanding requirements of commercial production houses. As you are new to scanners, it is well to understand that the specs for amateur machines do not have the same meaning as for the commercial ones. Also, there is a vast difference between what is achievable by fluid scanning. With legacy collections, the elimination of scratches and imperfections is one imperative. As you appreciate dynamic range, that is another benefit. Julio

www.scanscience.com

Hi J: Film emulsion is highly water sensitive and the slightest stress while wet can damage it. It is best to never touch the emulsion when wet specially above room temperature. In very cold water as Roger points out it is less sensitive. However for cleaning fingerprints, water is practically useless because greasy fingerprints are not water soluble. It is like trying to clean greasy hands without soap.

 

PEC2 is based on a solvent that has been banned for sale in North America at the producers level because it is an ozone depleter, however it does work very well as Francesco suggested. Scanning fluid will usually remove the fingerprints and will not damage the film. Please see the file on cleaning at www.scansciece.com.

 

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Fluid scanning is the ultimate upgrade for your 4990 or any scanner for that matter. Dedicated fluid scanning kits for 5X7 make it simple. See www.wetmounting.com to acquaint yourself with the technology. Fluid scanning is particularly beneficial to B&W.

 

Julio

www.scanscience.com

A long shot: when you have large files in big directories it can take a long time for the operating system to assimilate all the information. You have to watch the hard drive light in your computer (assuming there is one, and if it indicates activity, you just have to wait, In XP pro there is no indication that the operating system is trying to read the files when you have a large directory but the key is the hard drive light. You may have to wait a long while before the files open. PS also requires lots of RAM and you may have a RAM problem as well. Of course the files can also be corrupted and the CDs sometimes are defective. Try also to open the files in another computer.

Julio

www.wetmounting.com

Leo: Please see Ellis Vener evaluation of the Epson wet mounting adapter and of the ScanScience fluid mounting kit for the Epson V750, which he did for Professional Photo Magazine. You can see it at: http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200701_epsonperfv750m.pdf.

Fluid mounting kits are available for all the Microtek scanners as well and will also be available for the M1. Accordingly, the decision as to which scanner to buy need not hinge on fluid scanning as it is available for both.

 

Julio

 

www.fluidmounting.com

Tim: Wait for the Microtek M1?

Tim, the M1 at this moment does not exist. Preemptive marketing is a technique designed to persuade a prospective buyer like yourself not to buy a competitor's product that exists, and wait for one that doesn't. Tim, the question is like asking a bookie what horse to bet on. So, rather than technical advice, all that can be safely given at this point is marketing advice. The M1 could indeed turn out to be a good machine, but whether or not you choose to wait for it that depends on how soon you need it. The Epsons have proven themselves and Ellis had it right (IMHO)recommending the V750 because of the software.

I have quite a bew boxes of new unused wess and other mounts that I do not intend using. If you are interested, please write me at dmax@wetmounting.com

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Hi: Is this to be expected? I do not disagree with Bruce Watson but do not think the issue is one of absolutes. A car that can go at 300 mph is indeed faster than one that can go at 290 mph, but that only matters in a race. A good drum scanner will produce sharper images but my 4000FS produces very sharp images from 35 mm, good enough for excellent enlargements to 16X20. The drum scan you are comparing was fluid scanned and the scan from the FS4000 was a dry scan. You can take it as a given that in dry scans the film is never flat and that will affect focus. Also, dry scanning subjects the image to light scattering and reflections at the film grain, that do no occur with fluid scanning. That however can be remedied by fluid scanning with the FS 4000. In www.wetmounting.com you will see a sample scan on the FS 4000 dry and fluid mounted also using Vuescan. There is a difference. In comparing drum scanners with others, a valid comparison requires that both be fluid scanned. This can be done on the FS4000. I do not know that your own FS4000 is identical, and guess that a good drum scanner will still yield better results, but here at least you have an indication of what the difference is between dry and fluid scans. The 290 mph car will not win the race but will it matter? Only you can answer that.

 

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Total film flatness is a given when fluid scanning, so are adjustable

film planes to match the scanner's.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Hi: With 8X10 The resolution of the 9800 XL should be more than ample for huge blowups. This scanner is one step down from the 1000XL but still it has more than enough resolution for what you intend doing. In fact I doubt that you Will find an improvement using 8X10 if you got the 1000XL.

Julio

www.scanscience.com

Yes, as Edward I. points out, the problem is not the scanner. One file in www.scanscience.com shows a scan with, and without the identical problem with Kodachrome to the image in your post. The images in the link were scanned at 4000 ppi in a Canon FS 4000. The scanner gets the blame for its higher fidelity to the original but as others point out the problem is not the scanner. I am not sure that Nikon has explained this issue as well as it might but in reality, the fact that the Nikon 9000 can show this effect is all to its credit. Dry scanning inevitably emphasizes grain due to light scattering. Running at lower resolution as your posted images show will blur the grain.

Film flatness is essentially the result of photo film's mechanically unbalanced construction. Changing the framing of the slide may alter by a fraction of a mm the film plane but it seems to me that trying to find the answer to film flatness in the cardboard or plastic mounts is looking in the wrong direction. When stored at a humidity lower than required to release the stresses within the film, the emulsion curves inward. When the humidity is higher than needed, the emulsion curves outward. It is difficult to see what shape the film will take when in the cardboard or plastic mount, but removing the slide from the mount will quickly reveal the solution. Storing the film flat in glass will not solve the problem. Storing it flat in a porous material like blotting paper will. The file Newton Rings explains this issue in http://www.scanscience.com/TechLibrary.html

Davidde: The Nikon is a great machine. I can't imagine that it needs a replacement because of quality shortcomings and as Ikka Nissila points out, it has no competition in its class. However the machine is underused. The glass carrier may help film flatness but it "flatbeds" film scanners as it interjects additional refraction by putting glass between the film and the sensors, like flatbed scanners do. Why pay for a film scanner to use it as a flatbed? The answer is really quite simple, you can search the comments in the Nikon 9000 group from users who have upgraded their Nikon 9000 with fluid scanning. The better Nikon 9000 is already here.

WOW! Pages and pages of media available for the Pro Graph! Unheard off. Canon must be selling tons of these printers. Ellis, are you happy with yours? What do you find special in your printer that does what your previous printers did not?

Thanks for bringing this up.

Hi: Jammer:

I think your observation is wise and correct. Sensory fatigue is a well known fact. It applies to odor, sight and sound. The brain needs to take a rest as it is involved in every one of these processes. It is amazing what we see the day after.

 

As far as color, what feeling do you want the photo to communicate?

 

For me, the problem with this image goes beyond color and stems from composition: two elements fighting each other and forcing a divided attention. Waves, pretty, common and not remarkable, compete with rocks, none wins, it is a stalemate. Dividing these two elements on a 1/3, 2/3 ratio might be more effective than the 1/2, 1/2 approach here. Color though important is no substitute for good composition. The right color I'd suggest should be the last thing design element.

 

Part of the problem is the fixed position lens as in your 35. With a 4X5 you are helped to think of composition because the camera itself gives you more options. The ease of shot making with other cameras is conducive to easy shooting. The fact that you appreciate beauty is evident and with time and effort you will be happier. The biggest problem with photography as I see it is not technique, it is art. Profiles, etc are not brain surgeon stuff, what is more difficult is getting it right from the side of art. Wish you success in your path to discovery.