Wet scanning - who has done this?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm more and more intrigued by what can be achieved with wet-scanning, but I'm nervous about putting fluid both on my negatives, and also in my scanner. Furthermore, the producers of scanning kits are not the best at describing contents, technique or pricing - I've looked at Image Mechanics and ScanScience and I'm still not entirely sure what you get, nor how to do it.

 

Anyone have direct experience they can share?

 

The best information I've found is this: http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/Image%20Mechnics%20Tray%20Instructions.pdf but it appears that maybe the tray isn't produced any longer?

Edited January 21, 2013 by plasticman

[CalArts 99]

I was once a commercial drum scanner operator (on an Aztek Premier which is a modern day version of the Howtek 4000.) The fluid is highly flammable but aside from that it does not affect negatives nor positives. I've scanned for many well known artists (including William Eggleston, Richard Misrach and John Baldessari.) None of them would have allowed wet scanning if it were detrimental to their originals (which are worth quite a bit.) Kami fluid also acts as a film cleaner.

 

I can say in all sincerity that the fluid will not affect the emulsion. As far as affecting the scanner itself, in a situation where you are wet scanning on a consumer CCD film scanner, there is really no way you can get fluid into the scanner itself (unless you're all thumbs ) The fluid is used only to cover the film between the mylar and the glass of the tray. The reason for the fluid is primarily to eliminate light scattering and refraction and to obviously keep the film perfectly flat (with additional benefits of eliminating most visible scratches and emulsion defects, too.) You don't need to use much fluid at all and the mylar on top keeps it from flowing out and evaporating. There is special tape (expensive but which sticks even when wet) to tape down the mylar if necessary (and is mandatory on a cylindrical drum that spins at high speeds in a drum scanner.) The glass tray for consumer film scanners is designed not to allow fluid to leak into the scanner.

 

There is a lot of info that might help answer your concerns here: KAMI advantage, how and why it improves optical quality of film scanning

 

I've only personally used Kami products but the Lumina products are supposedly equally as good.

 

There are several videos on Aztek's website, too (Aztek Imaging: Scanners, Professional Digital Imaging Systems, Scanners and Software Solutions)

 

If you have specific questions feel free to message me and I'll try my best to answer them.

 

(and yes, the Cachet Image Mechanics tray is no longer produced, you'll have to find a used version. But the ScanScience products are current.)

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[CalArts 99]

p.s., as far as ScanScience kits are concerned, if you download their .pdf of their catalog it becomes pretty self explanatory (it's too big for me to upload here.)

 

What you need depends on the scanner you're using. But it's all the same principal. You need the plates, the masks (depending on the film size you are using) and the mylar and fluid. I think you'll understand it all when you read the .pdf file. Wet scanning isn't rocket science and once you get the hang of it, you'll have no problems. The big thing to pay close attention to is to get air bubbles out from between the mylar, glass, and film (you have to squeegee and/or rub them out.)

[russell]

I bought the ScanScience product. I found it too fiddly in practice and gave up.

 

In the end I bought the glass negative carrier for my Nikon 9000 which keeps the film flat and serves the purpose.

[plasticman]

CalArts - thanks for the great source of information!

 

I should maybe add that I was thinking about this for 120 scanning - 35mm negatives haven't really presented any significant film-flatness issues. I've bought both of the 120 glass holders that Nikon produced for the 9000, but they still sometimes cause newton rings - therefore my interest in wet-scanning. Sharpness is a secondary concern, as I'm constantly amazed by the amount of detail that even dry scanning captures.

[CalArts 99]

CalArts - thanks for the great source of information!

 

I should maybe add that I was thinking about this for 120 scanning - 35mm negatives haven't really presented any significant film-flatness issues. I've bought both of the 120 glass holders that Nikon produced for the 9000, but they still sometimes cause newton rings - therefore my interest in wet-scanning. Sharpness is a secondary concern, as I'm constantly amazed by the amount of detail that even dry scanning captures.

 

Yes, I agree that it's more an issue with 120 film especially if you go with larger frame sizes like 6x9. The film is thin and just can't sit flat.

 

And as you discovered, you'll get moire/newton's rings with glass and dry scanning. It was the same issue in the analog days. We used to use a vacuum easel to keep the paper flat (esp large sheets) and then a glass carrier for the negative. That helped keep everything parallel. But with glass we had to use either etched/patterned anti-newton glass or use powder to get rid of the newton's rings. There were also negative carriers that grabbed the film and 'stretched' it on all four sides for better flatness.

 

I personally don't find wet scanning to be fiddly but maybe that's just because I'm used to it. I do think that if you just keep at it for a while that you'll find the benefits do make up for the extra bit of time needed.

 

The ScanScience kits are a bit pricey but come with everything you need. After you figure out that wet scanning is not a big deal, you can improvise and later just get the basic supplies like the fluid (it will last a long time) and mylar. You probably won't ever need to use the tape and you can make your own masks for various sizes of film. Then all you need is a glass tray (maybe you can find the Cachet Image Mechanics tray somewhere cheap.) You could use the Coolscan FH-869G glass holder (it has anti-newton glass that you could replace with regular glass) and seal the edges so there's no chance of fluid leaking. I think once you understand wet mounting, you'll figure out what works best and improvise if needed. Again, it's not rocket science.

 

p.s., if you're using the Epson V750 with sheet film, take a look at Aztek's video on wet mounting. You can mount directly to the platen too, if you tape up all the sides so that there's no chance of fluid leaking (you'll find that you don't need a lot of fluid; a small squeeze bottle works well.)

 

 

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I thought I'd revive this thread a bit because I'm interested in wet mounting 35mm to maximise image quality.

 

I do love the results I get from the 9000 but I am curious to know how much more detail I could squeeze out when wet mounting. I would wet mount only for the proverbial "keepers".

 

Is Scan Science the only option for 35mm wet mounts? Is it at all doable to buy thin glass from somewhere and then Kami or Lumina fluid or is that risky business?

 

Cheers

Philip

[russell]

Wet mount = fiddly

 

I'm doing fine using glass on the Nikon 9000.

[philipus]

I'll be writing something about this at some point. My several tests with wet mounting on the 9000 is that it isn't fiddly in the slightest. It's actually very simple. The results are generally very good but I haven't done enough tests of different emulsions or subjects/motifs to determine if they're always better than dry scans.