Holy Crap, Wet Scanning!

[SaveKodak]

I've been scanning with the Pacific Image PF120 Pro, which is a pretty under-rated unit IMO. My biggest critique would be the holders, which, like all stock holders...suck. So I started tinkering with the holder to see if it could hold a piece of glass in place, and it could. Then I started re-reading the benefits of wet scanning, and came upon the fact that Scan Science will make you a custom glass plate so you can wet scan in a dedicated film scanner. After a round of un-flat Ektar 6x7 negatives started driving me nuts, I bit the bullet.

Holy crap. The results I'm seeing are pretty night and day different if you know what to look for. First, my negs are perfectly flat. This is a big deal. I am definitely seeing more detail and possibly greater contrast which helps bring those details out. Second, lower noise, especially with color negative. My chrome scans are out of this world, I am eking out every bit of information that my scanner can produce. I would be quite comfortable printing them at 23x23 @ 300dpi. At 240dpi, you're closer to 30x30, and that's a pretty dang big enlargement for a 6x6 negative IMO. 6x6 is about 50mp, and 6x7 is about 60. Not really feeling the GAS for that GFX anymore...

But in the immortal words of Lavar Burton...don't take my word for it!


Provia 100F by Mark Sperry, on Flickr


Provia 100F by Mark Sperry, on Flickr


Provia 100F by Mark Sperry, on Flickr


Ektachrome E100G by Mark Sperry, on Flickr


Ektachrome E100G by Mark Sperry, on Flickr
100% Crop.

Now, all of this was shot with expired film...so these are not even the best they can be. You can definitely tell the Ektachrome in particular was expired, and combined with my Rollei 2.8E produced some pretty low contrast... but still... not bad for a 60 year old Planar wide open.

I developed these in my kitchen with a Jobo!

I'm having a tough time wet scanning the 35mm due to the curl, but hopefully I'll figure it out soon.

 

[oldwino]

Nice!

Which liquid are you using?

 

[dmr]

Can anyone point me to a basic introduction on wet scanning?

(Not that I really want to try it ...) 🙂

 

[SaveKodak]

I'm using Lumina fluid and parts from Scan Science.

To DMR, there is a ton of info on the web right now. I ignored it for years which is really stupid. It's the way to go.

 

[Mackinaw]

I’m thinking about wet scanning my 4X5 negs. Does the scanning fluid have any impact on the negatives? Any kind of residue that remains on the negs?

Jim B.

 

[SaveKodak]

I’m thinking about wet scanning my 4X5 negs. Does the scanning fluid have any impact on the negatives? Any kind of residue that remains on the negs?

Jim B.

The short answer is that it's not bad for your film. The Lumina fluid has been leaving some residue but it cleans right off with film cleaning solution or pads. All drum scanners require wet scans so people have been scanning this way for a long time. Now I honestly can say I'm not sure why it isn't just the default method. It makes me glad I didn't sell my V700, because wet mounting with that is even easier and that thing sings with larger formats.

 

[gnuyork]

Now I'm going to have to try it. I have the V750 and some 4x5 chromes.

 

[xvvvz]

Many of my customers have switched to fluid mounting with Gamsol which is easily obtainable in most cities around the world at art supply stores for a fraction of the cost of the stuff labeled as scanning fluid. This all came about after a group online started looking for an alternative and started checking the listings on the material data safety sheets. Gamsol and the Lumina fluid are extreeemely similar.

IF you want to pay for the stuff labeled as scanning fluid, Kami has been an industry standard. I put up a link to a supplier that was recommended to me with reasonable prices and shipping (which can be a killer due to it being a volatile fluid) on my page for how to economically assemble a fluid mounting kit (FYI, I do not have affiliation with that seller of Kami, just passing along a tip that has saved people money):

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html

Doug

 

[Huss]

Seriously dood? These are terrible. Click on the link in flicker and you can see horizontal scan lines all over the images. Especially the first one. You honestly do not see that?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146049836@N08/33677344533/

I'm getting much sharper more detailed scans in just seconds using my D750, a macro lens, a light pad and a copy stand. And no need to screw around with lousy software.
And not just that, but the camera's AF works perfectly in live view so I never have to even think about focus issues.


edit - I just checked reviews of this $1300 scanner and many people are complaining about the banding I mentioned that you can see in the images that SaveKodak posted. With the result they returned the machines as the mfg was unable to help.

 

[ray*j*gun]

Sounds good Huss.

 

[Fixcinater]

I have a beater/cheap Canoscan 9000F and made up some DIY neg holders to hold the negs flat on the glass. Using regular hardware store naphtha for fluid and taping up the seam between the glass and the body of the scanner, it has made a huge difference in noise and color fidelity from 35mm half frame to 6x9. I haven't tried it with stitched LF scans but I highly recommend trying it.

It's still a cheap/low end flat bed scanner but if you're working on a budget but want to maximize your current setup, it's well worth it.

 

[SaveKodak]

Seriously dood? These are terrible. Click on the link in flicker and you can see horizontal scan lines all over the images. Especially the first one. You honestly do not see that?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146049836@N08/33677344533/

I'm getting much sharper more detailed scans in just seconds using my D750, a macro lens, a light pad and a copy stand. And no need to screw around with lousy software.
And not just that, but the camera's AF works perfectly in live view so I never have to even think about focus issues.


edit - I just checked reviews of this $1300 scanner and many people are complaining about the banding I mentioned that you can see in the images that SaveKodak posted. With the result they returned the machines as the mfg was unable to help.

That particular frame is quite dense so yes there is some banding, but this can be eliminated through various methods. All CCD scanners occasionally have banding, even drum scanners.

I assure you, you're not getting batter scans from your D750. People who make DSLR dupes often tell themselves this but it's not true. You won't believe this because you're a world class RFF curmudgeon, but that's ok. I'm gonna keep doing what I do, and you can keep doing what you do.

 

[SaveKodak]

Many of my customers have switched to fluid mounting with Gamsol which is easily obtainable in most cities around the world at art supply stores for a fraction of the cost of the stuff labeled as scanning fluid. This all came about after a group online started looking for an alternative and started checking the listings on the material data safety sheets. Gamsol and the Lumina fluid are extreeemely similar.

IF you want to pay for the stuff labeled as scanning fluid, Kami has been an industry standard. I put up a link to a supplier that was recommended to me with reasonable prices and shipping (which can be a killer due to it being a volatile fluid) on my page for how to economically assemble a fluid mounting kit (FYI, I do not have affiliation with that seller of Kami, just passing along a tip that has saved people money):

http://www.betterscanning.com/scanning/cheapfluidmounting.html

Doug

Yes I've also heard of gamsol as an alternative. I'll try it when I run out of Lumina. Great thing is tho, the fluid lasts for a longgg time.

 

[bayernfan]

Seriously dood? These are terrible. Click on the link in flicker and you can see horizontal scan lines all over the images. Especially the first one. You honestly do not see that?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146049836@N08/33677344533/

I'm getting much sharper more detailed scans in just seconds using my D750, a macro lens, a light pad and a copy stand. And no need to screw around with lousy software.
And not just that, but the camera's AF works perfectly in live view so I never have to even think about focus issues.


edit - I just checked reviews of this $1300 scanner and many people are complaining about the banding I mentioned that you can see in the images that SaveKodak posted. With the result they returned the machines as the mfg was unable to help.

While I happen to agree that these particular scans aren't great, let's not forget that photography is far more subjective than objective. He (and many others) may think your D750 "scans" are far too clinical and look "terrible".

Let's not slam each other on a forum that is meant to be positive and constructive.

 

[SaveKodak]

I'll also point out that there is only banding in one scan, the first one. I'm not sure what's so bad about these actually.... They are very accurate representations of the film on a light table, and sometimes improvements as a couple frames are under exposed. These are great scans and I have quite a bit of experience in scanning. You may be criticizing the performance of the expired film or the lens, but not the scan.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Seriously dood? These are terrible. Click on the link in flicker and you can see horizontal scan lines all over the images. Especially the first one. You honestly do not see that?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/146049836@N08/33677344533/

I'm getting much sharper more detailed scans in just seconds using my D750, a macro lens, a light pad and a copy stand. And no need to screw around with lousy software.
And not just that, but the camera's AF works perfectly in live view so I never have to even think about focus issues.


edit - I just checked reviews of this $1300 scanner and many people are complaining about the banding I mentioned that you can see in the images that SaveKodak posted. With the result they returned the machines as the mfg was unable to help.

First is awful, yes. But rest seems to be OK here, just kind of glowing. Like gel on the lens effect.
I used to have less expensive scanner from same manufacturer. It was giving bars as well.

 

[Huss]

I'll also point out that there is only banding in one scan, the first one. I'm not sure what's so bad about these actually.... They are very accurate representations of the film on a light table, and sometimes improvements as a couple frames are under exposed. These are great scans and I have quite a bit of experience in scanning. You may be criticizing the performance of the expired film or the lens, but not the scan.

Second one has severe banding too. Easily seen on my iMac when I click on the large version of your flickr link.

It's interesting that you get so defensive when someone is in disagreement with you. You also did this on your other scanning thread. I guess you are just looking for cheerleaders when you post. I mention the banding that everyone can see, and your response is to call me a curmudgeon. Then admit there is banding.
The first two also look out of focus. Is that how the negative is, or scanner error?

Forums ideally should be places that impart useful advice and experiences. So we can learn from them. Claiming a product is good and/or denying anything wrong with it is not helpful to others who may be in the market for such a product.

Honestly I would return this scanner. It has a history of banding and unsatisfied customers. The thing cost $1300.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. If your happy with these results, more power to you.

 

[SaveKodak]

Second one has severe banding too. Easily seen on my iMac when I click on the large version of your flickr link.

It's interesting that you get so defensive when someone is in disagreement with you. You also did this on your other scanning thread. I guess you are just looking for cheerleaders when you post. I mention the banding that everyone can see, and your response is to call me a curmudgeon. Then admit there is banding.
The first two also look out of focus. Is that how the negative is, or scanner error?

Forums ideally should be places that impart useful advice and experiences. So we can learn from them. Claiming a product is good and/or denying anything wrong with it is not helpful to others who may be in the market for such a product.

Honestly I would return this scanner. It has a history of banding and unsatisfied customers. The thing cost $1300.

Anyway, I'm out of this one. If your happy with these results, more power to you.

Forums ideally are places where people like you don't post actually. I remember why I stopped posting on RFF now, this place is where joys goes to die.

 

[Kamph]

SaveKodak, you need not be so defensive. There is indeed obvious banding in the two first scans. I can't tell how much you have increased the exposure of the scan, but I'm guessing quite a lot? That would explain it. FYI you don't see this kind of banding with drumscanners, unless they are dying, because PMT's are much more sensitive than CCDs. Also, you don't need to wet mount on a drum scanner nessicarly, though it does, as you explain, improve image quality 🙂

Do you have a comparison between some wet mounted and dry mounted scans? Would be really interesting 🙂

 

[pyeh]

SaveKodak, I really feel I have to stick up for Huss, who I've found to be almost always good humoured and helpful, as well as generous in sharing information. He is the opposite of a curmudgeon.
You on the other hand, seem to have a really thin skin for someone who has dished out a fair amount of negativity and antagonism in the past, some of it pretty personal. RFF killjoy indeed.