Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Fluid-Mount Scans-  (Read 8184 times)
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« on: July 27, 2010, 01:20:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not sure if this is the place for this subject, but I just did some setup and testing of our iQsmart scanner with the fluid-mount station.  While I was at it I did a few comparison scans between fluid and non-fluid mounting.  Here's the blog post: http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111

Here's the short story:

Non fluid mount, 100%, 2500dpi scan:



Fluid mount:




Logged

Ted Dillard
BobFisher
Guest
« Reply #1 on: July 27, 2010, 01:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Guessing you like the wet scanning?  
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #2 on: July 27, 2010, 01:52:06 PM »
ReplyReply

The non-fluid scan looks sharper to me, but will require some work. Looks like the fluid makes for some diffusion. Probably more than adequately sharp for printing, though.

I remember a client scanning some of my 4x5 sheets and returning greasy transparencies to me. No one told me, and those were one of a kind originals. Never allowed anyone to use a fluid mount scanner on my film after that without paying for the originals, in advance, in full, beforehand.

Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 27, 2010, 01:55:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Roscolo
The non-fluid scan looks sharper to me, but will require some work. Looks like the fluid makes for some diffusion. Probably more than adequately sharp for printing, though.

I remember a client scanning some of my 4x5 sheets and returning greasy transparencies to me. No one told me, and those were one of a kind originals. Never allowed anyone to use a fluid mount scanner on my film after that without paying for the originals, in advance, in full, beforehand.

From the actual files, the two scans are exactly the same sharpness.  You can't really take a good look here, but if you look closely at the black edge on the right side, it's identical.

The grease has always been a concern to me.  We're using the LUMINA fluid- much more volatile and easier to clean than the old-school mineral oil.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 03:13:32 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
BobFisher
Guest
« Reply #4 on: July 27, 2010, 02:27:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Kami is of the volatile type but evaporates completely, leaving no residue.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2843


« Reply #5 on: July 27, 2010, 02:33:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
I'm not sure if this is the place for this subject, but I just did some setup and testing of our iQsmart scanner with the fluid-mount station.  While I was at it I did a few comparison scans between fluid and non-fluid mounting.  Here's the blog post: http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111


Fluid mounting works well on flatbeds and the Nikon 8000-9000 if you use the right method and the right holders. I have advocated that method for many years. Never had a problem with spilled fluid. While it reduces dust problems it is still nice to have ICE working on scanners like that, the wet mounting still allows it.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 01:49:12 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 27, 2010, 03:14:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BobFisher
Kami is of the volatile type but evaporates completely, leaving no residue.

As far as I know, the Kami is no longer available.
Logged

Ted Dillard
William Morse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2010, 03:51:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
As far as I know, the Kami is no longer available.
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information!  Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks. And no, no one uses mineral oil any more, and haven't for many years! So no grease worries! As has been mentioned, Lumina fluid works terrifically, just the right combo of not too volatile, but easy to clean up (actually, clean-up means letting the fluid evaporate- there is no "clean-up" required).

Fluid scans are just as sharp as non-fluid scans, as Ted says. The reason the fluid works is it has the same refractive index as the film- so when it fills in the tiny cracks and scratches, it gives you the same sharpness available from the film. There is no diffusion happening.

Finally, while wet mounting with a flat-bed gets you the advantages of less retouching, it can't touch the quality of a real drum scan, with its lower noise, non-existent flare, and perfect focus every time over the entire film.

As with everything, check your options for yourself before committing to any one solution.

Bill
Logged

Wm. Morse Editions
A Fine-Art Digital Printmaking Studio
Photography, Limited Editions, Film Drum Scanning
Restored Early 20th Century Photos of China
www.MorseEditions.com
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2010, 03:54:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: William Morse
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information!  Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks.

mis-information?  Like I said, as far as I know...    

Thanks for the correction...

Just out of self-respect, too, the iQsmart is no ordinary flatbed.  Unfortunately, it's also no longer available from Kodak- officially discontinued as of the last month or so.  
Just found this link, not sure how much longer it will be up: http://graphics.kodak.com/US/en/product/im...rt3/default.htm

« Last Edit: July 27, 2010, 03:58:49 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9097



WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2010, 04:44:15 PM »
ReplyReply

While more work, fluid (oil/gel) mounting is preferable. And if you get netwon rings (try a shot of anything against a white bkgnd), its a life saver. No way to retouch out that mess. Generally the scans appear sharper too.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
BobFisher
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2010, 04:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: William Morse
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information!  Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks.

I got mine at Vistek in Toronto.  Don't know if they still stock it.
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #11 on: July 27, 2010, 11:34:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I've found the perfect solution for my scanning needs (4x5 and 2 1/4, some 35mm) has been a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 Ultra and vuescan. No flatbed, no glass, no fluid and it's razor sharp. Capable of very hi-res. Back when folks were using drum scanners I got virtually all the local film scanning biz from some commercial printers who were doing drum scans because they couldn't compete with our prices. Still get quite a bit from a few local pro fine-art film devotees, university art faculty and a couple of commercial shooters. Of course the vast majority of commercial folks are almost 100% digital now. I regularly print 40x50 inches from 4x5 scans and the prints are immaculate. Mix a little of the old with a little of the new, throw in some knowledge and experimentation, and you can get a lot for a little!
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2010, 08:27:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Roscolo
a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 Ultra and vuescan.

hoo boy!  That's an old one...  (...step aWAYYY from the SCSI sir, and keep your hands where I can see 'em!)

I ran one of them a looong time ago- I remember it as painfully slow...  as a friend of mine once said, "I'm not young enough to wait for that thing!"  Or was that the 3-pass Leaf I'm thinking of?  

I've got to say, though, I've run more than a few Imacon/Hasselblad Flexframe scanners, too- ultra high resolution, no glass, and I thought really nice scans...  until I saw what the fluid can do.  It changed my tune.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2010, 08:27:31 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2010, 12:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
hoo boy!  That's an old one...  (...step aWAYYY from the SCSI sir, and keep your hands where I can see 'em!)

I ran one of them a looong time ago- I remember it as painfully slow...  as a friend of mine once said, "I'm not young enough to wait for that thing!"  Or was that the 3-pass Leaf I'm thinking of?

I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005. Can't remember the exact date of the bankruptcy. Polaroid sent me 2 of apparently the last Ultras in exchange for finding some problems in the older Sprintscan 45 that came before the Ultra. I'm still using the first one they sent. The other is new, in the box as a backup if this one ever dies. The Ultra isn't too slow. At max resolution, a 4x5 takes about 4-5 minutes. 2 1/4" film is of course faster. I have 2 holders, and by the time I have the next neg or trans cut and mounted in the holder, the other one is usually on the way out of the scanner. I have to live with about a 1/4" crop on the long edge of the 4x5. There is a glass holder that fixes that problem, but I have never located one (haven't tried that hard either). Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.
Logged
William Morse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2010, 12:40:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Roscolo
I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005. Can't remember the exact date of the bankruptcy. Polaroid sent me 2 of apparently the last Ultras in exchange for finding some problems in the older Sprintscan 45 that came before the Ultra. I'm still using the first one they sent. The other is new, in the box as a backup if this one ever dies. The Ultra isn't too slow. At max resolution, a 4x5 takes about 4-5 minutes. 2 1/4" film is of course faster. I have 2 holders, and by the time I have the next neg or trans cut and mounted in the holder, the other one is usually on the way out of the scanner. I have to live with about a 1/4" crop on the long edge of the 4x5. There is a glass holder that fixes that problem, but I have never located one (haven't tried that hard either). Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.

I could be wrong, but I think either Aztek or someone else makes a wet mount holder for the Ultra. If not Aztek, check with the maker of Lumina fluid (http://scanscience.com/).

I started scanning 4x5's with a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 back in '97.  Boy they were great back then! Boy the drum sure beats 'em hands down!  ;^)  Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up.  I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.

Bill
Logged

Wm. Morse Editions
A Fine-Art Digital Printmaking Studio
Photography, Limited Editions, Film Drum Scanning
Restored Early 20th Century Photos of China
www.MorseEditions.com
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2010, 12:48:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Roscolo
I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005.
...
Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.

I have the date of the Ultra45 discontinued as of June '03, so your memory is serving you well...  I think the last one I used was around "00- sounds like they made 'em go faster.

I'm curious, what system are you using to run that?  Is it an old OS9, or do you have some combo of OSX and/or a SCSI/FW adapter?  I know the old Betterlights, Imacons and some other scanning systems got pretty hard to keep running with Leopard.  We're still running a Betterlight on Tiger with a SCSI and it's running swell...  I tried to get an Imacon Photo to play nice with a Ratoc SCSI/FW converter and Leopard- kitty wouldn't play nice.  
Logged

Ted Dillard
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 28, 2010, 12:52:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: William Morse
Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up.  I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.



I had the same thought as soon as I saw the "glass holder" comment.
Logged

Ted Dillard
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2010, 04:30:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: teddillard
I have the date of the Ultra45 discontinued as of June '03, so your memory is serving you well...  I think the last one I used was around "00- sounds like they made 'em go faster.

I'm curious, what system are you using to run that?

Runs great on XP Pro. Adaptec SCSI card. There's one Adaptec SCSI card that works particularly well with this scanner and it's the one I have. Just can't remember the model right now. Probably harder to find now.

I've read elsewhere about someone wet mounting with an Ultra, but when I can print 4x5's to 40x50 inches and see film grain, I don't know. It might be an interesting comparison, but for practical purposes, certainly for my purposes printing photographs on the z3100, the Ultra is still a perfect for me as is. If it ain't broke, etc. Would like to find one of those Polaroid 4x5 glass holders, though, so I don't have to stitch if I absolutely have to have that 1/8" on the long edge of a 4x5.

Can still pick up an ultra from time to time on ebay or somewhere. Can usually get them cheap because people think it's "broke" but they usually just don't know what they're doing and aren't willing to learn.
Logged
Roscolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 621


« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2010, 04:45:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: William Morse
I could be wrong, but I think either Aztek or someone else makes a wet mount holder for the Ultra. If not Aztek, check with the maker of Lumina fluid (http://scanscience.com/).

Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up.  I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.

Bill

Looked at the scanscience site. Interesting, but looks like they only support the Sprintscan 120 medium format scanner. I don't see any 4x5 Polaroid reference or accessories. Nor at Aztek.

The purpose of the Polaroid 4x5 glass film holder is if you are using film that is not adequately flat when mounted in the traditional holder, or if you need full frame on a 4x5. The regular non-glass Polaroid holder crops about an 1/8" off the long side, usually not a big deal, but a problem one will have using that default holder in any scenario. I've never had a problem with film flatness. Occasionally would benefit from full frame 4x5 capability. Should have picked one up on Ebay when I had the chance.


Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2010, 05:46:22 PM »
ReplyReply

How does fluid scanning resolve film flatness issues?  
Does it just force the film to be flat?  Or is there some optical effect happening?

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad