Digital BW, The Print

Hi Peter,

First off you should check out the archives in the Yahoo Group 
Coolscan8000-9000, where there has been a great deal of discussion about 
the various holders for these scanners.  Also awhile back there was an 
extended thread on the subject on the ScanHi-End group.  

I have an 8000 and the medium-format film holder and Kami from Aztek.  It 
works quite nicely.  Ernst made a few of these but my understanding is that 
he isn't offering them anymore.  You can ask him on the Coolscan group, 
where he is a regular.  

The main advantage of the Aztek holder and Kami is the ability to hold the film 
very flat.  The Nikon scanners have a very narrow depth of focus, which 
makes the regular glassless holder very difficult to use for a lot of 
transparencies and negatives.  The glass holders from Nikon give Newton 
Rings on many scans, which is avoided by using Kami (which is definitely NOT 
lighter fluid).  Some folks make other claims on image quality for this holder, 
but I haven't noticed a difference (haven't done the necessary direct 
comparisons either).  My tranparencies aren't scratched, so not an issue.  
Dust can be as much a problem as before if care isn't taken to.  Price is 
definitely not friendly.  Cheers,

Tom Andrews
http://www.wildlandart.com

> 
> Hi all.  A while back I posted a question about using a fluid-mount 
> film holder with the Nikon 8000/9000 scanner but got no replies.  
> Doesn't anyone on this forum use Kami (i.e."lighter fluid") to mount 
> their film for scanning?  I've heard that it helps a lot with dust, 
> scratches and Newton rings in comparison to the Nikon medium format 
> glass holder.  I do not experience these problems to a significant 
> degree but I was wondering if there are any other benefits to fluid 
> mounting in comparison to glass-only (e.g. sharpnes, resolution, 
> tone, etc?).  If so, are any additional benefits significant/notable 
> enough to warrant the $500 pricetag for such holder kit.  The only 
> source I know of is Aztek.  Does anyone know of any other (i.e. less 
> expensive) sources?
> Thanks, Peter.