Digital BW, The Print

Is anybody here doing wet-mounting of B&W negs using Epson or Nikon 
scanners? Aware of other modestly priced scanners that might benefit 
from wet-mounting? 

Some wet-mount links...

On the Aztek site there's a Nikon 8000 wet-mount Vs standard 
comparison that's especially convincing....

The Scanmax Yahoo group revolves around Epson flatbeds, especially 
4870/4990...I intend to try this soon with my old 3200, which does 
well with 6X9 B&W to 12X18.

There's also a video that demonstrates wet-mounting on a 
drum...interesting to me, even though I don't plan to sell the farm to 
buy a drum scanner :-) It shows basics of wet-mounting as might be 
applied to a flatbed.


 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/?yguid=96117688

http://www.aztek.com/Products/Aztek%20Imaging%20-%20Scanning%20Supplies
(main).htm

http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm

>
>
>On the Aztek site there's a Nikon 8000 wet-mount Vs standard
>comparison that's especially convincing....


>http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm




That's blatantly poor. I think I'm going to chose to be suspect of that 
example..I 've seen too many good scans of negatives for something that 
soft to be the standard and I can't believe something like that could have 
gotten past the film vs digital debate. I'm a real neophyte at this and can 
easily and willingly be corrected but that's just my reaction.


Peace

Roy

Yes, maintain doubt....but consider: 

1) Aztek shows images from the 8000, not the superior 9000 or 5000 
or (sharpness-wise, not Dmax-wise) the inexpensive V. 

2) they show the edge...where the dual format Nikons and Minoltas 
notoriously have trouble...the V does well flatness-wise (motorized 
film transport) but other inexpensive film scanners with 
conventional plastic negative carriers (Nikon IV, Minolta 5400II) 
have more trouble there. 

3) Nikon itself sells a glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 that 
reportedly deals with edge-softness...wildly expensive. I've seen a 
recent home-made version online somewhere, a good idea (maybe better 
than Nikon because it's anti-newton).

4) Since Aztek is the primary supplier for wet-mount materials in 
the US and many of their clients also use Nikon scanners, I think 
they'd refrain from exaggeration...they'd get strong feedback from 
more hard-nosed-scanning-experts, the people to whom they sell big 
printers and industrial scanners.

5) And of course, wet mounting certainly IS the way professional 
scanning is done, so we might expect to see significant improvement 
from it... 

Does anybody here have direct experience with wet mounting on 
flatbeds or Nikons? 

If a B&W shooter was seriously committed to maximum Dmax and 
sharpness from large or medium-format negs, using Epson 
3200/4870/4990 or dual format Nikon/Minolta, I would think they'd 
explore wet mounting...

?  any intense scanning experience here ? 

Djon



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roy 
<thinkgreen@s...> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >On the Aztek site there's a Nikon 8000 wet-mount Vs standard
> >comparison that's especially convincing....
> 
> 
> >http://www.aztek.com/Products/NIKONKAMIHOLDER.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's blatantly poor. I think I'm going to chose to be suspect of 
that 
> example..I 've seen too many good scans of negatives for something 
that 
> soft to be the standard and I can't believe something like that 
could have 
> gotten past the film vs digital debate. I'm a real neophyte at 
this and can 

> easily and willingly be corrected but that's just my reaction.
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> Yes, maintain doubt....but consider: 
> 
> 1) Aztek shows images from the 8000, not the superior 9000 or 5000 
> or (sharpness-wise, not Dmax-wise) the inexpensive V. 
> 
> 2) they show the edge...where the dual format Nikons and Minoltas 
> notoriously have trouble...the V does well flatness-wise (motorized 
> film transport) but other inexpensive film scanners with 
> conventional plastic negative carriers (Nikon IV, Minolta 5400II) 
> have more trouble there. 
> 
> 3) Nikon itself sells a glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 that 
> reportedly deals with edge-softness...wildly expensive. I've seen a 
> recent home-made version online somewhere, a good idea (maybe
better 
> than Nikon because it's anti-newton).
> 
> 4) Since Aztek is the primary supplier for wet-mount materials in 
> the US and many of their clients also use Nikon scanners, I think 
> they'd refrain from exaggeration...they'd get strong feedback from 
> more hard-nosed-scanning-experts, the people to whom they sell big 
> printers and industrial scanners.
> 
> 5) And of course, wet mounting certainly IS the way professional 
> scanning is done, so we might expect to see significant improvement 
> from it... 
> 
> Does anybody here have direct experience with wet mounting on 
> flatbeds or Nikons? 
> 
> If a B&W shooter was seriously committed to maximum Dmax and 
> sharpness from large or medium-format negs, using Epson 
> 3200/4870/4990 or dual format Nikon/Minolta, I would think they'd 
> explore wet mounting...
> 
> ?  any intense scanning experience here ? 
> 
> Djon
> 
> 
> 
>

I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found there, at
least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described, nor
are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested more
information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
slides that I scan on an Epson 3200.

> I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
> mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found there, at
> least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described, nor
> are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested more
> information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
> slides that I scan on an Epson 3200. 



I'm curious about this also. Please pass on whatever you find out.
Thanks!

-PC


Carr Imaging
patcarr@...
www.patrickcarrimaging.com

The moderator can send info about his packages...I found it very 
confusing...he's a careful writer but I think he'd like to avoid 
showing pictures of something some of us might/will put together for 
ourselves...

There are other sources for Kami-like products (B&H?)...

...maybe somebody will be kind enough to email Aztek support and 
report what they find....I think Aztek is reluctant to deal with 
small fry's small orders...

The importance of the Scanmax site is that Julio is the main online 
proponent of flatbed wet mounting. 

Djon


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Carr" 
<patcarr@s...> wrote:
> > I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
> > mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found 
there, at
> > least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described, 
nor
> > are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> > something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested 
more
> > information from the group. I am just looking for a way to 
flatten

> > slides that I scan on an Epson 3200. 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious about this also. Please pass on whatever you find out.
> Thanks!
> 
> -PC
> 
> 
> Carr Imaging
> patcarr@s...
> www.patrickcarrimaging.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
<jwcat@e...> wrote:
> There is a brochure, but product is not described, nor
> are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> something, but bells started ringing for me.

The brochure seems intentionally vague...Julio may cause more 
curiosity (and competitive research) than orders, but that's his 
call.
I've exchanged email with him and watched his posts on photo.net and 
elsewhere...I think he's a genuine expert.

 I have requested more
> information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
> slides that I scan on an Epson 3200.

IMO there's no way to flatten *mounted* slides on a flatbed other 
than with wet mounting or glass mounts...you might try GEPE or Leitz 
glass mounts, perhaps the anti-newton versions. I've not tried that 
yet but it should work fine, since glass plates work fine.

Without glass holder in an enlarger it also won't hold a slide (or 
any roll film) flat.

Film strips can be held flatter with the anti-newton glass version 
of Doug's carrier...it has hold-down bars that, although oversized, 
cross the frame lines.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
<jwcat@e...> wrote:
> 
> I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
> mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found there, at
> least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described, nor
> are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested more
> information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
> slides that I scan on an Epson 3200.

Nope not out of the loop, I've been looking too. The information is 
just not there. Even google didn't turn up much for wet mounting of 
photographic slides, or my keywords were incredibly bad. Found a lot of 
hits on wetmounted specimen slides for use with a microscope. I'm sure 
the keywords I used were bad, but how bad can it be " wet mount 
photographic slide" or "wet mount photo slide", etc. What I didn't try 
was "wetmount" as one word. The scanmax literature makes wet mounting 
sound like the second coming of slide scanning ---> reduced grain, 
improved dmax, no scratches, etc.

To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), and after 
that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film about 1mm 
off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton glass and 
some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? (anti-Newton 
side goes down toward scanner glass???)

The only thing I found while searching for answers was that removing 
the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the resulting 
scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference to wet 
mounting either.

Djon wrote:

>Yes, maintain doubt....but consider: 
>
>1) Aztek shows images from the 8000, not the superior 9000 or 5000 
>or (sharpness-wise, not Dmax-wise) the inexpensive V. 
>
>2) they show the edge...where the dual format Nikons and Minoltas 
>notoriously have trouble...the V does well flatness-wise (motorized 
>film transport) but other inexpensive film scanners with 
>conventional plastic negative carriers (Nikon IV, Minolta 5400II) 
>have more trouble there. 
>
>3) Nikon itself sells a glass carrier for the 8000 and 9000 that 
>reportedly deals with edge-softness...wildly expensive. I've seen a 
>recent home-made version online somewhere, a good idea (maybe better 
>than Nikon because it's anti-newton).
>
>4) Since Aztek is the primary supplier for wet-mount materials in 
>the US and many of their clients also use Nikon scanners, I think 
>they'd refrain from exaggeration...they'd get strong feedback from 
>more hard-nosed-scanning-experts, the people to whom they sell big 
>printers and industrial scanners.
>
>5) And of course, wet mounting certainly IS the way professional 
>scanning is done, so we might expect to see significant improvement 
>from it... 
>
>Does anybody here have direct experience with wet mounting on 
>flatbeds or Nikons? 
>
>If a B&W shooter was seriously committed to maximum Dmax and 
>sharpness from large or medium-format negs, using Epson 
>3200/4870/4990 or dual format Nikon/Minolta, I would think they'd 
>explore wet mounting...
>
>?  any intense scanning experience here ? 
>
>Djon
>
>
>  
>

Thanks Djon

Am I gathering that the Nikon IV being dedicated will hold the negative 
more securely than the 8000 but the Minolta 5400 which is dedicated has 
problems? I'm considering the Minolta5400 Mark I scanner. I'm looking at 
the mark I instead of the Mark II since I've read the softer 
fluorescents on the Mark I scan B&W better than the Mark II or Nikon's 
which use LED's. Are there any gizmo's around to make the Minolta flatter?

Is wet mounting with a flat bed scanner superior to a dedicated 35mm 
scanner?

What I'm curious about is where the weak link in the chain is when it 
comes to dynamic range and detail? Does a good printer like the 2200 
have more range than a Nikon V with 4.2 dynamic range.. or better still 
the Minolta 5400 with 4.8?

Thanks for the education


Peace

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Roy 
<thinkgreen@s...> wrote:
> 
> Am I gathering that the Nikon IV being dedicated will hold the 
negative 
> more securely than the 8000 but the Minolta 5400 which is dedicated 
has 
> problems? I'm considering the Minolta5400 Mark I scanner. I'm 
looking at 
> the mark I instead of the Mark II since I've read the softer 
> fluorescents on the Mark I scan B&W better than the Mark II or 
Nikon's 
> which use LED's. Are there any gizmo's around to make the Minolta 
flatter?
> 
> Is wet mounting with a flat bed scanner superior to a dedicated 
35mm 
> scanner?
> 
> What I'm curious about is where the weak link in the chain is when 
it 
> comes to dynamic range and detail? Does a good printer like the 
2200 
> have more range than a Nikon V with 4.2 dynamic range.. or better 
still 
> the Minolta 5400 with 4.8?
> 
> Thanks for the education
> 
> 
> Peace
> 
> Roy


What I gather is that a dedicated film scanner with a wet mounted 
film is the real choice to have. The Nikons have an optional glass 
carrier (at least for MF) that you might be able to wet mount your 
film too. Not sure if you could do the same with 35mm or not.

The printer will not have as much range as the scanner, but you want 
everything you can get for image manipulation. Some printers claim 
dmax at 2.x on glossy, and better than 1.6 on matte, so 4.x should be 
a whole world more.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
> <jwcat@e...> wrote:
> > 
> > I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
> > mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found
there, at
> > least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described,
nor
> > are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> > something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested more
> > information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
> > slides that I scan on an Epson 3200.
> 
> Nope not out of the loop, I've been looking too. The information is 
> just not there. Even google didn't turn up much for wet mounting of 
> photographic slides, or my keywords were incredibly bad. Found a
lot of 
> hits on wetmounted specimen slides for use with a microscope. I'm
sure 
> the keywords I used were bad, but how bad can it be " wet mount 
> photographic slide" or "wet mount photo slide", etc. What I didn't
try 
> was "wetmount" as one word. The scanmax literature makes wet
mounting 
> sound like the second coming of slide scanning ---> reduced grain, 
> improved dmax, no scratches, etc.

I did the same thing. I am not saying he is a quack or anything, just
that I would not send any money(if I knew how much):) without knowing
more about the product. I did learn from searching the Epson 3200
group that he has some interesting thoughts about reducing un-needed
light around the carrier to improve the S/N ratio. It makes sense to
this layman.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates"
<jwcat@e...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
> > <jwcat@e...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > I have joined the Scanmax group to get more information on wet
> > > mounting using this product. Not many hard facts to be found
> there, at
> > > least by me. There is a brochure, but product is not described,
> nor
> > > are prices given. I may be just out of the loop, and have missed
> > > something, but bells started ringing for me. I have requested more
> > > information from the group. I am just looking for a way to flatten
> > > slides that I scan on an Epson 3200.
> > 
> > Nope not out of the loop, I've been looking too. The information is 
> > just not there. Even google didn't turn up much for wet mounting of 
> > photographic slides, or my keywords were incredibly bad. Found a
> lot of 
> > hits on wetmounted specimen slides for use with a microscope. I'm
> sure 
> > the keywords I used were bad, but how bad can it be " wet mount 
> > photographic slide" or "wet mount photo slide", etc. What I didn't
> try 
> > was "wetmount" as one word. The scanmax literature makes wet
> mounting 
> > sound like the second coming of slide scanning ---> reduced grain, 
> > improved dmax, no scratches, etc.
> 
> I did the same thing. I am not saying he is a quack or anything, just
> that I would not send any money(if I knew how much):) without knowing
> more about the product. I did learn from searching the Epson 3200
> group that he has some interesting thoughts about reducing un-needed
> light around the carrier to improve the S/N ratio. It makes sense to
> this layman.


This has jogged my memory, I have been carrying around two dozen
Rollei 6X6 Slide Frames I bought in Italy in 1970 and they use "anti
Newton cover glasses". Now to figure out which side of the glass is
which, and find a way to use them in the flatbed. My recent photos do
not look as sharp when printed as the slides I took in 1970. The B&W
and C-41 strips in particular.

John

>
>What I gather is that a dedicated film scanner with a wet mounted 
>film is the real choice to have. The Nikons have an optional glass 
>carrier (at least for MF) that you might be able to wet mount your 
>film too. Not sure if you could do the same with 35mm or not.
>
>The printer will not have as much range as the scanner, but you want 
>everything you can get for image manipulation. Some printers claim 
>dmax at 2.x on glossy, and better than 1.6 on matte, so 4.x should be 
>a whole world more.
>
>  
>
Thanks for the info. Not that I'd buy one, but it seems that a decent 
flat bed may actually suffice for the most part..

Peace

Roy
.

Hi.

The scanners normal focus would be shifted down by approximately 1/3
the thickness of the scanners glass. Adding another piece of glass to
the platen would shift it up by the same token.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:

> 
> The only thing I found while searching for answers was that removing 
> the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the resulting 
> scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference to wet 
> mounting either.

I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I generally 
felt that it was worth the money.  Although you may be right that one 
might be able to put the kit together one's self.  While this may be 
tempting, I like to spend my time creating photographs rather than 
creating equipment and then modifying it until I get it figured out 
and how it should work. Julio has already done all of the trial and 
error, which is partly what you are paying for.  I don't mind people 
making a profit if I feel I benefit from their products.

The kit consist of a mask that holds the the glass with wet mounted 
film to it.  The mask comes with additional mask of varying 
thickness's so that you can determine the optimum thickness which will 
give you optimum focus with your individual scanner.

I will agree that Julio isn't a great technical writer; I found the 
manual that comes with the kit a little difficult to understand as 
well, but was able to figure things out fairly easily.

One thing I would recommend is to not order the 35mm kit. As I had a 
very difficult time getting the film to flatten out on the glass.  
What I would recommend with 35mm film is to use the 120 film holder; 
where there is more area for the clear cover sheet to hold the 35mm 
film down flat. And then use small pieces of the mask material, which 
Julio includes to mask out the area around the negitive or slide.

Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), and after 
> that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film about 
1mm 
> off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton glass 
and 
> some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? (anti-
Newton 
> side goes down toward scanner glass???)
> 
> The only thing I found while searching for answers was that removing 
> the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the 
resulting 
> scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference to wet 
> mounting either.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Rancier"
<randy_rancier2004@y...> wrote:
> I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I generally 
> felt that it was worth the money.  Although you may be right that one 
> might be able to put the kit together one's self.  While this may be 
> tempting, I like to spend my time creating photographs rather than 
> creating equipment and then modifying it until I get it figured out 
> and how it should work. Julio has already done all of the trial and 
> error, which is partly what you are paying for.  I don't mind people 
> making a profit if I feel I benefit from their products.
> 
> The kit consist of a mask that holds the the glass with wet mounted 
> film to it.  The mask comes with additional mask of varying 
> thickness's so that you can determine the optimum thickness which will 
> give you optimum focus with your individual scanner.
> 
> I will agree that Julio isn't a great technical writer; I found the 
> manual that comes with the kit a little difficult to understand as 
> well, but was able to figure things out fairly easily.
> 
> One thing I would recommend is to not order the 35mm kit. As I had a 
> very difficult time getting the film to flatten out on the glass.  
> What I would recommend with 35mm film is to use the 120 film holder; 
> where there is more area for the clear cover sheet to hold the 35mm 
> film down flat. And then use small pieces of the mask material, which 
> Julio includes to mask out the area around the negitive or slide.
> 
> Randy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
> <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), and after 
> > that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film about 
> 1mm 
> > off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton glass 
> and 
> > some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? (anti-
> Newton 
> > side goes down toward scanner glass???)
> > 
> > The only thing I found while searching for answers was that removing 
> > the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the 
> resulting 
> > scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference to wet 
> > mounting either.

Randy, where did you get enough information to order the kit? I am
interested in 35MM and your observations are of interest.

Thanks...John

Randy, I too, am interested in the kit and would appreciate hearing from you, off line your reaction to scanning either the 35 mm or med format negs. Particularly, if you are able to compare the wet scans on the Epson vs. some dry scans on either the Nikon 4000, or the Minolta Dimage 5400.
Thanks,
Alan Zimmerman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Randy Rancier 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:09 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] wet mount scanning


  I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I generally 
  felt that it was worth the money.  Although you may be right that one 
  might be able to put the kit together one's self.  While this may be 
  tempting, I like to spend my time creating photographs rather than 
  creating equipment and then modifying it until I get it figured out 
  and how it should work. Julio has already done all of the trial and 
  error, which is partly what you are paying for.  I don't mind people 
  making a profit if I feel I benefit from their products.

  The kit consist of a mask that holds the the glass with wet mounted 
  film to it.  The mask comes with additional mask of varying 
  thickness's so that you can determine the optimum thickness which will 
  give you optimum focus with your individual scanner.

  I will agree that Julio isn't a great technical writer; I found the 
  manual that comes with the kit a little difficult to understand as 
  well, but was able to figure things out fairly easily.

  One thing I would recommend is to not order the 35mm kit. As I had a 
  very difficult time getting the film to flatten out on the glass.  
  What I would recommend with 35mm film is to use the 120 film holder; 
  where there is more area for the clear cover sheet to hold the 35mm 
  film down flat. And then use small pieces of the mask material, which 
  Julio includes to mask out the area around the negitive or slide.

  Randy

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
  <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
  > To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), and after 
  > that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film about 
  1mm 
  > off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton glass 
  and 
  > some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? (anti-
  Newton 
  > side goes down toward scanner glass???)
  > 
  > The only thing I found while searching for answers was that removing 
  > the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the 
  resulting 
  > scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference to wet 
  > mounting either.




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I will get you the info tonight or tomorrow.  Initially, I contacted 
Julio through one of the groups and hooked up with him via email.  
Then he emailed me his price sheet.  I spent about $100 for the 
initial kit, including some additional items. Additional formats are 
less expensive since many of the items are duplicates.  Get the 
rubber roller instead of the squeege, more expensive and much 
better.  You may be able to obtain the rubber roller thru a local 
art supply for less than Julio charges, my wife already had one.

Cheers,
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
<jwcat@e...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy 
Rancier"
> <randy_rancier2004@y...> wrote:
> > I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I 
generally 
> > felt that it was worth the money.  Although you may be right 
that one 
> > might be able to put the kit together one's self.  While this 
may be 
> > tempting, I like to spend my time creating photographs rather 
than 
> > creating equipment and then modifying it until I get it figured 
out 
> > and how it should work. Julio has already done all of the trial 
and 
> > error, which is partly what you are paying for.  I don't mind 
people 
> > making a profit if I feel I benefit from their products.
> > 
> > The kit consist of a mask that holds the the glass with wet 
mounted 
> > film to it.  The mask comes with additional mask of varying 
> > thickness's so that you can determine the optimum thickness 
which will 
> > give you optimum focus with your individual scanner.
> > 
> > I will agree that Julio isn't a great technical writer; I found 
the 
> > manual that comes with the kit a little difficult to understand 
as 
> > well, but was able to figure things out fairly easily.
> > 
> > One thing I would recommend is to not order the 35mm kit. As I 
had a 
> > very difficult time getting the film to flatten out on the 
glass.  
> > What I would recommend with 35mm film is to use the 120 film 
holder; 
> > where there is more area for the clear cover sheet to hold the 
35mm 
> > film down flat. And then use small pieces of the mask material, 
which 
> > Julio includes to mask out the area around the negitive or slide.
> > 
> > Randy
> > 
> > --- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
> > <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > > To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), and 
after 
> > > that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film 
about 
> > 1mm 
> > > off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton 
glass 
> > and 
> > > some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? (anti-
> > Newton 
> > > side goes down toward scanner glass???)
> > > 
> > > The only thing I found while searching for answers was that 
removing 
> > > the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the 
> > resulting 
> > > scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in reference 
to wet 

> > > mounting either.
> 
> Randy, where did you get enough information to order the kit? I am
> interested in 35MM and your observations are of interest.
> 
> Thanks...John

Randy, Alan, this should probably stay online right here because so
many B&W printers use B&W film, after all!

As well, it'd be good to compare results with current (not just
discontinued) Nikon and Minolta scanners, ie the 5400II, the 5000, and
the V. Maybe we can find some way to share a neg? 

I've compared plain vanilla 35mm scans with Minolta 5400II and Nikon
V..the new Minolta qualifies as junque mechanically (I returned two to
Amazon), but color scans did equal the Nikon V's. Minolta's OEM
application is evidently good with B&W (other people's work, I didn't
test significantly), Nikon's is NFG for B&W. Vuescan does great B&W
with  Nikon, may not recognize the new Minolta fwiw.

The only test I've seen that measured true 5400II resolution Vs Nikon
V was summarized/transliterated on Photo.net from a Japanese site (the
linked Japanese site's #s and chart were clear enough for an English
reader)...the Nikon and the Minolta both resolved approx 4000ppi,
irrespective Minolta's larger file size. My own prints visually
confirm this from the same negs. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Zimmerman"
<azimmerman1@c...> compare the wet scans on the Epson vs. some dry
scans on either the Nikon 4000, or the Minolta Dimage 5400.
> Thanks,
> Alan Zimmerman
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Randy Rancier 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 1:09 PM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] wet mount scanning
> 
> 
>   I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I
generally 
>   felt that it was worth the money.

Here's Julio's email address.  Email him and he will be glad to 
email you his price list for his wet mounting kit.

gluemax@...

Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy Rancier" 
<randy_rancier2004@y...> wrote:
> I will get you the info tonight or tomorrow.  Initially, I 
contacted 
> Julio through one of the groups and hooked up with him via email.  
> Then he emailed me his price sheet.  I spent about $100 for the 
> initial kit, including some additional items. Additional formats 
are 
> less expensive since many of the items are duplicates.  Get the 
> rubber roller instead of the squeege, more expensive and much 
> better.  You may be able to obtain the rubber roller thru a local 
> art supply for less than Julio charges, my wife already had one.
> 
> Cheers,
> Randy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jhncates" 
> <jwcat@e...> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Randy 
> Rancier"
> > <randy_rancier2004@y...> wrote:
> > > I've ordered Julio's kit. It is very well put together and I 
> generally 
> > > felt that it was worth the money.  Although you may be right 
> that one 
> > > might be able to put the kit together one's self.  While this 
> may be 
> > > tempting, I like to spend my time creating photographs rather 
> than 
> > > creating equipment and then modifying it until I get it 
figured 
> out 
> > > and how it should work. Julio has already done all of the 
trial 
> and 
> > > error, which is partly what you are paying for.  I don't mind 
> people 
> > > making a profit if I feel I benefit from their products.
> > > 
> > > The kit consist of a mask that holds the the glass with wet 
> mounted 
> > > film to it.  The mask comes with additional mask of varying 
> > > thickness's so that you can determine the optimum thickness 
> which will 
> > > give you optimum focus with your individual scanner.
> > > 
> > > I will agree that Julio isn't a great technical writer; I 
found 
> the 
> > > manual that comes with the kit a little difficult to 
understand 
> as 
> > > well, but was able to figure things out fairly easily.
> > > 
> > > One thing I would recommend is to not order the 35mm kit. As I 
> had a 
> > > very difficult time getting the film to flatten out on the 
> glass.  
> > > What I would recommend with 35mm film is to use the 120 film 
> holder; 
> > > where there is more area for the clear cover sheet to hold the 
> 35mm 
> > > film down flat. And then use small pieces of the mask 
material, 
> which 
> > > Julio includes to mask out the area around the negitive or 
slide.
> > > 
> > > Randy
> > > 
> > > --- In 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting" 
> > > <dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
> > > > To me the kit sounds like some kind of fluid (of course), 
and 
> after 
> > > > that I'm not sure. These scanners seem to want to focus film 
> about 
> > > 1mm 
> > > > off the glass, so do you just get some 1mm thick anti-Newton 
> glass 
> > > and 
> > > > some kind of fluid to stick the slide to the A.N. glass? 
(anti-
> > > Newton 
> > > > side goes down toward scanner glass???)
> > > > 
> > > > The only thing I found while searching for answers was that 
> removing 
> > > > the glass from your scanner had a very slight effect on the 
> > > resulting 
> > > > scan. Not really enough to bother, and it wasn't in 
reference 
> to wet 
> > > > mounting either.
> > 
> > Randy, where did you get enough information to order the kit? I 
am

> > interested in 35MM and your observations are of interest.
> > 
> > Thanks...John