Digital BW, The Print

I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on 
this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output.  
What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information?

Thanks!

I would recommend that you go to a user group for your specific scanner - I belong 
to the Coolscan 8000-9000 yahoo group; wet mounting is talked about all the time. 
The subject comes up also on the Epson 4870/4990 group.

Wet mounting is a process used in drum scanning that has been applied to dedicated 
film scanners like the Nikon LS 8000 or flatbeds like the Epson Perfection series.

The arguments for wet mounting are that you reduce the effects of film grain while 
minimizing dust and scatches. The evidence is difficult to show online due to monitor 
resolution - it is the kind of thing you would have to see in person.

The thing that scares me is puting flammable fluids into my only scanner, without 
enough proof that wet mounting is actually superior enough to dry. There is also 
clean-up to do afterward. Anytime you soften grain, you risk some detail loss, 
depending on how it is handled and if it matters for your subject. For me detail is 
critical, so I keep the grain.

 - Troy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" <bob@m...> 
wrote:

> I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on 
> this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output.  
> What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information?
> 
> Thanks!

1) You'll find evidence in favor of wet mounting with Nikon 8000 on
the Kami website.

2) The fluids evaporate very rapidly and cleanly.

3) Wet mounting doesn't "dissolve grain," it reduces a scanner's
tendency to exaggerate grain.

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

... a wet mount-oriented site for flatbeds. Julio Fernandez is able to
answer all questions in depth. He does sell wet mounting kits but he
doesn't promote them actively on the site.

Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Troy"
<troyb@s...> wrote:
> I would recommend that you go to a user group for your specific
scanner - I belong 
> to the Coolscan 8000-9000 yahoo group; wet mounting is talked about
all the time. 
> The subject comes up also on the Epson 4870/4990 group.
> 
> Wet mounting is a process used in drum scanning that has been
applied to dedicated 
> film scanners like the Nikon LS 8000 or flatbeds like the Epson
Perfection series.
> 
> The arguments for wet mounting are that you reduce the effects of
film grain while 
> minimizing dust and scatches. The evidence is difficult to show
online due to monitor 
> resolution - it is the kind of thing you would have to see in person.
> 
> The thing that scares me is puting flammable fluids into my only
scanner, without 
> enough proof that wet mounting is actually superior enough to dry.
There is also 
> clean-up to do afterward. Anytime you soften grain, you risk some
detail loss, 
> depending on how it is handled and if it matters for your subject.
For me detail is 
> critical, so I keep the grain.
> 
>  - Troy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais"
<bob@m...> 
> wrote:
> > I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this
week on 

> > this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output.  
> > What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information?
> > 
> > Thanks!

Regarding item #2 below: a friend has been using Kami fluid for some time on 
a PowerLook 3000 and I noticed a very marked hazing of the glass in the area 
where he normally mounted his film when it was dry. I don't know why he 
didn't clean it and don't remember if he ever did give a reason as this was 
several years ago. The haziness didn't affect the ability to make wet scans, 
but was quite visible when dry.

As to evaporating very rapidly: I tried to use the system and found the 
rapid evaporation caused serious, expanding bubbles to form under the film 
or under the transparent cover sheet in an air conditioned house with 
temperatures in the 70s, but with dry conditions. I was so annoyed at the 
extreme fussiness that I never did get a single acceptable wet mount scan, 
but my friend did manage to do so. It's possible that he used a *lot* more 
of the expensive Kami fluid then I was trying to use, but I'm not sure; I 
thought that *I* was flooding the mounting area with it.

If a less sensitive and easily cleanable fluid was available I would 
consider using wet mounting because it did make for cleaner scans, but at 
the time I tried the method, it was easier for me to clean up my lightly 
dusty scans than it was to get the wet mount to work.

Frank

_________________________________________________
 Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:58:34 -0000
   From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...>
Subject: Re: Wet Mounting - What is it?



1) You'll find evidence in favor of wet mounting with Nikon 8000 on
the Kami website.

2) The fluids evaporate very rapidly and cleanly.

Frank Kolwicz wrote:

> If a less sensitive and easily cleanable fluid was available I would
> consider using wet mounting because it did make for cleaner scans, but at
> the time I tried the method, it was easier for me to clean up my lightly
> dusty scans than it was to get the wet mount to work.
>
> Frank

There is a better alternative, IMHO. You can get Prazio anti-newton oil 
from Prazio in Canada:

http://www.prazio.com/mounting.shtml

For scanner cleanup, use their drum cleaner and scanner wipes:

http://www.prazio.com/cleaning.shtml

For film cleanup, use their film cleaner and scanner wipes.

I've been using Prazio supplies for years for drum scanning. Works 
wonderfully, and it doesn't evaporate so quickly that you have trouble 
working with it.
--
Bruce Watson

Frank Kolwicz wrote:

>As to evaporating very rapidly: I tried to use the system and found the 
>rapid evaporation caused serious, expanding bubbles to form under the film 
>or under the transparent cover sheet in an air conditioned house with 
>temperatures in the 70s, but with dry conditions. I was so annoyed at the 
>extreme fussiness that I never did get a single acceptable wet mount scan, 
>but my friend did manage to do so. It's possible that he used a *lot* more 
>of the expensive Kami fluid then I was trying to use, but I'm not sure; I 
>thought that *I* was flooding the mounting area with it.
>
>  
>
An extra sheet of polyester foil - PET, 0.1 mm thick and twice the size 
of the film you want to scan will increase the capillary force and 
reduce evaporation almost completely.  I can leave a sandwich like that 
for 24 hours at room temperature and there's no air creeping in while I 
use a fast evaporating fluid that I even can't recommend for safety 
reasons but suits me well in every aspect.  I can use that extra sheet 
several times. Most of the haze left on glass is of fingerprints etc 
that dissolve in the fluid, just take care that you work clean and 
little cleaning is needed afterwards.

If you want to wet mount the film without any additional transparent 
material like described it becomes a problem in most cases. The 4x5 film 
base is too stiff and 120 film isn't flat enough for the build up of 
capillary force.

Ernst

Thank you everyone who responded to my post.  As I said in my 
initial post, I know wet mounting is a bit off topic, but not 
knowing where to look, you pointed me in the right direction.  I'll 
pursue this topic further in the appropriate place.

Thanks again!

Bob Marsolais


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" 
<bob@m...> wrote:
> I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this 
week 
on 
> this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner 
output.  
> What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more
information?
> 
> Thanks!

Ernst,

I *was* using a larger transparent plastic cover sheet when I had the 
problems I described with the Kami fluid and I could sit there and watch the 
bubbles expand from around the film edges into the image area and there was 
no way I could get the scan done before they ruined it. This was with 220 
color negatives.

The cover sheet seemed to make the mounting even harder by providing that 
much more space in the second layer for bubbles to be trapped.

How do you work out the bubbles in the first place? I tried flooding the 
surface with fluid and progressively laying the film in from one end (and 
likewise with the cover sheet), squeegeeing the layered film and cover sheet 
with some kind of smooth soft plastic scraper and finally flooding the 
entire surface of both sheets with a film of fluid. I never got rid of the 
bubbles, but did get them off the image area temporarily, until they crept 
back in as the edge bubbles expanded.

I now use a ScanMultiPro and have the glass holder for flattening curled 
film: would you recommend using mounting fluid in that kind of holder?

Frank

_______________________________________________________
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 18:55:11 +0200

   From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Wet Mounting - What is it?

An extra sheet of polyester foil - PET, 0.1 mm thick and twice the size
of the film you want to scan will increase the capillary force and
reduce evaporation almost completely.  I can leave a sandwich like that
for 24 hours at room temperature and there's no air creeping in while I
use a fast evaporating fluid that I even can't recommend for safety
reasons but suits me well in every aspect.  I can use that extra sheet
several times. Most of the haze left on glass is of fingerprints etc
that dissolve in the fluid, just take care that you work clean and
little cleaning is needed afterwards.

If you want to wet mount the film without any additional transparent
material like described it becomes a problem in most cases. The 4x5 film
base is too stiff and 120 film isn't flat enough for the build up of
capillary force.

Ernst

Frank Kolwicz wrote:

>Ernst,
>
>I *was* using a larger transparent plastic cover sheet when I had the 
>problems I described with the Kami fluid and I could sit there and watch the 
>bubbles expand from around the film edges into the image area and there was 
>no way I could get the scan done before they ruined it. This was with 220 
>color negatives.
>
>The cover sheet seemed to make the mounting even harder by providing that 
>much more space in the second layer for bubbles to be trapped.
>
>How do you work out the bubbles in the first place? I tried flooding the 
>surface with fluid and progressively laying the film in from one end (and 
>likewise with the cover sheet), squeegeeing the layered film and cover sheet 
>with some kind of smooth soft plastic scraper and finally flooding the 
>entire surface of both sheets with a film of fluid. I never got rid of the 
>bubbles, but did get them off the image area temporarily, until they crept 
>back in as the edge bubbles expanded.
>
>I now use a ScanMultiPro and have the glass holder for flattening curled 
>film: would you recommend using mounting fluid in that kind of holder?
>
>Frank
>
Frank,

I can repeat that mounting every day and I get the same results. The 
thinner MF film + an extra sheet of 0.1 mm PET being the best example of 
the long time you can keep the sandwich closed.  Several scans of the 
same film without any air creeping in. I use a small polyethylene 
squeegee and an extra sheet of PET on top of the sandwich to avoid 
scratches on the top foil. On the Nikon 8000 wet mount carriers that I 
made I added small steel clamps to hold the foil so no tape has to be 
used. I lift that foil at the other edge, lay the film where it should 
be, drip the fluid with  a pipet in the angle near the clamps, lower the 
PET foil and the squeegee pushes the fluid between the four surfaces in 
a few strokes. If it doesn't work in one attempt the second one will do 
the trick without failing. One has to keep the concept of capillary 
force in mind, that fluid will creep into the narrow spaces, there's no 
need to imitate the way you make normal sandwiches.

Either your PET film reacts to the fluid, is too thick or the overlap of 
the foil is too small. I'm not familiar enough with the ScanMultiPro. 
The wet mount holders I made for the Nikon are based on the MF slide 
holder and have a glass area of approx. 11 x 23 cm. Sealed with 
polyurethane resin around the edges.  That 's enough for the MF films 
scanned on that scanner. On the Epson 3200 I use a separate glass sheet  
for mounting 4x5 and the PET foil will overlap with 1.5" -2" around the 
film. I have PET on the roll so there's no need to check whether it is 
half an inch less or more.

Ernst

I find using a soft rubber roller, called a brayer at art stores 
works very well instead of using a squeege.  I put a pool of fluid 
on the glass, lay the film down gradually from one end of the film 
to the other to prevent trapping air.  Then more fluid on top of the 
film, then the plastic overlay laid down same way as the film.  Then 
I roll the "sandwich lightly using the roller checking for air 
bubbles.  Afterward, wiping excess fluid off the "sandwich with lint-
free dry wipes before scanning.  Works like a charm!

Sounds kind of complicated until you do it a few times, then it's a 
breeze, doesn't really add much time to my workflow

Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Frank Kolwicz wrote:
> 
> >Ernst,
> >
> >I *was* using a larger transparent plastic cover sheet when I had 
the 
> >problems I described with the Kami fluid and I could sit there 
and watch the 
> >bubbles expand from around the film edges into the image area and 
there was 
> >no way I could get the scan done before they ruined it. This was 
with 220 
> >color negatives.
> >
> >The cover sheet seemed to make the mounting even harder by 
providing that 
> >much more space in the second layer for bubbles to be trapped.
> >
> >How do you work out the bubbles in the first place? I tried 
flooding the 
> >surface with fluid and progressively laying the film in from one 
end (and 
> >likewise with the cover sheet), squeegeeing the layered film and 
cover sheet 
> >with some kind of smooth soft plastic scraper and finally 
flooding the 
> >entire surface of both sheets with a film of fluid. I never got 
rid of the 
> >bubbles, but did get them off the image area temporarily, until 
they crept 
> >back in as the edge bubbles expanded.
> >
> >I now use a ScanMultiPro and have the glass holder for flattening 
curled 
> >film: would you recommend using mounting fluid in that kind of 
holder?
> >
> >Frank
> >
> Frank,
> 
> I can repeat that mounting every day and I get the same results. 
The 
> thinner MF film + an extra sheet of 0.1 mm PET being the best 
example of 
> the long time you can keep the sandwich closed.  Several scans of 
the 
> same film without any air creeping in. I use a small polyethylene 
> squeegee and an extra sheet of PET on top of the sandwich to avoid 
> scratches on the top foil. On the Nikon 8000 wet mount carriers 
that I 
> made I added small steel clamps to hold the foil so no tape has to 
be 
> used. I lift that foil at the other edge, lay the film where it 
should 
> be, drip the fluid with  a pipet in the angle near the clamps, 
lower the 
> PET foil and the squeegee pushes the fluid between the four 
surfaces in 
> a few strokes. If it doesn't work in one attempt the second one 
will do 
> the trick without failing. One has to keep the concept of 
capillary 
> force in mind, that fluid will creep into the narrow spaces, 
there's no 
> need to imitate the way you make normal sandwiches.
> 
> Either your PET film reacts to the fluid, is too thick or the 
overlap of 
> the foil is too small. I'm not familiar enough with the 
ScanMultiPro. 
> The wet mount holders I made for the Nikon are based on the MF 
slide 
> holder and have a glass area of approx. 11 x 23 cm. Sealed with 
> polyurethane resin around the edges.  That 's enough for the MF 
films 
> scanned on that scanner. On the Epson 3200 I use a separate glass 
sheet  
> for mounting 4x5 and the PET foil will overlap with 1.5" -2" 
around the 
> film. I have PET on the roll so there's no need to check whether 
it is 

> half an inch less or more.
> 
> Ernst