Dry scan vs. Wet scan

[emtor]

Dry scan vs. Wet scan
After buying a flatbed scanner and browsing forums I was convinced that doing dry scans was not worth the effort, since quite a few people stated that dry/wet scans were a world apart.

So i did a quick and dirty check:
Scanner: Epson v750 pro.
Software: Epsonscan.
Camera: Bronica ETRSi w/50mm lens.
Film: Fujichrome Velvia 100
Scanned directly on the scanners glass plate with a piece of glass on top to keep the film flat.
Wet scanning fluid: Lighter fluid.

Both images were given a little touch-up by using the curves-tool in photoshop, and the slight difference that one may find between the two images is mostly caused by this. Other than that I can't detect the vast improvement in image quality that many people say exist.

Here's the link:

Dead Link Removed

 

[Rudeofus]

The biggest difference between dry and wet scanning as far as I know are dust and scratches. If you can control these (you won't in the long run), there is no reason for wet scanning. Since you posted only scaled down versions of your results, the difference won't be noticeable.

 

[emtor]

Controlling dust is next to impossible, but it's good to discover that for scaled down images meant for the web it's not always neccessary to wet scan.

 

[Rudeofus]

For scaled down images like the ones you posted, there's very little you need to do in terms of scanning effort, even a cheesy no name flat bed can do that. It's the higher resolution scans where trouble starts ...

 

[toyotadesigner]

A Kinestatic Static Vac (around 500 US$) removes dust, lint, particles. What remains on the film is similar to the pepper grain of the Fuji Provia 100F material - negligible. These tiny spots can be cleaned with VueScan if your scanner features an IR channel or ICE.

 

[Rudeofus]

I have never heard of a thing called "Kinestatic Static Vac", but would like to learn more about it. Can you provide a link?

 

[toyotadesigner]

ooooops, sorry, my apologies, I meant Kinestat from Kinetronics:

http://kinetronics.com/store/staticvac1.html

 

[Marco B]

ooooops, sorry, my apologies, I meant Kinestat from Kinetronics:

http://kinetronics.com/store/staticvac1.html

Now if you could put the scanners glass through the same thing...

In my experience, static dust on the scanner glass of a flatbed (especially inside where you can't vacuum it off), is a far bigger issue than on well treated and kept negatives, where a simple good blower brush will clean up most of the dust.

That is why I love the design of the glassless Imacons... wish I had the money to buy one myself, but I guess that will remain a life long dream...

 

[glhs116]

This is another key benefit of dedicated film scanners.

You may eventually have to clean a mirror eventually but it won't make any marks on your scan even if it is bad (it will only reduce contrast and cause some flare if it is very bad). You only need to worry about cleaning the actual film.

 

[toyotadesigner]

Dedicated film scanners feature the same problem if you will use i.e. the Nikon glass holder for the LS 9000. However, cleaning the glass with a microfiber cloth keeps the glass clean. If you want to be on the safe side, you can invest into a brush (Kinetronics has them as well) to effectively remove the dust.

What remains is smaller than the visible film grain, that means it is negligible. Just my personal experience with the set up LS 9000, StaticVac, a brush to clean the glass holder and defined cleaning intervals for the mirror in the scanner (ok, I have to admit than I can perform this task with my own tools).

Flatbed scanners are different, for sure. The real problem is the bare fact that you don't have many choices left these days: either a flatbed or an Imacon or a drum scanner. This scenario is the real bottleneck for the hybrid process and might lead for many photographers to the decision to either completely return to the wet process or switch to digital.

To be honest, at this very moment I don't see that Nikon will continue the LS 9000 for the next ten years or that there will be another hi tech company jumping into the market niche for affordable hi res dedicated scanners.

 

[sanking]

ooooops, sorry, my apologies, I meant Kinestat from Kinetronics:

http://kinetronics.com/store/staticvac1.html

They may not be as effective the Kinestat but the dry sweeping refills for the Swiffer Sweeper work great for cleaning negative. You can get 16 of the pads for about $2 and there are fantastic at picking up dust and other debris from negatives.

Sandy

 

[donbga]

They may not be as effective the Kinestat but the dry sweeping refills for the Swiffer Sweeper work great for cleaning negative. You can get 16 of the pads for about $2 and there are fantastic at picking up dust and other debris from negatives.

Sandy

I've used thoe too. They work pretty good.

Don

 

[toyotadesigner]

Swiffer Sweeper

Are these the large ones for the floor sweepers? I'm not sure because in Germany and Spain the have different product names.

Would be interesting for me to clean the AN glass holder for my LS 9000 or the dashboard in my offroader (it's like a magnet for dust)

 

[sanking]

Are these the large ones for the floor sweepers? I'm not sure because in Germany and Spain the have different product names.

Would be interesting for me to clean the AN glass holder for my LS 9000 or the dashboard in my offroader (it's like a magnet for dust)

Yes, the dry wipes are made for floor sweepers. When you wipe them over a smooth surface they do a very good job of picking up dust and debris.

Sandy

 

[toyotadesigner]

Thank you very much - I'll give them a try.

 

[GRHazelton]

Swiffer sweeper

Who'd have thought! I scan in film, and am re-establishing a darkroom. I've used a polonium brush and canned air and have been trying to find some Edwal film cleaner, but the Swiffer sounds like worth trying. Kewl!!

 

[Diapositivo]

They may not be as effective the Kinestat but the dry sweeping refills for the Swiffer Sweeper work great for cleaning negative. You can get 16 of the pads for about $2 and there are fantastic at picking up dust and other debris from negatives.

Sandy

Do you really mean you can pass that cloth on the emulsion side without scratching it? How do you make sure it is perfectly dust-free before doing it? :confused:

Fabrizio

 

[donbga]

Do you really mean you can pass that cloth on the emulsion side without scratching it? How do you make sure it is perfectly dust-free before doing it? :confused:

Fabrizio

Of course. PEC pads with PEC spray are also useful. And the old Ilford anti-static clothes served me well even after they were laundered.

Don

 

[sanking]

Do you really mean you can pass that cloth on the emulsion side without scratching it? How do you make sure it is perfectly dust-free before doing it? :confused:

Fabrizio

Well, keeping a swiffer clean is not exactly rocket science. When you remove a swiffer pad from its container it should be clean. You then wipe your negative and afterwards store it in a clean place. You can re-use it a few times, and then discard. Dust and debris stick to it so even if it is a bit dirty it will still clean a negative.

Sandy King

 

[Diapositivo]

Well, keeping a swiffer clean is not exactly rocket science. When you remove a swiffer pad from its container it should be clean. You then wipe your negative and afterwards store it in a clean place. You can re-use it a few times, and then discard. Dust and debris stick to it so even if it is a bit dirty it will still clean a negative.

Sandy King

I was thinking about about a (invisible) grain of dust entrapped in the tissue during first use, and scratching the film during second use.

One might adopt strategies not to use the same zone of cloth twice, making some circles with a pen so that each zone is used only once.

But maybe the point here is that film is "spot-cleaned" with this clothes only where there is a noticeable mark. Or do you really clean emulsion for its entire length, like one would do with the support side?

(I am new to film developing, sorry if the question seems obvious)

Fabrizio

 

[lcooper]

I also have the V750 and recently purchased the Scanscience system. I wish my experience was the same as yours, but alas it is not. I notice quite a big difference between dry scans and wet scans, even at the same height. Wet scans produce much more detail and contrast. I scan 4x5 and forget what you said you use. Perhaps that makes a difference. It took about 15 mins getting the right height and the scanning fluid does not have a really strong smell and is easy to use. It probably takes me 15-20 mins to make one scan.

 

[iansand]

Little tip from my darkroom days, with 35mm and medium format. If your film has tiny scratches or dust particles you can rub your your thumb and forefinger on your face then pass over both sides of your film with a bit of pressure, (used to call it the nose grease technique) this fills in the scratches with a fine coating of oil and diffuses the light. Saves a bit of photoshop time and the need for a wet scan if speed is more important than tonal range. Also two scans with different exposures using the holder on a flatbed might be a quicker way to solve density problems, using layer modes, HDR etc.

Ian

 

[sanking]

I was thinking about about a (invisible) grain of dust entrapped in the tissue during first use, and scratching the film during second use.

One might adopt strategies not to use the same zone of cloth twice, making some circles with a pen so that each zone is used only once.

But maybe the point here is that film is "spot-cleaned" with this clothes only where there is a noticeable mark. Or do you really clean emulsion for its entire length, like one would do with the support side?

(I am new to film developing, sorry if the question seems obvious)

Fabrizio

The emulsion is pretty hard. I think it would be hard to scratch it with gentle wiping with a swiffer pad.

Sandy King