Scan Science & 9000ED vs FH869 GR glass holder

Hi folks,

I just got done checking out the Scan Science wet mount scan kit, I got the pro version, went full tilt. I scanned 3 Kodachrome 64 and 25 transparencies from the Hasselblad XPan and two Velvia 100 from Hasselblad 6x6.

I am using Silverfast Ai Studio with the IT-8 calibration for both E-6 and Kodachrome films, it is *outstanding* software.

But, what I found with the wet mount scan kit was not so outstanding. When comparing scans made with my rotating glass holder and then with the wet mount scan kit, I see virtually no difference in the scans and I have checked everything completely.

I see no difference in sharpness, acuteness, edge definition, saturation, shadow detail or anything for that matter. I do see an ever so slight and virtually microscopic difference in grain pattern, the grain in the wet scan is a trace smoother, but nothing you would notice when viewed in a print, magazine or at anything less than 150% screen size.

I am bummed, I am not impressed...:-( and this kit was *very* expensive, over $400 and I even made a wet scan station for dust control reasons. For all the effort of wet scanning, I was expecting at least a bit more than this. I spent about 4 days on these scan tests.

Look at the sample pics, any input, ideas or suggestions? Full image on left, dry scan at center, wet scan on right, Kodachrome 25...

Another set, Kodachrome 25 again, I spent over 2 hours doing both auto focus and manual focus optimization on each scan.

Again, virtually no difference, a slight opening of shadows on the wet. If anything, the dry scan transmits more accurate color to the original while the wet adds a trace red tinge.

Full image on left, dry in center, wet on right...

Another section from the last shot, the shadows are not as open as I thought when I looked across both 115MB files side by side.

Dry on left, wet on right:

Well, I talked to Julio today for a bit, I will give this a few more chances before I decide to proceed with it in my workflow or not.

High KM_25

All wet kits do is:

1)fill in scratches with the fluid

2)mask minute particles of dust with the fluid

3) blur grain slightly (applies more to oil than say Kami which evaporates) by holding the image in a film of fluid.

Fluid mounting only works on a drum because the shape of the drum is stressing the original flat. Also the spinning rotation helps spread the fluid and flatten the original even more.

Your images won't be any sharper with a fluid mount kit.

However, I would probably look at your IT8 profile for the reasons of poor shadow detail. Try the following: in Photoshop by opening the Levels tool or a Levels adjustment layer and holding down the Option key (Mac) or Alt key (Windows) and simultaneously moving the end sliders of the Input Levels part of the tool. The shadow slider should make the whole image turn white, except for any values that are already as low or lower than the value of the current slider position. The highlight slider should make the whole image turn black, again except for any values that are already as high or higher than the value of the current slider position. The clipped areas are color coded so you can tell which channel(s) are clipping.

By doing the above, on your images I suspect that you will find you are clipping colour information straight off and there's nothing you can do. This is down the IT8 colour profile, and is the main reason (besides scanner tone response) why you coud be experiencing problems resolving shadow and highlight detail.

Scovell seemed to have hit all of the points that I am aware of with regard to wet v. dry mounting. It will be less beneficial when compared to dry glass than it will be with a non glass mount. I'm sorry that you bought the wet mounting.

scovell001 said:

However, I would probably look at your IT8 profile for the reasons of poor shadow detail. Try the following: in Photoshop by opening the Levels tool or a Levels adjustment layer and holding down the Option key (Mac) or Alt key (Windows) and simultaneously moving the end sliders of the Input Levels part of the tool. The shadow slider should make the whole image turn white, except for any values that are already as low or lower than the value of the current slider position. The highlight slider should make the whole image turn black, again except for any values that are already as high or higher than the value of the current slider position. The clipped areas are color coded so you can tell which channel(s) are clipping.

By doing the above, on your images I suspect that you will find you are clipping colour information straight off and there's nothing you can do. This is down the IT8 colour profile, and is the main reason (besides scanner tone response) why you coud be experiencing problems resolving shadow and highlight detail.

Click to expand...

If I gave the impression that I was not happy with the shadow detail or dynamic range with my current set up, that would be incorrect. Since I have gone to the IT8 Kodachrome calibration target, it is actually really really good, often perfect.

Shadow detail is the last thing I am concerned about, I was just looking for gains since I went through the expense.

jd callow said:

Scovell seemed to have hit all of the points that I am aware of with regard to wet v. dry mounting. It will be less beneficial when compared to dry glass than it will be with a non glass mount. I'm sorry that you bought the wet mounting.

Click to expand...

Yeah...me too, LOL! I suppose I could save it for black and white scans or for when a slide is scratched, other than that, it was an expense I need not have made. I guess I could always ebay it and see what that gets me.

My current setup without wet mounting is really good, but you can never tell just how much you will gain without doing a one after the other, side by side test.

I mostly agree also with Scovell's comments, with two caveats.

1. Kami will not evaporate during the scan if the negative or tranny is sandwiched in mylar and taped on the edges.

2. Fluid mounting will not increase real resolution, but it may increase sharpness because fluid mounting increases micro-contrast with many scanners.

Unfortunately, there are no absolutes as fluid mounting is more beneficial with some scanners than with others. I scan with an EverSmart Pro and with a Leafscan 45. There is virtually nothing gained by fluid mounting with the EverSmart, but fluid mount scans with the Leaf have a lot less grain and more apparent sharpness than dry scans.

Sandy King

jd callow said:

Scovell seemed to have hit all of the points that I am aware of with regard to wet v. dry mounting. It will be less beneficial when compared to dry glass than it will be with a non glass mount. I'm sorry that you bought the wet mounting.

Click to expand...

So some 4 hours of scanning later, I have arrived at the notion that compared to my glass holder in dry scanning, the wet mount method is not only not better but actually not as good as a straight dry scan at least in terms of color work.

The dry scan is consistently better in terms of sharpness, contrast and color saturation when it comes to Kodachrome and about dead even with E-6 stocks. And when it came to a piece of film that was a bit curved, bubbles were very tough if not impossible to get rid of if using the glass / Ultrans plastic method. It improved slightly when using glass on both sides but in the case of one XPan slide that was more curved than average, even the dual glass method could not prevent bubbles from appearing. The Nikon glass holder dry simply did the wet mount in with ease in this case.

However, my last try was a medium format Agfa APX 25 scan and there was a marked improvement in dust reduction and sharpness in using the wet scan method. So if I want high quality scans from black and white for say, publication, the wet scan method might be the ticket.

The math I need to do now is figure out if black and white only is worth keeping the kit for since I am looking to make nearly 100% of my fine art prints via a real darkroom.

If you are a Nikon 9000ED owner and are debating either the wet scan with your existing holder or getting the Nikon glass holder, you will be better off in the long run in using the Nikon glass holder in a dry scan. You will pretty much end up with the same result as a wet scan with far less of a hassle in terms of set up time, mess and not expose your scanner to the materials and fluids associated with wet scanning.

In all honesty, I wish I were the one reading this instead of writing it, but hey, people lose more money in the stock market or a trip to Vegas not to mention it is a tax write off for me so it ain't all bad...

Wow, glad I came across this thread.

I'm new here and just picked up a Nikon 9000ED.

I shoot 6x7 b&w and color, and I've been trying to decide whether I want to buy one of the more expensive wet mounting solutions, the Nikon glass carrier, or two pieces of glass for use with the carrier that ships with the scanner.

Note: I process my own film, but print digitally (don't have the facilities for a darkroom).

Also, while I'm at it, a quick question about scanner targets: are the HTC targets really that much better than the IT8 targets? Do the results really justify the additional expense?

Thanks for any help you guys can provide.

Jan C.

I'm assuming the glass holder also requires Digital ICE be turned off? How well do scratches smooth out with wet mounting v. ICE?

I've got a Minolta MDSE 5400 that's pretty amazing with ICE even with Kodachrome-- though I can find the repairs when I go pixel peeping. (Not noticeable enough to warrant the extra 20 minutes with the cloning brush when I scan without ICE).

Have you tried other films with a different grain structure than K25? I've seen real grain aliasing issues with Portra 160 (both NC and VC) at least at my scanners native 5400 dpi, that render it hopeless for extreme enlargement. Ektar 100 seems workable scanned dry.

(Reason for my asking is that I'm contemplating a Nikon 9000 for my recent 645 color work).

I think the whole issue with "wet mounting" versus "dry mounting", besides the advantages being scanner dependent, is somewhat compounded by the fact that most wet scanning is done on drum scanners. Since drum scanner operators generally optimize the "aperture" setting of the rig as well, this may cause the false impression that the wet mounting alone is fully responsible for the smoother scan results on drum scanners, while in fact there is the aperture setting as well. Adjusting the aperture size of the drum scanner, will "hide" grain as well, meaning there are two factors at play in drum scanning, not just wet mounting.

Anyway, for some scanners, there can be a marked difference, see the results here, they are from an Italian test of the Epson V700, that also has some comparison scans of other scanners.

Actually, as you can see below, the first two results of the Epson V700 show little difference, but look at the next two results of the Microtek 120TF

Epson V700, dry mount left, wet mount right:



Microtek 120TF, dry mount left, wet mount right:



The result for the Microtek scanners is significant. According to the Italian text, this seems to be related to a "hard" light source, and a lens system with "heightened" microcontrast..., whatever that exactly means.

The full test is here (in Italian of course):
http://www.fotoavventure.it/htdocs/freecontent/FC001_ProvaV700/index.htm

Marco

I haven't written up a full review of the Scan Science kit yet, but for black and white scans on a Nikon 9000ED the difference is worth the extra time and money. Upon opening the box from Canada, your initial impression is that you could have assembled much of the kit on your own. That said, some of the items would be harder to source and "make" which for me is time saved. I do not regret the purchase - I won't scan my B&W work without it.

If you are interested I did a comparison late in 2009 comparing the same b&w negative scanned dry and wet (using Scan Science) on the Nikon 9000ED. Given the subject of this thread, it would seem additional comparisons (color negative and slide) would be worth while.

Wet scan on Nikon 9000ED

Thanks for the post. There was an article in Photo Techniques one or two issues back that went into wet scanning with a flat bed scanner, and gave a lot of how to information. I was tempted, now maybe I can wait. I have a 9000ED with the Nikon $$$$ glass thingy, and I must say my scans are pretty sharp, at least at the print size I make, less than 16x20, scanning medium format black and white.

I'm trying to scan some of my "old" Velvia (RVP) 6x7 slides. I have the Nikon glass holder and the Scan Science stuff. The Nikon glass holder provides good film flatness but I get Newton rings, so far in blue sky. With the Scan Science glass, liquid and plastic I get good film flatness as well but it seems that Digital ICE is rendered nearly ineffective. I guess it's the Scan Science plastic absorbing the ultraviolet light? The Scan Science propaganda says that Digital Ice is supposedly unnecessary with the liquid mounting. It should say as well that Digital ICE is rendered ineffective. Anyway I don't want do without Digital ICE. I never get rid of all fibers no matter how hard I try. I even have an ionizing air purifier running near the scanner.

I'm a bit desperate and not sure what to try next.