Which scanner would be best for me?

lenny said:

I'm sure on occasion you have put film cleaner on to your negs. It you put that stuff on a drum it will ruin it. Mounting fluid is mostly naptha, much gentler than a film cleaner. Every test done on it shows no ill effects to negatives. Irrational fears are just that...

Some people use baby oil. And of course, there is no rule that you have to wet mount. There's plenty of folks that mount dry or use anti-newton spray.

Click to expand...

Lenny,sorry my comments upset you but I have a right to speak my mind just like anyone else;I have never used or needed to use neg cleaner and if I had to,I would limit myself to the non-emulsion side;Irrational fears might be irrational but they are still fears.I'll stick to dry scanning.

ralphlambrecht said:

Lenny,sorry my comments upset you but I have a right to speak my mind just like anyone else;I have never used or needed to use neg cleaner and if I had to,I would limit myself to the non-emulsion side;Irrational fears might be irrational but they are still fears.I'll stick to dry scanning.

Click to expand...

Ralph, you have every right to express yourself. I wouldn't want to limit this, or make you feel unwelcome. I suggested your fear was irrational, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I am sure we all have irrational fears about one thing or another.

This is however, where it stops. You must acknowledge (I am sure happily) that you are a published author. This gives you a platform as someone who was expert enough to write a book and get it published. People will give your opinion more weight than someone who is an amateur photographer, for example. When you express your opinion about something it should be researched appropriately and carefully thought out.

If you want to ask a question, or muse about something, there is no harm, as long as you indicate that this is what your are doing. You have made many statements in the past few months that are in an area where you do not have expertise. You should be asking questions, not making proclamations that sound like they are intended to be general rules. Incorrect general rules hurt everyone. They become the "word-on-the-street about something.

An example: There are tons of people who think that they have to close down two stops from wide open because of diffusion. When using a view camera, which is my area of specialty, this effect is, in fact, with a decent lens, negligible. The effects are so small that it needn't be bothered with, unless one is doing tabletop, or shooting condensation drops on Coke cans. As a result, thousands of people are losing out on the depth of field they want. All because someone made a statement about this without properly testing it (yes, I have).

I have no problem with anyone questioning anything. However, adding new rules, new statements about "how things work" should be resisted appropriately. Beginners, who frequent forums, shouldn't be saddled with rules that are incorrect, like the diffusion rules. Authorities, on any subject, should be careful.

If you don't want to wet mount, no one is going to force you. However, every professional scanner wet mounts. It is a safe and excellent way to get the most out of film scanning. There is no need to scare others out of wet mounting themselves. The question, "are there ill effects to these fluids" is a fair one. There is an answer however, it has been researched thoroughly, and this research is available if you look for it. There is research, material safety sheets, etc.

I have learned that I don't answer posts unless I actually know what I am talking about. I got into trouble a long time ago when I first started in forums. I am apparently not an expert in everything. I'm sure everyone will agree that there are plenty of areas where your authority is justified. i think others would be happier if you answer questions in those areas and ask questions were you aren't an expert.

How do you know the fluid is safe? Not arguing - asking.
Juan

Juan,
I've been searching for the article for a bit. There is research... I have to get back to work... I found this: KODAK: People and Planet - Product Use - Film Cleaning Solvents which is only partially useful...

I've been on the Scan Hi-End list (on Yahoo groups) where many of the pro scanners get together for over a decade. None of them believe that there is any ill effect from the mounting fluid. Certainly not to the film, altho' there is some disagreement about crazing on the drums with certain brands.

I haven't ever seen anything bad happen to a piece of film and I've been scanning since early 2000's...

The Material Safety Sheets say this it is mineral spirits and Naphtha... neither should harm film.

I might contact Tim Vitale, a conservator, who is on that list, for a link to the research papers.


P.S. Your web site is hacked... you probably want to get that fixed...

Lenny Do you know if the diffusion is an issue with MF cameras?

Lenny,let me state once and for all,my opinions expressed on APUG or DPUG are entirely my own,based on my knowledge and experience sometimesbut not alwayson exhaustive testing,and therefore, have to be taken with that in mind,just as that, an opinion not an edict rule, law or fact. Everyone is well advised to form their own opinion by gathering as many information as they can and come up with an MO that works for them.I will not tell people what to do,only what I do and wet scanning is not what I'd do,because,I don't want any fluid near my negatives even if some scanning experts consider it 'safe'.End of discussion.Let's move on to something else. As far as diffraction goes,itis real.Every lens has a 'sweet' spot' an aperture where lens abberations are significantly reduces but diffraction has not taken effect yet.Typically,that sweet spot is around f/8-11.I have learned the hard way that stopping downfurther often does more harm than good when it comes to sharpness and resolution.Giving up resolution for DOF is counter productive. I prefer selective sharpness over overall fuzzyness.overall sharpness through DOF is a fuzzy concept
all the best

Alan Klein said:

Lenny Do you know if the diffusion is an issue with MF cameras?

Click to expand...

Alan, diffusion is a real optical phenomenon,independent of film format.Lens resolution increases with aperture.While lens abberations increase with aperture.Hence,there is a 'sweet' spot,where abberation is mostly reduced but diffraction is not yet an issue.For MF,that isaround f/11.stopping down further may make diffraction a quality-reducing issue

Alan Klein said:

Lenny Do you know if the diffusion is an issue with MF cameras?

Click to expand...

I do not say that diffusion does not exist. However, I have done the test where you shoot at every aperture, from 11, say all the way out to 64 or more. Then you go thru all the rest of your process to see what happens. It isn't that expensive, a single roll of MF film will do, as you already know.

Then you scan the images and print them out, or print them in your darkroom, however you like. Enlarge as much as you want. See what happens. I did this test, and I found that with my lenses f22 was not different from f45. They started to fall off in sharpness a bit at f64, at about a 40 inch print size.

We have had many discussions about this on the largefomatforum and the conclusion is always the same. Diffusion is a very minimal effect. It gets a little more with smaller formats.

There are numerous things that will degrade your image. The best (sharpest) image comes from a contact print. When you put a negative in an enlarger, it sends it thru another lens and the image gets degraded. Drum scanners can be quite excellent, sampling down to the size of the grain clumps, but then there is the inkjet printer and its dithering pattern. Both of these degradation effects are larger than diffusion. Of course, with Photoshop, we have sharpening capabilities and the tiny (less than 1%) falloff in sharpness is easily compensated for with a little Unsharp Masking or High Pass filtering....

Don't trust me. Just do it.... do the test yourself and decide what works for you...

There is one other concern. Ralph states that his preference is critical sharpness vs depth of field (I'm paraphrasing hope he doesn't mind). Mine is the opposite. I would rather have full depth of field across the image (at 99%) vs one area of super sharpness. Personal preference.

Further, I looked around my gallery of images and wondered if they were about sharpness. I am not photographing in the studio, not doing Coke cans with condensation drops on them with flash. It simply isn't what my aesthetic is all about. I want the viewer to experience a natural sense of things. That translates for me to "anywhere they look it should be sharp". That doesn't mean knife edge sharp, but sharp as our eyes see things, adapt quickly to focus at each new distance, etc. I want the viewer to be comfortable in the space I am creating. Soft, welcoming, everything visible, is what makes it happen. When it works, they "experience" the image vs just seeing it on the wall...

juan said:

How do you know the fluid is safe? Not arguing - asking.
Juan

Click to expand...

Is anything really safe?

I had used the Epson 750 to test a few different things about 4-6 months ago.

I was cleaning some things up earlier this week and was surprised to find that I left 4 negatives stuck to the Epson wet mount accessory with some Kami mounting fluid...for several months. Oops... But the negs came right off, I cleaned them up with the Kami film cleaner, and they are as good as new. Is anything breaking down on a molecular level? Maybe, but I can't see it it it is. After the mounting and/or cleaning fluid evaporates is there the possibility of an imperceptible trace residue? Maybe, and if you were really worried about it the film could be rewashed in running water and then rinsed with photoflo in distilled water and hung up to dry.

I did use mineral oil for mounting before switching to the Kami (no problems with crazing here either) and that was a pain to clean up, but the film cleaner was perfectly fine there too.

Now I don't recommend people go around leaving their negatives stuck between mylar and glass for several months, but it isn't the end of the world if you do.

lenny said:

I do not say that diffusion does not exist. However, I have done the test where you shoot at every aperture, from 11, say all the way out to 64 or more. Then you go thru all the rest of your process to see what happens. It isn't that expensive, a single roll of MF film will do, as you already know.

Then you scan the images and print them out, or print them in your darkroom, however you like. Enlarge as much as you want. See what happens. I did this test, and I found that with my lenses f22 was not different from f45. They started to fall off in sharpness a bit at f64, at about a 40 inch print size.

We have had many discussions about this on the largefomatforum and the conclusion is always the same. Diffusion is a very minimal effect. It gets a little more with smaller formats.

There are numerous things that will degrade your image. The best (sharpest) image comes from a contact print. When you put a negative in an enlarger, it sends it thru another lens and the image gets degraded. Drum scanners can be quite excellent, sampling down to the size of the grain clumps, but then there is the inkjet printer and its dithering pattern. Both of these degradation effects are larger than diffusion. Of course, with Photoshop, we have sharpening capabilities and the tiny (less than 1%) falloff in sharpness is easily compensated for with a little Unsharp Masking or High Pass filtering....

Don't trust me. Just do it.... do the test yourself and decide what works for you...

There is one other concern. Ralph states that his preference is critical sharpness vs depth of field (I'm paraphrasing hope he doesn't mind). Mine is the opposite. I would rather have full depth of field across the image (at 99%) vs one area of super sharpness. Personal preference.

Further, I looked around my gallery of images and wondered if they were about sharpness. I am not photographing in the studio, not doing Coke cans with condensation drops on them with flash. It simply isn't what my aesthetic is all about. I want the viewer to experience a natural sense of things. That translates for me to "anywhere they look it should be sharp". That doesn't mean knife edge sharp, but sharp as our eyes see things, adapt quickly to focus at each new distance, etc. I want the viewer to be comfortable in the space I am creating. Soft, welcoming, everything visible, is what makes it happen. When it works, they "experience" the image vs just seeing it on the wall...

Click to expand...

Sorry Alan,I did a similar test and came to the opposite conclusion;happy to post the results in due time.I cannot recommend to sacrifice resolution and sharpness for a never realized DOF.

Richard said:

Is anything really safe?

I had used the Epson 750 to test a few different things about 4-6 months ago.

I was cleaning some things up earlier this week and was surprised to find that I left 4 negatives stuck to the Epson wet mount accessory with some Kami mounting fluid...for several months. Oops... But the negs came right off, I cleaned them up with the Kami film cleaner, and they are as good as new. Is anything breaking down on a molecular level? Maybe, but I can't see it it it is. After the mounting and/or cleaning fluid evaporates is there the possibility of an imperceptible trace residue? Maybe, and if you were really worried about it the film could be rewashed in running water and then rinsed with photoflo in distilled water and hung up to dry.

I did use mineral oil for mounting before switching to the Kami (no problems with crazing here either) and that was a pain to clean up, but the film cleaner was perfectly fine there too.

Now I don't recommend people go around leaving their negatives stuck between mylar and glass for several months, but it isn't the end of the world if you do.

Click to expand...

thanks for the real-life report,Juan.Enough for me to stay away from wet scanning

My procedure for setting the aperture is as follows. Meter and select an aperture that will provide a DOF for the parts I want in focus. Then stop down one stop for an extra measure. Thanks Ralph and Lenny for your opposing responses. I guess I'll have to test it myself. How would I do that without actually printing all the samples large?

Alan, good question...
The way I do it is very simple... I set the image size in PhotoShop to 40 inches, then crop to a small area of the image, something I think will be representative... I can print an 8x10 of just one area. I have also done a 4-10 inch strip on 44 inch paper... Then I can place the samples next to each other. This is obviously also possible in the darkroom, depending on how high you can get your enlarger to go..

Alan Klein said:

My procedure for setting the aperture is as follows. Meter and select an aperture that will provide a DOF for the parts I want in focus. Then stop down one stop for an extra measure. Thanks Ralph and Lenny for your opposing responses. I guess I'll have to test it myself. How would I do that without actually printing all the samples large?

Click to expand...

I believe comparing digital files on screen at 100% will reveal all you want to lnow

ralphlambrecht said:

I believe comparing digital files on screen at 100% will reveal all you want to lnow

Click to expand...

here are my test results

Ralph There are no photos or links to photos in your post. Could you repost again with the info you want to show us?

Thanks.

Alan Klein said:

My procedure for setting the aperture is as follows. Meter and select an aperture that will provide a DOF for the parts I want in focus. Then stop down one stop for an extra measure. Thanks Ralph and Lenny for your opposing responses. I guess I'll have to test it myself. How would I do that without actually printing all the samples large?

Click to expand...

Lenny: You scan with a drum scanner. I;m using a flat top (Epson V600). So the question is, will the scan process using a V600 distort the results so I wouldn;t really be able to verify? Tks Alan.

Alan Klein said:

Ralph There are no photos or links to photos in your post. Could you repost again with the info you want to show us?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid notDPUG won't except the file size and it is already in low-res pdf and zipped

Alan Klein said:

Lenny: You scan with a drum scanner. I;m using a flat top (Epson V600). So the question is, will the scan process using a V600 distort the results so I wouldn;t really be able to verify? Tks Alan.

Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, been out of town for a week...

The answer is yes.... sort of. Drum scanners scan sharp. The differences would be more accentuated. Epson's are blurry, and you may not see as much of a difference.

However, that's ok. What you want to know is what will happen with your system. Including, your lenses, medium format, etc.

My tests were done with my Rodenstock Apo Sironar S lenses.... altho I have had excellent results with a Dagor I got recently as well. Doesn't mean that all Dagor's are great, there's no way for me to know...

There is this chain.... capture on film (include tripod or not, speed, etc), develop, scan, what gets done in Photoshop, the printer, what driver or RIP one is using, the inset, how many picoliters the diffusion screen is based on, the paper, the contrast of the image, and probable a few others I am not thinking of at the moment...

Any one of the links in the chain can introduce errors, just as an enlarger with a fan placed too closely can do. Diffusion is a smaller effect than most of the errors that can occur.

Let me know how your tests come out...