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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Originally Posted by jd callow
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.
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...:-)
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Adv Reply
Originally Posted by scovell001 
