For the longest time my vision was to shoot the mixer like a product – white background, studio lighting, the works. For more interest I chose to use the glass block window in my dining room. It offered a second light source to the natural window light, back lighting the blender. Moreover, it offered a more structured grid pattern to juxtapose the curves of the mixer.

Photo shoot setup for Gilchrist No. 22

Equipment:

• Mamiya RZ67 ProII with Mamiya SEKOR-Z 110mm f2.8
• Ilford Delta 400; exposure compensation +1 at the meter; 2 sec exposures @ f8 / f5.6
• Tripod, double shutter release and bellows set to 110

Development:

• Pushed 1 stop with Ilford Ilfotech DD-X 1:4 using 4-6 inversions at the top of every minute
• Stop bath for 30sec
• Five minute fix using Ilford Rapid Fixer 1:4
• Water wash for 5 minutes
• Ilfotol rinse for 5 minutes
• Hang dry after film squeegee
• Cut in pairs and sleeves using lint free gloves

Scanning:

• Nikon 9000 ED
• NikonScan
• Scan Science wet scan

Seven of the ten shots were worth further review. About half needed considerable touch up to remove air bubbles caught by the fluid and film.

Lesson 1: Do not develop and then scan immediately. The film is not as flat as it should be causing the edges of the film to lift and air to form pockets.

Lesson 2: Slight surface tension, by applying tape to the edges of the glass and holder, can correct the introduction of bubbles.

The thin grip tape that lines the sides of the Nikon negative holder began the wrinkle, likely due to the slight overflow of Lumina from the mount. From what I can tell this did not have any effect on the scan, possibly do to the ability to focus the scanner. Regardless, the ripples seemed minimal and depressed with the weight of the glass mount.

Once the final scans were complete I imported them into Adobe Lightroom 2 as my digital negatives, performed basic adjustments and then edited the visual defects (dust, bubbles etc) in Adobe Photoshop. Adobe Lightroom 2 offers spot removal, but slows with the number of spots and does not do nearly as good a job as the healing brush in Photoshop. Finally, back in Lightroom to add the final polish.

As a test, I ordered 8×10 inch glossy prints on Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper. The images were exported as JPEG, highest quality, 300ppi and sent to myPhotopipe.com to get printed on their Noritsu or Chromira printers. The results were striking – the quality was  superb and clearly much larger prints could be made with minimal quality loss. Another excellent activity for a follow-on post.

The back story

On your search for the best scan quality you will run across Doug Fisher over at Better Scanning. He makes a variable height mounting system that addresses focus plane issues found in flatbed scanners. While you visit his site encouraging yourself to buy his product you will also find his DIY wet mounting on the cheap page, where apparently for $60 you can be up and running.

Along the way it is impossible to overlook Julio Fernandez at ScanScience. At the core of his product line is Lumina scanning fluid, around which various kits are assembled to help get the best from your scanner. He sells a variety of other cleaners and equipment to deliver a one stop shop experience. You quickly find that $60 is not what you are spending. Nothing Julio is selling inhibits also buying Doug Fisher’s variable mounting system, likely the ultimate setup for flatbeds.

My primary scanner for medium-format and smaller is the Nikon Coolscan 9000. It is a fantastic machine offering among other things, a variable focus lens which means even if there was such a thing as Doug Fisher’s variable height mounting system, it would be a waste on a Nikon Coolscan 9000. As part of your scan, the Nikon Coolscan 9000 will either auto-focus or allow you to select the focus point. This is the scanner I was using almost exclusively at the end of 2009 and my wet scanning adventure led me to try ScanScience.

Earlier in the year I picked up an Epson Perfection V750-M Pro to scan my large format photography. This is where I would be excited to try the Better Scanning system. As you will see, it is clearly superior to the variable focus solution from ScanScience.

Opening the box

I live in Brooklyn, New York USA. ScanScience ships from Orangeville, Ontario Canada. Having purchased twice I know for certain it takes longer than all the estimates suggest. Likely the shipment sits in customs and with all the heightened security gets delayed on its ground journey. So, by the time you get your ScanScience kit you are delighted because you forgot when it was supposed to arrive.

Opening the box the first time informs you of three key things.

• First, all the items scream exactness. The thin scientific glass, precut overlays and the careful packaging all speak to the time dedicated to sourcing and assembling the kit.
• Second, some of the products you purchased you could have found elsewhere, possibly for cheaper, for example, the lint-free gloves or the squeegee. For that matter, you could probably buy all of it if you knew what you were looking for.
• Third, the Lumina fluid is the star of the show – standing out as the one product you won’t buy somewhere else. Second place goes to the ultra-thin beveled-edge scientific glass.

Everything is perfectly assembled and while obviously hand crafted is appreciated and valued.

A ScanScience kit for 35mm and medium-format film. I ordered two bottles of Lumina and an extra glass plate for each format.

My second order to supply the Epson Perfection V750-M Pro was a similar experience. The biggest difference in the kit was the solution to the variable height mounting solution which is a set of “shims” to raise or lower the film plane. I actually own a micrometer so finding and assembling the various shims wouldn’t have been too challenging, but it would take time and that I have little of. What is more, I have trouble seeing a remarkable difference between many of the adjustments in height. I have used the default Epson dry adapter, Epson’s wet scanning tray and ScanScience shims and while I have settled on a height, it was a challenging activity worthy of its own post.

A ScanSCience kit for 4x5 large format with the optional film cleaner and power pump.

Thoughts

In practice it takes some time to get the proper technique in assembling clean and bubble free wet mounts. That said this is probably true for most setups.

While there is no obvious deception, initially you have the feeling like you overpaid for the “kit”. I mean the kit comes with Bounty sheets. It says so. So, what is the surprise when you get a wad of towel paper? Similarly, the microfiber cloth, what did you expect? At the end of the day, you are paying for shopping services, because while you could have purchased these things on your own, it takes time to conceive and assemble a kit. If you do not know what you are looking for, ScanScience delivers the single point of purchase experience. Technically anyone could source the components, but why? You pay with time or money, so get over the fact that you could have done it on your own and focus on the fact that you didn’t have to. More importantly, the items that matter are really of excellent quality – clearly demonstrating someone who knows more than you did their job.

I haven’t used other wet mounting fluids but Lumina seems to do the trick. If you buy into the safety claims, Lumina is a better substance to be working with. It goes on wet like an oil and stays with you throughout the scan. When you disassemble the mount it will evaporate. You film usually dries unaffected and while this could be true for the glass and overlays, I clean everything between mounts.

If you are using a Nikon Coolscan 9000 you will have to modify your film holder. ScanScience does not offer instructions on how to do it, so it is DIY activity. You can see how I did it in a previous post.

As you start working through your technique you will find that dust is everywhere. You need compressed air or an anti-static brush or both. I use the tried and true Staticmaster brush and Pec-Pad wipes.

You need a clean and flat work area. I use a quarter-inch glass plate, but look forward to using a nicer larger light box. Consider what you have as the distance between a perfect mount and your scanner is filled with dust.

ScanScience offers a solid service and high-quality products. The kits and digital manual get you up and running quickly. Julio is quick to offer help and support as you work through your purchasing decisions and mounting technique. Remarkable results are possible.

If you are the kind of person that happily assembles the DIY kit for projects then get only the items you don’t think you can easily source on your own. If you are happy to pay for this kind of service, know that you will. The resulting quality of my wet mount scans is worth every penny. I would definitely buy from ScanScience again.

If I missed something in this review or simply didn’t answer your burning question, ask! There was nothing worse than searching and not finding an answer. I’ll tell you what I know and share my experiences.

The Scan Science kit includes a lengthy document explaining wet scanning, technique and workflow for exceptional scans. One missing element, likely due to liability, is how to modify the Nikon film holders that come with the Nikon Coolscan 9000. That said, if the information I share here adversely affects your film holders, scanner or you in any way – physically, mentally, monetarily etc., you are on your own. I won’t be held responsible for any damages as your actions are yours.

It is also possible that modifying the Nikon film holders was seen as an obvious task, one that required no further education. Either way, this was my first experience with Scan Science and wet scanning and did not want to break my film holder to find out later that it wasn’t for me. The goal was to modify the Nikon film holder to work with the Scan Science system without breaking it.

The diagram below is a sketch I made to illustrate the method and order for removing the film holder covers from the Nikon FH-8695 120/220 Strip Film Holder. Clicking it will show you a large version for easy reading. I expect all the other holders can be modified using the same approach.

Diagram on how to modify the Nikon FH-8695 120/220 Strip Film Holder to work with Scan Science

First, work in a well lit area. These tabs are small and trying to not break plastic can be stressful enough. Don’t strain your eyes working in the dark.

Second, find an eye-glasses or hobby flat-head screw driver. I used the eye-glasses variety, but anything similar should work.

The film holder covers are held to the holder through pairs of plastic tabs. These tabs are circular and fit into the holder allowing the covers to pivot open and closed. Refer to the exploded view of tabs A and B to help visualize the following steps.

Begin by gently pressing the first cover to the left (adding stress on B and D).

Using the small flathead screw driver press firmly and gently on the outer edge of A. Pull the cover away from the holder so that tab A stays out.

Then move on to B. If tab A is sufficiently out you can apply pressure to the right to help ease tab B out. When I did my first pair, this was not the case. Pulling the cover toward me and away from the holder seemed to do the trick.

Once A and B are out, do the same on C. Once C comes loose, D should pop out or be trivial to remove.

Once you know how much force it takes to move the tabs without breaking them, the process is relatively easy. The biggest challenge is having the confidence that removing the covers can be done without harming them or the holder. Hopefully this helps others intimidated by the task.

My initial test compares the results of a dry and wet scan of the same negative. The image was captured with a Mamiya 7ii, 80mm f4 outfit. It was an extended exposure, taken at dusk. The film is 120 Kodak TMAX 400 developed at LTI New York City. The scan was performed with the same settings – 4000dpi; scale 100%; 16bit; multi-sample 1x; CCD Scan Mode set to superfine; scan image enhancer on; custom focus, black and white points. This resulted in NEF (RAW) files on disk exceeding 550MB files. Slight differences in crop are responsible for the file difference.  The wet scan fluid is Scan Science’s Lumina – a full review to come!

To keep things as simple and neutral as possible the screen shots that follow are from Nikon Scan. No processing has been performed on either, what we see is what was captured and saved. Snagit was used to capture the screens and the only modification is cropping out the main user interface of Nikon Scan. To properly view this comparison you will need to see the large versions of the following images (~2MB PNGs) by clicking the smaller versions below.

The first image shows the dry scan (left) and the wet scan (right). Each is at 8% with the scan settings area of the image view displayed to show all things that could be recorded are equal. Notice the greater tonal depth on the wet scan specifically in the shadows. Notice the crisper detail in the bricks, especially around the chimney top.

The next image zooms into the chimney at 33.33%. The details apparent at 8% are now very clear. Notice the dust caught in the wet scan. I didn’t realize how much was there. Compressed air and lint-free tissues are now in hand for future scans. An anti-static brush is on my B&H wish list.

This following image is the same view zoomed to 100%. This shows without question, the wet scan on the right more detailed and has greater dynamic range.

The differences were so dramatic that I questioned if the focus points were the same. The default focus point is middle negative. The following image compares both at approximately middle image. At this 100% view the differences are subtle, but present. Again, notice the richer darks on the right and greater overall range. What is muddy gray on the left is a stronger gray tone on the right. The grain structure from the window (upper right) is simpler and smoother when comparing the two scans.

This final image is found on the left middle of the image and offers yet another point of comparison. It shows the bricks and window frame of an apartment. Again, notice the overall dynamic range, but more importantly, review the detail seen in the brick.

If you caught me a couple of weeks ago, I would have told you that wet scanning might be a gimmick. I wasn’t convinced from what I could find and while the 9000 ED is a great scanner it isn’t a drum scanner, so I didn’t presume the comparison in process was transferable. At the very least, it can be said, that for black and white negatives, wet scanning is a must. The quality is apparent with almost no detailed review. The effort added to the overall workflow is relatively small and the cost is nominal when compared to all the other things photo geeks spend money on.

Finally, this is the image after being imported into Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. I adjusted the crop slightly to align the horizon (noticeable at the top). Basic treatment includes conversion to grayscale, Recovery set to 12 and Clarity to 80. Tone curve is set to the Medium Contrast setting. No additional sharpening was applied. A slight vignette is added at an Amount of -15. I then edited a copy in Adobe Photoshop to review and remove a few dozen dust threads and two air bubbles at 100%. While I was there I removed the distracting light in the lower right. I am not sure I would say I am done, but my intent was to show a “clean” version of the image for review. The JPEG export was done at 100% quality, sRGB, 75ppi and 2000 pixels on its largest edge. The version below is a reduced size, remember to view the full sized version by clicking the image.

Courtyard at dusk, Park Slope, Brooklyn, New York

I save scans in NEF, Nikon’s RAW file format. If you scan to  a RAW format, the color space settings are not important. If you scan to a TIFF the setting should be the largest color space, often Adobe RGB 1998. Some argue with this last point – fodder for another post.

Scan at the highest bit depth and work all your post edits at that bit depth. It provides more information for your image editing software to work with, offering noticeably better results.

For black and white negatives, do not turn ICE on, because it won’t work. The results from having it on are disturbing. On color negatives I set ICE to Normal.

Resolution is another one of those topics that is worthy of a post all its own. If I scan a medium format image at 4000dpi, 16bit color, the resulting file size is over 570MB. Steinhoff and apparently Nikon recommend scanning at 4000dpi, but scaling it to 50%. This results in a more manageable 140MB file.

Setting Nikon Scan resolution at 4000dpi and scale at 50%

I usually have image enhancer on, which adjusts brightness and color saturation automatically. I’ll do a follow-up with before and after with it on and off so we can figure out how much to appreciate the setting.

Almost every selection impacts the time it takes to scan.  Multi sample is one that will make you want to run back to digital. Setting it to 16x on a medium format negative takes upwards of 30 minutes. For now I leave it at 1x and scans are done in a much more reasonable time and look great.

Apart from setting the black and white point, I do as little as possible in the scanner software. For example, I do not do any sharpening in the scan. My workflow moves from scan to NEF to Adobe Photoshop Lightroom.

My Nikon Scan settings are:

• File format: NEF (RAW)
• Bit depth: 16-bit
• ICE: Off (B&W) Normal (Color)
• ROC: Off
• GEM: Off
• DEE: Off
• Resolution: 4000 dpi
• Scale: 50%
• CCD Scan Mode: Super Fine Scan
• Scan image enhancer: On
• Multi Sample: 1x
• Focus: custom
• Level adjustments: custom

Pick up a copy of Sascha Steinhoff’s Scanning Negatives and Slides. While it is pretty basic, I did learn a few elements that would take far more time to learn.  Chapters 9-11 review Nikon Scan, VueScan and Silverfast in detail and should offer enough information to make a decision.

My take on it is simple.

1. If most of your work is on slides, you should buy SilverFast because it supports calibration targets so it fits into your color managed workflow. I know VueScan has the ability to work with similar targets, but this would be one more feature making the cost of the software more justifiable. Almost all of the SilverFast capabilities make scanning easier. If you are working mostly with negatives consider other options.
2. If you purchase a Nikon scanner it will come with Nikon Scan. You do not need to buy anything additional as long as you have digital darkroom tools such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Nikon Capture NX 2, Apple Aperture.
3. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and already work in the digital darkroom then buy VueScan. VueScan is relatively inexpensive and seems to offer a considerable set of features that will work with any scanner.
4. If you didn’t purchase a Nikon scanner and are wondering what “digital darkroom” means then buy SilverFast. If you want a digital darkroom then you need to buy digital imaging software. If it sounds too scary then SilverFast and is sister products will likely be highly satisfying. They are wicked expensive, so if you always wanted Lightroom and Aperture, buy VueScan and one of those. SilverFast has a few nice features and as Steinhoff says, it integrates well with their other products. Stand-alone it is a fine choice if you are archiving a large number of negatives or slides.

All the magic happens after the scan. That is at the root of the rationale used to come to these conclusions. You need to do everything you can to capture the highest quality image. This is no different than wanted great glass and a high megapixel image sensor. As with any photography you want to get it right in the camera. That said, when we scan, we are taking another picture. Features beyond the basic but critical (e.g. setting white point, black point, ICE etc) are not required (e.g. color correction), since similar or better capability is found in other products.

I spent way too much time reviewing all of the pros and cons of each of these and Steinhoff does a great job offering a point of view. Try to spend less time on this one. It boils down to what you are scanning, what scanner software came with your scanner and if you already have and know how to use digital imaging software. Do not mind all the crazy hand gestures as they pick your pocket.

Scanner research began the minute I purchased my Mamiya. I knew I could get the local mini-lab work done, but it would cost and the result would not be very high quality. To really get the benefits of shooting film, a great scanner is required.

Drum scans are expensive. I am sure the quality is great, but I can’t justify spending the money on such high quality scans if I am not also making some money with my craft. This also means buying a drum scanner is out, even if its used. First, I live in a coop apartment where a drum scanner could fit, but it would have to also serve the role of sculpture. Second, from what I could read, they are extremely expensive to repair.

Flatbed scanners seem to be an option, certainly for those that shoot larger than medium-format. I even considered the Epson Perfection v750-M Pro as a relatively affordable high-quality machine. Almost all the forum posts I read said it was great, but not as satisfying as a dedicated film scanner.

Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is almost the only game in town for medium-format film scanning. They fetch $500 over list on Ebay, because they are hard to come by. From what I can gather, the other scanners in the Nikon line are well liked. Buying this model means there is the Nikon service and support available to keep the unit humming. Relatively speaking, this will be far cheaper than drum scanner service and for those that are trying to find the older Minolta scanners, it means actually having a product that is not discontinued. This scanner is almost twice the price of the Epson, but is much cheaper than the other alternatives.

If you are looking at the Nikon 9000ED then you have done a search on Ebay for used Imacon scanners. Imacon was purchased by Hasselblad a while back and are considered the best of the best. Unfortunately they cost as much as cars. Even ten year old models run over $3000 USD. I guess if money was no object then I would either have enough room for a drum scanner or a new Hasselblad scanner. Either way, today, these options are too rich for my blood.

Net: Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED is the highest quality, supported film scanner at the $2000 price point. Do not spend a lot of time debating flatbed vs. dedicated. I have seen images from the Nikon compared to the Imacon, where folks debate the differences. No one debates the Epson v750M Pro against either. It is a great scanner – I believe that – but it is not a fair comparison.