o wow, it has less noise! tnx for sharing mate. one of the reason why i wanted to try wet mounting is because i can capture the whole frame with the labels and marking on it. unlike the default holder where it clips off the frame. now i can finally get the same look as what those hasselblad prints with frames i see on fashion mags
Great video. Pixel peeping in this case is really about the scanner (or camera) used to convert film to digital. So we are not judging the original film. Wet scanning is very slow, but if you want a perfect shoot, its the way to go.
Eureka !! You're my new hero. Now I see what I can do to fix the granular artifacts in my night time photo scans. I thought it was how I was developing them. I knew about fluid mounting but thought it would only help with sharpness. Thanks so much.
At 15:08 the wet (left) image scan causes the water to have a more three dimensional appearance. The dry (right) scan has more energy and detail but looses the three dimensional look of the wet scan. Both scanned on the same equipment. To each his/her own; it depends on the look you want to achieve. I like them both but for different reasons.
Really excellent in depicting the pluses of wet mount scanning. Now I need a new Epson! What I find especially good about this video is the actual visual evidence you provide to show the noise in the dry negatives versus the lack on the wet mount negatives. A world of difference which makes a good argument for wet mount scanning is very obvious. The colors, too, make a point for wet mount. Have a wonderful holiday, Eric!
Thanks so much for doing this video. While I've been aware of the 'wet scanning' capabilities of my Epson V750, I have never tried it for the very same reasons you articulated. Now, I'm going to change that, especially with the older hard-to-scan films I have from my family, including 110 for which I do not have a holder (nor have I wanted to shell out the $$$ to buy one). Again, thanks!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I've had the wet scanning tray with me the entire time. Just purchased the other items (I already had odorless mineral spirits too), so the total for supples was ~$35. I can't believe what that other company charges.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel You are correct; the wet mount glass tray came with my V750 Pro. But there is no mention of it, or how to use it, in the owner's manual (at least not the one I have). So, mine has been sitting collecting dust. Until now.
I suspect the 'differences' attributed to wet vs dry mounting are actually due to the differences in scanners (PFXA vs V800) and in scanning software. All of the artifacts shown for the dedicated scanner (noise, color shifts, contrast, etc) can easily be reproduced on a wet scan, depending on scanner settings, so that's not why the V800 wet scans appear "better.' The only comparison that counts is one comparing a dry mount scan on the V800 to a wet mount scan on the V800, using the exact same settings (color profiles, resolution, film presets, whatever), like the comparison at 15:30. In that comparison the only difference (as you report) is the color shift in the wet scan, which I assume used the exact same settings as the dry mount. I'm guessing here, but the only reason you'd see the color shift is because of the wet mounting fluid and/or the mylar you used?? So you have to ask, "is that really a good thing?" Point is, and I wet mount my color and B&W negatives all the time, the only true benefits of wet mounting are 1: dust, water marks, and minor scratch reduction and 2: absolute flatness of the negative. In my hands that's what I've found, and what conventional wisdom says about wet scanning.
BTW, the yellowish cast created on the V800 wet mount scan might be due to the mineral spirits used.... you can test that by scanning through mylar only (no negative) both with and without the spirits, then color check the resulting scan for any 'yellowishness.' I use Kami exactly because I know it's pure hexanes without contaminants that might produce a color shift. A liter of Kami costs around $45, but it lasts years with normal use. So, cost shouldn't be a major consideration.
Good information. I don’t recall reporting a color shift. Is that something you saw. Please provide time stamp when you get a minute. Good info overall though. Thanks.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel The comparison at 15:30, where both images were from the V850, one dry and the other wet. On the wet mount image is where I'm seeing the warm cast compared to the dry mount image. You interpreted it as "deeper colors in the sky" or something like that. But when you look at the whole image, there is definitely a warmer tone throughout... the grass isn't as green, the sky isn't as blue, the water spout is definitely warmer, etc. Clear? That represents an overall yellow (or magenta) cast, not a differentiation of any particular color. Hope this helps.
I've been waiting for this! The results speak for themselves, I'm totally convinced. The bad part is that I'm still lost - especially about mounting. For my own scanner (Canon 9000F) Canon doesn't seem to have any accessories, but I can't find Epson accessories over here in Germany neither, so I guess outside the US it's much harder and expensive to get these. Unless of course there's a DIY method. Also, could you talk about what actual ingredient the paint thinner is made of / what to look for on the back of the bottle - since this brand isn't available here?
Try betterscanning.com for a suitable (generic) glass holder for your scanner. www.betterscanning.com/scanning/msfluid.html The paint thinner or mineral spirits should be the same regardless of brand name. I bought mine at an art store. Also amazon has it. Good luck!
DIY: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/ Mounting fluid is pure hexane (a mixture of 6 carbon molecules). It needs to be pure to avoid color shifts and differences in optical density between air and the fluid (you'll see why once you've missed a couple bubbles). I've never tried it, but I've heard people using lighter fluid as a replacement mounting fluid. But really, Kami (if you can get it) is pretty cheap; $45 / liter, and a liter will last you years in normal use.
Good information, Eric! According to the Epson website, , that accessory is not compatible with the V600. But I’ve heard of people cutting their own pieces of anti-newton glass and making their own fluid mount scanning plate. Either way, once I begin to process and scan my negatives, I’ll eventually be fluid mounting as I get into it.
That’s correct. I mentioned in the video that the fluid mount accessory is for the V700/750/800/850. I don’t think Epson makes a fluid mount accessory the the V600 but betterscanning.com has a solution for your V600. Thanks!
Eric, I must have misunderstood and thought you said that you were not certain if it fits the V600. Either way, I’ll probably learn to walk and master the V600 normally before I learn to fluid mount. But since my enlarger is only a 6x6 and I have a 6x7 camera as well as a 6x6 TLR, fluid mounting will be my go-to for anything 6x7 I process.
When fluid mounting, you don't need anti-Newton glass. The fluid interface prevents the light aberrations indicated for AN glass. I've used a good, clean piece of window glass and it works great. Or, salvage the platen from an old, retired scanner and use that.
I would suggest NOT to use mineral spirits, try plain and simple lighter fluid instead, and the Epson wet mount accessory works with the Epson V750 upwards
That’s for the tip. What advantage would lighter fluid offer? I’ve never tried it. I’ll mention that mineral spirits leave zero residue when taken apart and allowed to dry. Also it’s dense enough to help bin moderately curly fin to the glass holder. I remember the Epson V750 came with the fluid mount accessory. I was disappointed that my V850 didn’t include it.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I feel that mineral spirits may be a little harsh for film emulsion as it's primarily used as paint thinner whereas lighter fluid is used in camera restoration as it seemingly does not affect surfaces. Just a thought
Ah I see. Makes sense. I haven’t seen any residue or emulsion coming off of the film and on to the acetate whatsoever. Also it dries extremely cleanly and very quickly. I don’t remember where I first heard about using mineral spirits but it wasn’t my idea originally. Anyway thanks for your feedback and thoughts.
hello, and thanks. the video is really good. for a v600 scanner, without a "proper" film mounting plate, how would you tackle the process. placing on glass wouldn't give the proper height(?).
I haven't tried it but my understanding is that placing the film on the platen after wet mounting to anti newton glass and mylar works pretty well. brucevarner.com/V600ScanMethods.html
Addendum to my question. If wet scans and dry scans offer their own benefits, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that blending both would yield the best results?
Wet scans offer the benefit of completely flattening the negative which (depending on your film stock) can be difficult to do in a dry film holder. Also dust is much better controlled and the colors and noise improve when wet scanning. Dry scanning can give great scan as long as the film stock is nice and flat like most Kodak stocks. I can’t imagine how you would combine both processes or how it would achieve better scans but if you do it I would be happy to hear how it worked out. Please let me know. Thanks!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Alright thanks. I hope the question made sense. I was under the impression that both dry scans and wet scans yielded their own exclusive sets of benefits similar to to the differences we get with positive vs negative stock. Will let you know if I ever figure it out. Cheers!
Excellent video Thanks. Can you reuse the clear sheet or is it a one and done deal? I just purchased the V850 to scan mostly 6x7 B&W negatives. I also purchased the Epson fluid mount tray too. Thanks Again.
Is the height adjustable on the glass holder? The regular film holders on my v700 have adjustable height. When I first go it I ran a series of test scans to find the right height to get the sharpest scans out of the scanner. It the official Epson film holder is not adjustable the I may have to build a custom solution.
Thanks so much for this content Eric! Do you think it would be worth the effort to try this on a lower budget with some general anti-reflective framing glass? Finally subbed to the channel but been watching since the m3 review, keep up the great videos!
Note, Im using an Epson v550 so the only fluid mount option available to me is the one from better scanning so id be into it for at least $100 bucks if I went that route...
I’m glad you asked. The answer is no-If it’s a curled up film with a thick emulsion, I.e., slide film. No amount of fluid would flatten some curly Velvia that I had laying around. Curly Tri-X works just fine because it’s a much thinner emulsion.
1. Are you still using the scanner and method? If not, then why not? 2. Isn’t there a the option of getting a free fluid mount tray when you buy a V850?
I did some fluid mounted scans a few months ago. I prefer it for medium format since it keeps the film so flat. Most 35mm films lays pretty flat with the film holder or with my primefim scanner. That being said, this is an almost theraputic process that I enjoy very much. Also, I still have the same chemicals and gear from this video with no problems.
I have the Epson V850 and I went ahead and ordered this Fluid mount. I saw another video which they used lighter fluid as a substitute. BTW, is that the odorless Mona Lisa paint thinner you are using?
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I just got the fluid mount in the mail today. I was thinking of using a glass plate from a 5 X 7 picture frame which is just slightly thicker than the transparent paper . Also went ahead and got the Mona Lisa thinner. I'll do some experiment soon as I get some 120 mm negatives. Also the expensive mounts (Aztek) have some screw adjustments. I'll use coins for this mount and see what results I get.
Nope. The mineral spirits that I use in the video have proven to be completely safe. I’ve often left the last frames that I scanned sitting on the scanner bed forgotten for days or even weeks. When I take them apart the film dries out very quickly and cleanly. It’s pretty amazing.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Thanks, that's good to know! I'd already asked my mom too, as her experience with film far exceeds the few odd rolls I developed in high school, and she confirmed. I've always thought of film emulsions as being relatively fragile and susceptible to a wide range of solvents for some reason. 🤷♂️
Probably since the only difference really is using a camera vs a scanner. I’ve never been a fan of DSLR scanning myself. I tried it a few times and didn’t like it.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Fair enough. I'm about to attempt it myself (dslr scanning). I'm under the impression that it's not as cut & dried of a process as people imply it to be. However, that does raise an interesting question, which is why nobody has created an automated/semi-automated contraption which uses a DSLR as a scanner. I mean... These machines (traditional scanners) aren't exactly technological marvels; unless I'm also mistaken on that end and underestimating their value. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly enticed by these scanners - the software combined with their cost feels absurd, to say the least. For that kind of money they should be stand-alone devices and not something which requires a tethered computer and some well-crafted prayers. We might as well just send in our film to pro labs which include better hardware and an extra set of well-trained eyes. Well cheers, here's to an overly verbose reply! Have a good one!
Hello again. Maybe you’re looking at high end scanners? You can get a perfectly good scanner for $170-250. I’m thinking Epson V600. Also the Kodak Scanza or Kodak Mini are stand alone scanners that will scan to an SD card. The Scanza will also connect to a computer or TV (I think so anyway since it has HDMI). I haven’t tried the Kodak scanners but they’re pretty popular so I’m assuming they must be pretty good. Desktop scanners are probably the most convenient whether they are flatbed or auto feeding scanners. You make your adjustments and let them run on their own. DSLR scanning requires lots of attention since you have to setup for every single frame (yeesh). You also have to have a good macro lens and better than average camera to get a good result. If you’re really into film photography and want a better than average film scanner, check out a used Epson V700 or V750. My previous V700 lasted me around 15 years! I have a V850 now which operates a little faster but yields very similar results to the V700. One last thing, if you are a medium format-only shooter you can get great results from a less expensive scanner since the negative is much larger than 35mm. That’s being said, if you are a 35mm only shooter then a dedicated 35mm scanner will give consistently better results than a flatbed. Hope this helps!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Definitely helps. I read that larger film is easier to scan; glad to hear that is the case. I was under the impression that the V850/V800 were really the only "decent" scanners. the thing about DSLR scanning (I'll know once I try out my extension tube hack and see what the deal is with keystoning and lack of flfat field) is that you need to factor in macro lenses (flat field) (and your time) so there's additional costs that need to be factored in. Will definitely read up on those other scanners you mentioned - I thought it was either V850/V800/V750 or bust. So, if larger film negs are easier to scan - how tennable is the idea of making an 4x5 inter-positive from a 120 negative for the purposes of (enhanced) scanning results? The only reason I had not completely written off dedicated scanners is because some guys in the archival and gallery sector claimed that they were quite satisfied with the results. Thanks for the insightful reply!
Have you ever done one on a drum scan and then on the wet on the flatbed to see if a drum scan is worth it? I had heard drum scans can make a big difference in the shadow detail.
Hi John , and thanks for the kind words. I’ve never used a drum scanner before. They are super expensive. I’ve seen them listed upwards of $25 for a 30 year old one. I have seen comparison scans between an Epson V750 and a drum scanner (years ago) and while the drum scan was sharper with better shadow detail, I wouldn’t say it was 35 times better which is what the price difference was at the time.
I'll show you what happens in this article: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2020/04/do-i-need-to-drum-scan-my-negatives/ The main reason for loss of shadow detail, however, is because people rely on their scanning software (and EpsonScan is notorious for this) to 'read' the negative and automatically set the scanner based on what the software says is best: rarely is that the best way to go. It's kinda like using a point and shoot camera; you get what you get. I added my 2 cents worth on several of these shortfalls on my blog at www.jrileystewart.com/blog/ if interested.
@@JRileyStewart Thanks for the information. I see you caught Notre Dame before the fire. I was there myself many years ago, I in the area for a few days, caught the Mona Lisa, hand held at about a 30th maybe less as I recall. She's around here somewhere. Best wishes!
@@johnjon1823 I traveled around Paris, Rome, Munich, etc back in the 80s. Biggest difference compared to nowadays was in Rome... back then the statues were all smeared with acid rain damage. They cleaned them all up during the 90s sometime. Much better. Best wishes.
@@JRileyStewart I was in France in the early 70's - they did not like Nixon I can tell you from the graffiti and they weren't too fond of Americans generally from what I felt, but then Paris is a big city and and in all such places you may find a certain cold coping attitude. Nice subway though, managed to find McDonalds - wine on tap there. And, important to me at the time, there did not seem to be any official drinking age, whereupon I sampled six very smooth German beers in 30 minutes in a hotel bar, turns out the alcohol content was quite a bit more than American beer as I soon found out. Lesson well learned there. It was all I could do to afford film in my Argus-Cosina, 2 lenses was also all I could afford. Nice trip though. Never made it to other parts of Europe except once, to the former Yugoslavia of all places. Religious trip that one.
Technically yes but slide film is a thick and curly stock which, in my previous attempt wouldn’t adhere to the acetate. The trick would be to figure out how to take away the severe curl of it exists.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel It has been many years since checking much of my film, but in the seventies and eighties shot much Ektachrome, most of which are mounted in cardboard, which I cannot wet scan, unless I remove from the individual holders. I think no. But many never mounted and would be in strips but I think mostly flat. Instead of acetate if I had a piece of plate glass cut to fit the Epson holder? Would be heavier and not stick? Plus I have an 8x10-11x14 camera I shot many this size Ektachrome and negative film would like to scan. When you put diffuse light behind an 11x14 Ektachrome, you can imagine. Thanks for all the responses!!!
I don't think it would be in proper focus. Remember, the V850 doesn't have a focus adjustment. I would also be concerned about the fluid leaking into the scanner.
Great video. I definitely learned a lot. I have been looking to fluid mount, but haven't yet. Now I understand it better. Like you suggested, not understanding is an obstacle. Thanks a bunch. I'll have to pick up a betterscanning.com fluid mount tray for my v700.
I may be too late to help, but you can make your own for under $10. www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/
Yep, I bought the paint thinner in this video at Michaels, an art supply store in my area. It's odorless and I couldn't find it in a smaller size. Maybe I'll take up painting!
Not at all. After I'm done with the scan, I just take everything apart and let the film dry. No damage at all in my experience. Please Check 1:26 where I talk more about the fluid. Oh, also I forgot and left some film mounted for almost a week and it was fine afterward.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Kami is only $45 per liter nowadays, and it last years. And you can make your own glass carrier very cheaply: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/
o wow, it has less noise! tnx for sharing mate. one of the reason why i wanted to try wet mounting is because i can capture the whole frame with the labels and marking on it. unlike the default holder where it clips off the frame. now i can finally get the same look as what those hasselblad prints with frames i see on fashion mags
Interesting
I’ll try it
Great video. Pixel peeping in this case is really about the scanner (or camera) used to convert film to digital. So we are not judging the original film. Wet scanning is very slow, but if you want a perfect shoot, its the way to go.
This video is outstanding. Terrific explanation of the wet-mount process, Thank you for posting.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Most informative video I have been able to find about the subject so far.
Thanks! I’m glad you found it useful.
Thanks Eric. I'm in the process of buying a 750/800/850 to scan in my archive and your advice has been invaluable.
I’m curious why you choose a DSLR over a scanner? I notice that lately a lot of people are doing that.
This is fantastic! What a straight forward perspective! Helped me tremendously.
I’m glad it was helpful. I really enjoy the process. It’s therapeutic for me lol. I also like the extra depth that you get.
Very helpful. Thanks for this video.
Great information. Thanks 😊
Thank you for stopping by!
Eureka !! You're my new hero. Now I see what I can do to fix the granular artifacts in my night time photo scans. I thought it was how I was developing them. I knew about fluid mounting but thought it would only help with sharpness. Thanks so much.
Glad I could help. Thanks
great video thanks
Nice tutorial, the results ar much better than "normal" scanning.
Glad it was helpful!
At 15:08 the wet (left) image scan causes the water to have a more three dimensional appearance.
The dry (right) scan has more energy and detail but looses the three dimensional look of the wet scan.
Both scanned on the same equipment.
To each his/her own; it depends on the look you want to achieve.
I like them both but for different reasons.
Well said. I like the look of the wet scans most of the time for the reasons that you stated.
Thank you so much I’ve been wanting to try this but had no clue where to start.
I was the same way for TEN YEARS, lol. I’m glad I finally took some time to figure it out without breaking the bank.
Really excellent in depicting the pluses of wet mount scanning. Now I need a new Epson! What I find especially good about this video is the actual visual evidence you provide to show the noise in the dry negatives versus the lack on the wet mount negatives. A world of difference which makes a good argument for wet mount scanning is very obvious. The colors, too, make a point for wet mount.
Have a wonderful holiday, Eric!
Thanks so much. I learned a lot myself because I’ve never really compared or “pixel peeped” to that extent before.
You have a great holiday too!
Great comparisons. Looking into getting my first scanner and I think I will buy the wet mount as well.
The big Epson V700/750/800/850 is worth the extra money if you want to spend it. They last forever too. I had my V700 for 12+ years before it quit.
Excellent Post Eric ,
Thanks so much for doing this video. While I've been aware of the 'wet scanning' capabilities of my Epson V750, I have never tried it for the very same reasons you articulated. Now, I'm going to change that, especially with the older hard-to-scan films I have from my family, including 110 for which I do not have a holder (nor have I wanted to shell out the $$$ to buy one). Again, thanks!
Your welcome. I’m glad you found it useful.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I've had the wet scanning tray with me the entire time. Just purchased the other items (I already had odorless mineral spirits too), so the total for supples was ~$35. I can't believe what that other company charges.
I agree. It’s pretty ridiculous. FYI the V850 doesn’t come with the wet mount glass tray. If I remember correctly, it was included with the V750!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel You are correct; the wet mount glass tray came with my V750 Pro. But there is no mention of it, or how to use it, in the owner's manual (at least not the one I have). So, mine has been sitting collecting dust. Until now.
Thank you very much, that was interesting and I can see the benefits of this methode!
Can only give one thumbs up. Sorry. Many great tips given. Thanks!
(You tube won't let me give two thumbs up)
I get it now. Thanks!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel thanks for save me $100 on wet scanning!
Glad I could help!
Great video ! I had no idea about this kind of scanning. Gonna give it a try on my Epson V500.
Thanks. Good luck
Thanks very much, this is an excellent video. Very helpful.
Glad it was helpful!
Great video, thanks for making it and sharing🙂
I suspect the 'differences' attributed to wet vs dry mounting are actually due to the differences in scanners (PFXA vs V800) and in scanning software. All of the artifacts shown for the dedicated scanner (noise, color shifts, contrast, etc) can easily be reproduced on a wet scan, depending on scanner settings, so that's not why the V800 wet scans appear "better.' The only comparison that counts is one comparing a dry mount scan on the V800 to a wet mount scan on the V800, using the exact same settings (color profiles, resolution, film presets, whatever), like the comparison at 15:30. In that comparison the only difference (as you report) is the color shift in the wet scan, which I assume used the exact same settings as the dry mount. I'm guessing here, but the only reason you'd see the color shift is because of the wet mounting fluid and/or the mylar you used?? So you have to ask, "is that really a good thing?" Point is, and I wet mount my color and B&W negatives all the time, the only true benefits of wet mounting are 1: dust, water marks, and minor scratch reduction and 2: absolute flatness of the negative. In my hands that's what I've found, and what conventional wisdom says about wet scanning.
BTW, the yellowish cast created on the V800 wet mount scan might be due to the mineral spirits used.... you can test that by scanning through mylar only (no negative) both with and without the spirits, then color check the resulting scan for any 'yellowishness.' I use Kami exactly because I know it's pure hexanes without contaminants that might produce a color shift. A liter of Kami costs around $45, but it lasts years with normal use. So, cost shouldn't be a major consideration.
Good information. I don’t recall reporting a color shift. Is that something you saw. Please provide time stamp when you get a minute. Good info overall though. Thanks.
I compared a dry and wet scan on my V850. It was the medium format scans of the water taxi and bridge.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel The comparison at 15:30, where both images were from the V850, one dry and the other wet. On the wet mount image is where I'm seeing the warm cast compared to the dry mount image. You interpreted it as "deeper colors in the sky" or something like that. But when you look at the whole image, there is definitely a warmer tone throughout... the grass isn't as green, the sky isn't as blue, the water spout is definitely warmer, etc. Clear? That represents an overall yellow (or magenta) cast, not a differentiation of any particular color. Hope this helps.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel yep, that's the image I referred to at 15:30 timestamp.
Thanks. Great video and debunked some of my concerns. Merry Xmas.
Thanks, that’s good to know. Merry Christmas to you and yours Dave.
This is a great walk through. About a year later, are you still using the same fluid and process? Have you changed anything?
No I’ve stuck with the same process and materials. I actually wet scanned some Fomapan a couple of weeks ago.
I've been waiting for this! The results speak for themselves, I'm totally convinced. The bad part is that I'm still lost - especially about mounting. For my own scanner (Canon 9000F) Canon doesn't seem to have any accessories, but I can't find Epson accessories over here in Germany neither, so I guess outside the US it's much harder and expensive to get these. Unless of course there's a DIY method. Also, could you talk about what actual ingredient the paint thinner is made of / what to look for on the back of the bottle - since this brand isn't available here?
Try betterscanning.com for a suitable (generic) glass holder for your scanner. www.betterscanning.com/scanning/msfluid.html The paint thinner or mineral spirits should be the same regardless of brand name. I bought mine at an art store. Also amazon has it. Good luck!
Was about to say the same about www.betterscanning.com/scanning/canon8xxx.html
DIY: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/ Mounting fluid is pure hexane (a mixture of 6 carbon molecules). It needs to be pure to avoid color shifts and differences in optical density between air and the fluid (you'll see why once you've missed a couple bubbles). I've never tried it, but I've heard people using lighter fluid as a replacement mounting fluid. But really, Kami (if you can get it) is pretty cheap; $45 / liter, and a liter will last you years in normal use.
Good information, Eric!
According to the Epson website, , that accessory is not compatible with the V600. But I’ve heard of people cutting their own pieces of anti-newton glass and making their own fluid mount scanning plate.
Either way, once I begin to process and scan my negatives, I’ll eventually be fluid mounting as I get into it.
That’s correct. I mentioned in the video that the fluid mount accessory is for the V700/750/800/850. I don’t think Epson makes a fluid mount accessory the the V600 but betterscanning.com has a solution for your V600. Thanks!
Eric, I must have misunderstood and thought you said that you were not certain if it fits the V600.
Either way, I’ll probably learn to walk and master the V600 normally before I learn to fluid mount. But since my enlarger is only a 6x6 and I have a 6x7 camera as well as a 6x6 TLR, fluid mounting will be my go-to for anything 6x7 I process.
When fluid mounting, you don't need anti-Newton glass. The fluid interface prevents the light aberrations indicated for AN glass. I've used a good, clean piece of window glass and it works great. Or, salvage the platen from an old, retired scanner and use that.
I would suggest NOT to use mineral spirits, try plain and simple lighter fluid instead, and the Epson wet mount accessory works with the Epson V750 upwards
That’s for the tip. What advantage would lighter fluid offer? I’ve never tried it. I’ll mention that mineral spirits leave zero residue when taken apart and allowed to dry. Also it’s dense enough to help bin moderately curly fin to the glass holder. I remember the Epson V750 came with the fluid mount accessory. I was disappointed that my V850 didn’t include it.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I feel that mineral spirits may be a little harsh for film emulsion as it's primarily used as paint thinner whereas lighter fluid is used in camera restoration as it seemingly does not affect surfaces. Just a thought
Ah I see. Makes sense. I haven’t seen any residue or emulsion coming off of the film and on to the acetate whatsoever. Also it dries extremely cleanly and very quickly. I don’t remember where I first heard about using mineral spirits but it wasn’t my idea originally. Anyway thanks for your feedback and thoughts.
hello, and thanks. the video is really good. for a v600 scanner, without a "proper" film mounting plate, how would you tackle the process. placing on glass wouldn't give the proper height(?).
I haven't tried it but my understanding is that placing the film on the platen after wet mounting to anti newton glass and mylar works pretty well. brucevarner.com/V600ScanMethods.html
www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/
Addendum to my question. If wet scans and dry scans offer their own benefits, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that blending both would yield the best results?
Wet scans offer the benefit of completely flattening the negative which (depending on your film stock) can be difficult to do in a dry film holder. Also dust is much better controlled and the colors and noise improve when wet scanning. Dry scanning can give great scan as long as the film stock is nice and flat like most Kodak stocks. I can’t imagine how you would combine both processes or how it would achieve better scans but if you do it I would be happy to hear how it worked out. Please let me know. Thanks!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Alright thanks. I hope the question made sense. I was under the impression that both dry scans and wet scans yielded their own exclusive sets of benefits similar to to the differences we get with positive vs negative stock. Will let you know if I ever figure it out. Cheers!
Excellent video Thanks. Can you reuse the clear sheet or is it a one and done deal? I just purchased the V850 to scan mostly 6x7 B&W negatives. I also purchased the Epson fluid mount tray too. Thanks Again.
Thanks for watching. You can use the acetate several times over. The fluid dries pretty clean.
Wet mount definitely looks better but your dry scan (at 12:55) looks messed up to begin with...
Wait, the dry scan was done with a PrimeFilm XA? That's why! The color posterization in that scan is insanely bad
There’s a link in the description to these photos on my Flickr if you want to check them out on your computer.
Is the height adjustable on the glass holder? The regular film holders on my v700 have adjustable height. When I first go it I ran a series of test scans to find the right height to get the sharpest scans out of the scanner. It the official Epson film holder is not adjustable the I may have to build a custom solution.
The height is fixed since the film is perfectly flat when affixed to the glass either fluid and Mylar. It’s in perfect focus.
Thanks so much for this content Eric! Do you think it would be worth the effort to try this on a lower budget with some general anti-reflective framing glass? Finally subbed to the channel but been watching since the m3 review, keep up the great videos!
Cool thanks
Note, Im using an Epson v550 so the only fluid mount option available to me is the one from better scanning so id be into it for at least $100 bucks if I went that route...
Nice video. For really curled film does the fluid really loosen it up so it lays flat?
I’m glad you asked. The answer is no-If it’s a curled up film with a thick emulsion, I.e., slide film. No amount of fluid would flatten some curly Velvia that I had laying around. Curly Tri-X works just fine because it’s a much thinner emulsion.
1. Are you still using the scanner and method? If not, then why not?
2. Isn’t there a the option of getting a free fluid mount tray when you buy a V850?
I did some fluid mounted scans a few months ago. I prefer it for medium format since it keeps the film so flat. Most 35mm films lays pretty flat with the film holder or with my primefim scanner. That being said, this is an almost theraputic process that I enjoy very much. Also, I still have the same chemicals and gear from this video with no problems.
Great video! Can you please tell me where to sell your little bottle(with Angled Nozzle)?
I bought it on Amazon. Many to choose from. Search for “wash bottle” and you’ll see them.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Thank you.
I have the Epson V850 and I went ahead and ordered this Fluid mount. I saw another video which they used lighter fluid as a substitute. BTW, is that the odorless Mona Lisa paint thinner you are using?
Hi, yes it is. It dries cleanly and no problems with it. Lighter fluid? Sounds dangerous.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel I just got the fluid mount in the mail today. I was thinking of using a glass plate from a 5 X 7 picture frame which is just slightly thicker than the transparent paper . Also went ahead and got the Mona Lisa thinner. I'll do some experiment soon as I get some 120 mm negatives. Also the expensive mounts (Aztek) have some screw adjustments. I'll use coins for this mount and see what results I get.
Wait... You're telling me that mineral spirits won't just eat the emulsion right off the film or something?? That's wild. 🤔
Nope. The mineral spirits that I use in the video have proven to be completely safe. I’ve often left the last frames that I scanned sitting on the scanner bed forgotten for days or even weeks. When I take them apart the film dries out very quickly and cleanly. It’s pretty amazing.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Thanks, that's good to know! I'd already asked my mom too, as her experience with film far exceeds the few odd rolls I developed in high school, and she confirmed. I've always thought of film emulsions as being relatively fragile and susceptible to a wide range of solvents for some reason. 🤷♂️
Is there a benefit to using fluid mounting for DSLR scanning? I would imagine so, but haven’t found much information on the topic.
Probably since the only difference really is using a camera vs a scanner. I’ve never been a fan of DSLR scanning myself. I tried it a few times and didn’t like it.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Fair enough. I'm about to attempt it myself (dslr scanning). I'm under the impression that it's not as cut & dried of a process as people imply it to be. However, that does raise an interesting question, which is why nobody has created an automated/semi-automated contraption which uses a DSLR as a scanner. I mean... These machines (traditional scanners) aren't exactly technological marvels; unless I'm also mistaken on that end and underestimating their value. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly enticed by these scanners - the software combined with their cost feels absurd, to say the least. For that kind of money they should be stand-alone devices and not something which requires a tethered computer and some well-crafted prayers. We might as well just send in our film to pro labs which include better hardware and an extra set of well-trained eyes. Well cheers, here's to an overly verbose reply! Have a good one!
Hello again. Maybe you’re looking at high end scanners? You can get a perfectly good scanner for $170-250. I’m thinking Epson V600. Also the Kodak Scanza or Kodak Mini are stand alone scanners that will scan to an SD card. The Scanza will also connect to a computer or TV (I think so anyway since it has HDMI). I haven’t tried the Kodak scanners but they’re pretty popular so I’m assuming they must be pretty good. Desktop scanners are probably the most convenient whether they are flatbed or auto feeding scanners. You make your adjustments and let them run on their own. DSLR scanning requires lots of attention since you have to setup for every single frame (yeesh). You also have to have a good macro lens and better than average camera to get a good result. If you’re really into film photography and want a better than average film scanner, check out a used Epson V700 or V750. My previous V700 lasted me around 15 years! I have a V850 now which operates a little faster but yields very similar results to the V700. One last thing, if you are a medium format-only shooter you can get great results from a less expensive scanner since the negative is much larger than 35mm. That’s being said, if you are a 35mm only shooter then a dedicated 35mm scanner will give consistently better results than a flatbed. Hope this helps!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Definitely helps. I read that larger film is easier to scan; glad to hear that is the case. I was under the impression that the V850/V800 were really the only "decent" scanners. the thing about DSLR scanning (I'll know once I try out my extension tube hack and see what the deal is with keystoning and lack of flfat field) is that you need to factor in macro lenses (flat field) (and your time) so there's additional costs that need to be factored in. Will definitely read up on those other scanners you mentioned - I thought it was either V850/V800/V750 or bust.
So, if larger film negs are easier to scan - how tennable is the idea of making an 4x5 inter-positive from a 120 negative for the purposes of (enhanced) scanning results?
The only reason I had not completely written off dedicated scanners is because some guys in the archival and gallery sector claimed that they were quite satisfied with the results.
Thanks for the insightful reply!
Have you ever done one on a drum scan and then on the wet on the flatbed to see if a drum scan is worth it? I had heard drum scans can make a big difference in the shadow detail.
Hi John , and thanks for the kind words. I’ve never used a drum scanner before. They are super expensive. I’ve seen them listed upwards of $25 for a 30 year old one. I have seen comparison scans between an Epson V750 and a drum scanner (years ago) and while the drum scan was sharper with better shadow detail, I wouldn’t say it was 35 times better which is what the price difference was at the time.
I'll show you what happens in this article: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2020/04/do-i-need-to-drum-scan-my-negatives/ The main reason for loss of shadow detail, however, is because people rely on their scanning software (and EpsonScan is notorious for this) to 'read' the negative and automatically set the scanner based on what the software says is best: rarely is that the best way to go. It's kinda like using a point and shoot camera; you get what you get. I added my 2 cents worth on several of these shortfalls on my blog at www.jrileystewart.com/blog/ if interested.
@@JRileyStewart Thanks for the information. I see you caught Notre Dame before the fire. I was there myself many years ago, I in the area for a few days, caught the Mona Lisa, hand held at about a 30th maybe less as I recall. She's around here somewhere. Best wishes!
@@johnjon1823 I traveled around Paris, Rome, Munich, etc back in the 80s. Biggest difference compared to nowadays was in Rome... back then the statues were all smeared with acid rain damage. They cleaned them all up during the 90s sometime. Much better. Best wishes.
@@JRileyStewart I was in France in the early 70's - they did not like Nixon I can tell you from the graffiti
and they weren't too fond of Americans generally from what I felt, but then Paris is a big city and and in all such places you may find a certain cold coping attitude. Nice subway though, managed to find McDonalds - wine on tap there. And, important to me at the time, there did not seem to be any official drinking age, whereupon I sampled six very smooth German beers in 30 minutes in a hotel bar, turns out the alcohol content was quite a bit more than American beer as I soon found out. Lesson well learned there. It was all I could do to afford film in my Argus-Cosina, 2 lenses was also all I could afford. Nice trip though. Never made it to other parts of Europe except once, to the former Yugoslavia of all places. Religious trip that one.
Can you wet scan color positive film such as Kodachrome or Ektachrome? Thanks
Technically yes but slide film is a thick and curly stock which, in my previous attempt wouldn’t adhere to the acetate. The trick would be to figure out how to take away the severe curl of it exists.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel It has been many years since checking much of my film, but in the seventies and eighties shot much Ektachrome, most of which are mounted in cardboard, which I cannot wet scan, unless I remove from the individual holders. I think no. But many never mounted and would be in strips but I think mostly flat. Instead of acetate if I had a piece of plate glass cut to fit the Epson holder? Would be heavier and not stick? Plus I have an 8x10-11x14 camera I shot many this size Ektachrome and negative film would like to scan. When you put diffuse light behind an 11x14 Ektachrome, you can imagine. Thanks for all the responses!!!
I have one more question. I'm wondering if you wash your epson mounts and film after scanning the film.
I’ve only ever wiped them down with lint free cloth. I’ve never used any type of fluid. I also blow dust away with my rocket blaster.
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Thank you again!
Why not mount directly to the flatbed?
I don't think it would be in proper focus. Remember, the V850 doesn't have a focus adjustment. I would also be concerned about the fluid leaking into the scanner.
Great video. I definitely learned a lot. I have been looking to fluid mount, but haven't yet. Now I understand it better. Like you suggested, not understanding is an obstacle. Thanks a bunch. I'll have to pick up a betterscanning.com fluid mount tray for my v700.
Great to hear! The fluid mount is an Epson accessory so you can buy it on Amazon and other places as well.
I may be too late to help, but you can make your own for under $10. www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/
Art stores have very clean low-odor paint thinner in smaller bottles. Not sure about the price these days though.
Yep, I bought the paint thinner in this video at Michaels, an art supply store in my area. It's odorless and I couldn't find it in a smaller size. Maybe I'll take up painting!
Will the fluid eventually damage the film?
Not at all. After I'm done with the scan, I just take everything apart and let the film dry. No damage at all in my experience. Please Check 1:26 where I talk more about the fluid. Oh, also I forgot and left some film mounted for almost a week and it was fine afterward.
Wow Thanks for the tips to using odorless paint thinner. Every other video on wet scanning tells you to buy the overpriced Aztec stuff.
Your welcome. The Aztec kit is way overpriced in my opinion. Happy scanning!
@@FilmPhotographyChannel Kami is only $45 per liter nowadays, and it last years. And you can make your own glass carrier very cheaply: www.jrileystewart.com/blog/2018/03/easily-convert-your-flatbed-scanner-to-a-wet-mount-workflow/