[alt-photo] Re: scanning negatives (negative carrier)

Mon Jan 9 18:23:10 GMT 2012

It is absolutely practical to do wet mount with curly 35mm. The whole point
of wet mounting is to combat the natural curl of film. The curlier
the tendency of the film the more practical and effective wet mount is as a
scanning option. Wet mounting is also the superior method of enlarging the
the darkroom. Tack sharp negatives wet mounted in a precisely leveled
enlarger will yield prints sharper then you would believe and increases the
enlargement limit of 35mm negatives noticeably.

To answer your question, wet mounting is the way to go. The curlier your
film, the more important is becomes. Good luck!

-Francesco

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Ryuji Suzuki <rs at silvergrain.org> wrote:

> Is it practical to do wet mount with curly 35mm film strips? (I'm shooting
> a toy camera.)
>
> You know 35mm films like to curl up longitudinally when processed and hang
> dry. I want to scan them without first flattening them, so that I can get
> the shortest dry-to-digital turnaround time.
>
> In that case, I thought I could probably scan un-dried wet film strips,
> but that's probably a bad idea. First of all, the gelatin layer is still
> swollen and the image may not be as sharp. Secondly drying short strips of
> film will be a real PITA. But I'm open to this option if there are good
> solutions.
>
>
> --
> Ryuji Suzuki
> "Don't play what's there, play what's not there." (Miles Davis)
>
>
>
>
> Mark Nelson wrote:
>
>> I would agree with Francesco regarding wet mounting, especially with 4x5
>> and larger on the epson flatbed.  I have seen a lot of scans that were done
>> without wet mounting on the Epson flatbeds and they were rife with Newton
>> Rings.
>>
>> Mark Nelson
>> www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.**com<http://www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com>
>> PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
>> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
>>
>> sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Francesco Fragomeni<fdfragomeni at gmail.**com<fdfragomeni at gmail.com>>
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  Just getting back in town and haven't had a chance to read the previous
>>> responses so excuse me if this has already been said. The best solution
>>> I've found is to simply wet mount the negatives for scanning. I was very
>>> turned off by the idea at first but having seen the results and having
>>> seen
>>> that it is no where near as messy as I thought it would be it is what I
>>> do
>>> in order to get the absolute best scans possible. I use a dedicated
>>> scanning met mount solution that is alcohol free and vaporizes as soon as
>>> the negative is removed. It leaves no residue and calls for no additional
>>> clean up. Dust is usually sucked to the edges of the negative and out of
>>> the image area, Newton rings are eliminated entirely, and the negative is
>>> held flatter then any other means. I would encourage you to give it a
>>> try.
>>> Just use the proper materials and you wont have any problems.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Jacques Augustowski<py1hy at terra.com.br**
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>  Should I shoot for scanning? Why not go digital all the way? So I
>>>> have to shoot two films for the same scene , one for scanning and one
>>>> for printing.  The video mentions a miracle developer, don't worry
>>>> about temperature, don't worry about developing time! IE in the 1600s
>>>> for TRIX and get a good negative. Probably he is using PS with its
>>>> maximum capacity, not to say hours in front of his monitor trying to
>>>> correct the curves and trying to get something in the Zone III. The
>>>> maximum, expose for the low lights and develop for the high lights is
>>>> dead. All those who use the zone system will be questioning his method
>>>> of testing the developers and film.
>>>> Jacques Augustowski
>>>>            PY1HY
>>>> On Seg 09/01/12 03:54 , Don Bryant donsbryant at gmail.com sent:
>>>> Oh, and one other thing, Diafine can be used for an easy no brainer
>>>> developer for roll films. There is a blog to ref.
>>>>
>>>> http://figitalrevolution.com/**2008/03/20/processing-black-**
>>>> and-white-film-for-<http://figitalrevolution.com/2008/03/20/processing-black-and-white-film-for->
>>>> [1]
>>>> scanning-diafine-and-tx/
>>>> Diafine works well with more than just Tri-X. Most pictorial films
>>>> play well
>>>> with Diafine. Also D-23. Sandy King wrote an article for View Camera
>>>> mag. A
>>>> awhile back discussing the merits of Diafine and D-23, if I recall
>>>> correctly.
>>>> Personally, I prefer TMAX developer though for me a 1:9 or 1:7 works
>>>> better
>>>> than the 1:4 recommended dilution. Diafine has the added benefit of a
>>>> long
>>>> working life since it is a 2 part developer.
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: alt-photo-process-list-**bounces at lists.altphotolist.org<alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org>[2]
>>>> [mailto:alt-photo-process-**list-bounces at lists.**altphotolist.org<alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org>[3]] On
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>> Ryuji Suzuki
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 1:33 AM
>>>> To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
>>>> Subject: [alt-photo] scanning negatives (negative carrier)
>>>> I just developed a 35mm roll for the sole purpose of scanning with
>>>> Epson
>>>> V700.
>>>> The film dried with longitudinal curl, and it is difficult to go into
>>>> the
>>>> Epson
>>>> negative carrier straight. The scans are soft near the edges of the
>>>> strips.
>>>> But
>>>> this negative was exposed in a panoramic camera with rather tight
>>>> inter-frame
>>>> spacing (almost no space to hold down without blocking the image
>>>> area).
>>>> I imagine scanning freshly dried negatives rather routinely in the
>>>> future.
>>>> Is there a decent solution for this?
>>>> Also, is there any study/report on film developers optimized for
>>>> scanning?
>>>> --
>>>> Ryuji Suzuki
>>>> "Don't play what's there, play what's not there." (Miles Davis)
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>[4]
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>[5]
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>>>>
>>>>  ______________________________**_________________
>>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Alt-photo-process-list | http://altphotolist.org/**listinfo<http://altphotolist.org/listinfo>
>