Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Mounting fluid/flatbeds
Mounting fluid has been mentioned in connection with drum scanners.
It can also be used succesfully with flatbeds !
We use both and using fluid with negs and trannies on the flatbed
definatley gives a visibly better scan.
Main improvement is in recording shadow detail and overall sharpness
seems to be marginaly improved,Ive also tried it with prints and there
were benifits there as well.
We use a product called Kami Fluid which leaves no mess on the original
as it evaporates.
Below is some information which may be of use to those of you chasing
the Holy Grail of perfection
Michael Wilkinson. 106 Holyhead Road,Ketley, Telford.Shropshire TF 15 DJ
michael@infocus-photography.co.uk www.infocus-photography.co.uk
For Trannies and Negs from Digital Files
##############################################################
Joseph Holmes wrote:
> KAMI USA Sales, Inc.
> P.O. Box 1235, 104-1 L.M. Gaines Blvd.
> Starke, FL 32091
> 904-964-3408
> FAX -3328
> as of May 1995
> I do not have a URL for KAMI.
>
> Here is an old file of mine covering PEC-12:
>
> PEC-12 is made by Photographic Solutions, Inc. at 7 Granston Way,
Buzzards
> Bay, MA 02532. The phone is (508) 759-2322. David M. Stone and his
wife
> are the only people. david@photosol.com (800) 637-3212
>
> PHOTOGRAPHIC SOLUTIONS, INC.
> 7 Granston Way Buzzards Bay, MA 02532
>
> [800] 637-3212
> U.S., U.S. Territories &
> Canada
> [508] 759-2322
> International
> [508] 759-9699
> FAX - 24 hours
> david@photosol.com
e-mail
> elizabeth@photosol.com
e-mail
>
> It comes in a four ounce squirt bottle and I got it for $9.45 at the
local
> discount photo store. $60 retail for a one quart bottle. Their film
> cleaner is much more expensive than other people's because it says
Archival
> on it, which means that they must purchase very high purity chemicals.
> Their stuff, in a one-quart bottle, after sitting for a year (possibly
> partially used) soaked up enough water to reach 0.06% water content,
not
> enough to create problems, says David on 8/27/96. Isopropanol is
terribly
> hygroscopic, and can severely dry out an emulsion, causing it to
crack!
> Kodak will acknowledge this, even though they recommend 98% or higher
> Isopropanol and even though they don't mention this problem when
> recommending it!
>
> David is convinced that Kodak would recommend his stuff if they were
not
> forbidden to ever recommend any other company's product.
>
> He is about to introduce a new produce for Leaf Digital cameras that
is a
> super-high purity alcohol pad in a foil pouch (E-Wipe) with under 5
ppm
> impurity (maybe water) for wiping the glass that covers the CCD.
>
> He also has a product for cleaning processing tanks that is non-toxic
> (relies on elbow grease).
>
> The reason that spots can sometime happen with PEC-12, is that there
is a
> slight impurity in it that dries on the film if you put too much
volume of
> PEC-12 on the film. Not if you rub it too many times! That is why
you
> should spray it onto the PEC Pads, not onto the film.
>
> David suggested a cool way to clean 4 x 5's:
> Take a smooth dowell about finger diameter and wrap it with about five
> layers of PEC Pad, not in a spiral wrap but so that both ends of the
pads
> are together and away from the dowell, then spray the pad, and wipe
the
> full width of the chrome at one time. Rotate the pad 1/4" or more
between
> each wipe to avoid areas of pad that have disolved crud in them.
After a
> while, discard only the top pad, but don't get down to only two pads
or
> however many are needed to guarantee perfect smoothness to prevent
damage
> to the chrome. I would think that something inert should be chosen
for the
> dowell--definitely not wood!
>
> PEC-12 contains no anti-stat compound, as it would not pass Archival
muster
> at the IPI. Nor would it likely be an effective solution for dust
problems
> anyway.
>
> They also sell PEC PAD photo wipes, 100 four by four inch wipes for
$5.60
> at the same discounted store. These wipes are far softer than
anything
> other than lens tissue and I love them.
>
> As per the instructions, it is best not to clean the same part of the
film
> with more than three wipes. One wipe will come pretty close usually,
in my
> experience, which is all with removing the dried residue of KAMI 2001
SMF.
>
> I use a 7 x 9" or 8 x 10" piece of ordinary 1/4" thick float glass
with the
> edges crudely ground by the glass (window glass) shop to make them not
> unfriendly.
>
> I put the glass on top of a piece of black mat board, so I can see
crud on
> the glass better, and use an overhead halogen to brightly illuminate
the
> area. After starting off a session by cleaning the glass with water
and
> liquid detergent over a sink, and drying it with a clean cotton towel,
I
> fold a PEC PAD and wrap it around my right index finger like a bun
around a
> hot dog, apply two little squirts (that's almost too much liquid) to
the
> fingerprint area of the pad, then (while holding the 4 x 5 chrome down
with
> a small piece of folded Light Impressions Renaissance paper, dirtiest
side
> up, I make long strokes across the length or width of the chrome (not
more
> than three strokes in one place if possible, as a white opaque residue
can
> form that won't come of-but it's easy to avoid), then, having cleaned
one
> side well, pick up the chrome, clean the crud that has been moved onto
the
> glass (changing the pad as necessary), flip the chrome over and do the
> other side.
>
> I let it air a bit, then put it into a new polyester fold-lock sleeve,
> although that kind of sleeve is so smooth that the chrome might drop
right
> out if you aren't careful.
>
> Note that some frosted sleeves are made frosted by putting a layer of
> abrasive coating to the plastic and smooth sleeves only should be
used.
> Polypropylene (sp?) is OK also, and some polyethylene. Only uncoated
Mylar
> or Mellinex should be used when using polyester.
>
> I have still been unable to find my notes from when I spoke with the
owner
> of Photographic Solutions, Inc., but I do recall him explaining that
when
> the product was first marketed fourteen years ago, I think, that he
had
> just had it tested by the Image Permanence Institute in Rochester for
its
> effect on several types of film and it proved harmless in those tests.
> Also he has now been using it for 26 years on his own chromes and has
never
> seen any damage. Also, everybody I have spoken to about it says it's
> harmless to film as far as they know. I gambled that it was, but
cleaning
> a large portion of my best work with it after those 62 chromes were
scanned
> for my new book in KAMI 2001 SMF.
>
> I would not personally want to have my originals cleaned in anything
for
> which I didn't have good experimental evidence for its safety. I have
seen
> several originals deteriorate seriously about ten years after scanning
in
> Italy, and I had one original scanned in Japan that showed the same
kind of
> opaque spots all over portions of the emulsion immediately upon its
return
> from Japan. Most people seem to think that the film cleaner is more
> suspect than the scanning oil. I have no idea what cleaner or oil was
used
> in either case and I doubt if I could find out its composition if I
asked.
>
> The Channellock is a model 426. The maximum width of contact area at
the
> tip will be about 1/20th of an inch by about 0.27". Filing the tip,
you
> will find it difficult to achieve an excellent fit, with both surfaces
> nearly flat, but slightly convex, and the edges neatly (slightly)
rounded.
> I work on each such tool for more than a couple of hours. More likely
four
> hours. In use, one must not squeeze with full strength of the hands.
The
> chrome will spread laterally as a result of the force, but not
> objectionably if done carefully, and the bumps will get about one
third as
> high, essentially solving the bubble problem without hurting the
chrome.
>
> Joe Holmes
|
