Re: filmscanners: Mounting fluid/flatbeds

["IronWorks" <ironworks@ameritech.net>]

Excellent information, Michael.  Thanks.

Maris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Wilkinson" <michael@infocus-photography.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:01 AM
Subject: 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
| 
| 
|