[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Art, As a former mycologist, I too was rather suprised when you said molds could grow at anything over 30% humidity. I once studied the effect of humidity on the growth of a mold for my PhD, and found that unless the mold was growing on a substrate containing plenty of water, it couldn't grow out into air of less than 95% humidity at normal room temperature. The problem is that last word - temperature. As an example, 80% relative humidity at 25 degrees C is equal to 30% at 5 degrees C, so a mold that needed 80% humidity at 25 degrees would be able to grow at anything above 30% humidity at 5 degrees. This is because the measurement of humidity that is normally used, relative humidity, is fine for comparing humidities at constant temp, but when you change the temp, the water-holding capacity of the air changes dramatically, and other measures such as 'saturation deficit' are needed to properly compare the ability of the air plus moisture to support growth at different temperatures. Plus of course, the biggest danger is condensation. If the temperature drops below the ability of the air to hold the moisture, the excess will condense out (dew at night, fogging of lenses when you bring a cold camera or pair of spectacles into a warm room). A cold outside wall to a room may suffer condensation and mold growth for the same reason, even though the general humidity of the room would not support growth. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 12:28 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? As both you and Henning suggested, based upon review of my files, my suggestion of mold growth at over 30% humidity was too conservative. After doing a scan of my physical paper files, I found my memory had failed me, as a reference by Kodak regarding preventing fungal growth on films indicated humidity levels should be kept under 50%, not 30%, as I had indicated. (Kodak Pamphlet AE-22) Prevention and Removal of Fungus on Prints and Films I then did a Google search, and several sources suggested anything under 60% was probably safe. So, it would appear your 45% humidity level is safe under most circumstances. Kodak and other sources did suggest fungicidal agents can be used during the processing to further lessen risks. Art Austin Franklin wrote: I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Not off hand. It probably depends upon temperature and general mold conditions. We live in a very mold prone environment here. I think Kodak had some studies which I read many years ago about suggested storage for film and they made some mention about optimum humidity levels. I might have it here somewhere... Hi Arthur, I would greatly appreciate the link or reference. Regards, Austin P.S. Would you please be so kind as to pass the crumpets? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
As both you and Henning suggested, based upon review of my files, my suggestion of mold growth at over 30% humidity was too conservative. After doing a scan of my physical paper files, I found my memory had failed me, as a reference by Kodak regarding preventing fungal growth on films indicated humidity levels should be kept under 50%, not 30%, as I had indicated. (Kodak Pamphlet AE-22) Prevention and Removal of Fungus on Prints and Films I then did a Google search, and several sources suggested anything under 60% was probably safe. So, it would appear your 45% humidity level is safe under most circumstances. Kodak and other sources did suggest fungicidal agents can be used during the processing to further lessen risks. Art Why Arthur, thank you kindly for both your research, and the information! I really appreciate it. I'll get that pamphlet, hopefully in PDF format. Regards, Austin P.S. More tea, Arthur? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
At 7:08 PM -0700 9/26/02, Arthur Entlich wrote: Austin Franklin wrote: I also have a dehumidifier in my lab...I can't say if that helps a lot or not, but I don't have any dust problems on my stored film. On film I simply leave lying around, perhaps. Actually, a moderate humidity level keeps dust levels down, by reducing static, and by making the dust heavier and more likely to fall to the ground. 20-30% humidity is probably optimum in those terms, or you can get mold growth. We do have a high humidity level during most of the year, although summers are often quite dry. We do use a dehumidifier during the weeks of 100% humidity we get during the winter. Art Hmmm I think you'll find that the humidity inside buildings is lowest in winter in this area, and highest when the temperature outside is close to that inside, and it's raining or foggy; and somewhat less again in the drier summer, such as we've had. Humidity levels inside are around 30-40% when it's cold and rainy outside in winter, but can get up to 70% or more when there have been a number of very warm, rainy days in spring. During dry summer weather the humidity indoors is often around 50%. Mold has problems growin at less than 40%, and hardly any types can survive less than 30%. -- *Henning J. Wulff /|\ Wulff Photography Design /###\ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[ ]| http://www.archiphoto.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Hi Andre, I've not been ignoring you. I wanted to contact someone off-list who had a FS4000 to see if he might wish to comment, I left it with him. I have only reviewed scans from this scanner, not having used it. I would expect from the result I saw that the SS4000 was less noisy than the FS 4000 in shadows. The manufacturers gave it very similar specs, but I know the SS4000 was, if anything, underestimated in is numbers. It is a pretty noiseless scanner, although the SS4000+ was somewhat improved. The FS4000 does have a firewire connection, but is still quite slow. The SS4000 is pretty good even with the SCSI I connection. I know the SS4000 does good BW scans, but don't know about the FS4000. Art Andre Moreau wrote: - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 6:57 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? (...snip) The only other 4000 dpi scanner I know of is the Canon FS4000. It is a diffused lighting scanner with an IR cleaning process called FARE. However, although it is by far the least expensive 4000 dpi scanner, the major complaints are that it is quite slow (even on firewire), it suffers from noisy shadows Art, Is the Canon FS4000 suffering from noisy shadows with all type of films or is this problem apparent only with slides ? How would the original Polaroid SS4000 compare with the Canon FS4000 for scanning bw negative: silver halide and chromogenic C-41 process films ? Thanks, Andre Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Austin Franklin wrote: I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Not off hand. It probably depends upon temperature and general mold conditions. We live in a very mold prone environment here. I think Kodak had some studies which I read many years ago about suggested storage for film and they made some mention about optimum humidity levels. I might have it here somewhere... Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
I hate when that happens ;-) This was supposed to read Running Win 98, I CAN'T use Firewire Art Arthur Entlich wrote: Hmmm... This is news to me, but I haven't tried it. Running Win 98 I can use Firewire. (annoying!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't get my SS4000+ to run on Vuescan with a Firewire connection...crashes the whole system. Anyone else manage it? Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Not off hand. It probably depends upon temperature and general mold conditions. We live in a very mold prone environment here. I think Kodak had some studies which I read many years ago about suggested storage for film and they made some mention about optimum humidity levels. I might have it here somewhere... Hi Arthur, I would greatly appreciate the link or reference. Regards, Austin P.S. Would you please be so kind as to pass the crumpets? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Best of luck, and we look forward to your comments once you make a decision. Art Geoff Clack wrote: Up to my neck at work, I need to put put my film scanner quest to one side for a while. But I would like to thank all who have contributed, on and off list. You've given me a lot of very useful information to consider. Thanks again, it has been appreciated. Geoff. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
In a message dated 9/26/2002 10:25:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now Howard, I was trying to be discrete here ;-) You were discreet...just thought it was time to 'fess up. Hope your back is better. Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Hmmm... This is news to me, but I haven't tried it. Running Win 98 I can use Firewire. (annoying!) Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can't get my SS4000+ to run on Vuescan with a Firewire connection...crashes the whole system. Anyone else manage it? Howard It will come with Silverfast 5.5 and Microtek's driver software, rather than Insight. Both also work with Vuescan, a generic scanner software which works with a wide variety of film and flatbed scanners. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
I also have a dehumidifier in my lab...I can't say if that helps a lot or not, but I don't have any dust problems on my stored film. On film I simply leave lying around, perhaps. Actually, a moderate humidity level keeps dust levels down, by reducing static, and by making the dust heavier and more likely to fall to the ground. Hi Arthur, Agreed. I keep it at around %45. The circulation of air (and filtering thereof), as the air through the dehumidifier, probably pulls dust off on the damp coil...that's speculation, but sounds right at first thought ;-) 20-30% humidity is probably optimum in those terms, or you can get mold growth. I'm curious if you have any references on that. I've not had any mold growth, and it seems quite comfortable...and as I said, no camera, equipment etc. problems at all. It's been a most palatable environment. The dehumidifier is off during winter, probably from October to April. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
I really tried to get them to re-label and name the features, really I did! If I get a chance over the next few days I will try to put together some of my comments at the time I was beta testing this, and make a better manual. It really isn't that hard to use (although I don't bother with it myself, unless I really have a damage film). Art [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I second that...the not able to make much sense part of it, that is. Howard Can you give me some guidance on the Polaroid DSR filter settings. I've tried it a couple of times and can't make much sense from it. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Art, Sheesh, I sure hope Austin doesn't read this! -JimD At 07:03 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: You've raised exactly the crux of the issue. Nikon scanner users have no choice. They must use dICE when it is available to them. I have an admission to make. I live is a rural area, where the air is often dusty. We live on a dirt and gravel road. My digital studio is in a finished basement. It is carpeted with a medium pile rubber backed glued down carpet. Because of all the equipment and furniture I have all over the place in my work area, and all the paper everywhere, and because I still have a lot of magnetically sensitive storage media around, I have only, in the last 10 years vacuumed here twice. It is just too much work to do it. I run part of my business in the same area where I manufacture paper goods which are cut and laminated by the thousands, and create a lot of particulate matter. The area directly connects to an unfinished basement area where I do shop work, auto repair, do airbrush painting, we store our recyclables, etc. and the rafters are covered in cobwebs. We have a 35 year old oil heat central hot air furnace, which is NOT clean, and the ducts have been cleaned exactly NEVER since we moved here, over 20 years ago, and were probably never cleaned since the house was built. Most all of the house is carpeted and the house has stupid blown textured ceilings which not only collect dust, but shed this white plaster-mica mix. We are in an earthquake zone and get hit every few weeks with one which gives the house a good shake. We have a standard low tech filter in the furnace and a electrostatic cleaner (ozone producing) which we run about once a month for a few hours. The chimney and firebox have been cleaned once in 20 years. I occasionally dust the digital lab area and I run a manual floor sweeper about once a year, if that, on the exposed areas of the carpet. Other than the spiders, we have no pets. If I run my finger down any flat surface I get a fair wad of paper dust and general dust. I do keep my slide and negs in boxes and holders. I use either a very soft 3/4 wide nylon artist's paintbrush (most of the time) (no radio- isotopes involved) or sometimes I set up an air compressor with a nozzle (only when running a lot of slides through). I print up to 13 wide and sometimes I double that to make proofs with a seam down the middle, so some images get pretty large. Some films are over 20 years old and have been around, and have some scratches. The SS4000+ scans I do require minimal to no spotting. Rarely do I have to spend more than 2-3 minutes at most to clone and clean images, and that is mostly when it is a very large print. On the other hand, every scan I do on the Minolta Dual Scan II needs some spotting work regardless how much I clean the film and some need a lot. If you have only worked with a Nikon or Minolta scanner, you probably think I am speaking from another dimension when I say even under the conditions I have here I need to do very little spotting on those scans. So, now that I have done a true confession, I hope you can still respect me ;-) Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: How does one do this? Seal the room and install an air filtration system? Wear a smock, hairnet and gloves? I store slides in boxes with no gaps between the slides, yet I still find dust on them. I clean them with proper fluid and pads until I can't see anything under a magnifier, pop them in the scanner (LS-2000), and find there's still crap all over them if I turn off ICE. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Austin Franklin Well, I'd say if you want the best results from any scanner, simply keep your work environment, film storage, scanner etc. free of dust. For many years before Digital ICE people made dust free images in both the darkroom and with scanners. IMO, Digital ICE is no substitute for sloppy work habits and a sloppy work environment and bad film storage. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
Jim, Why? Like I do, he simply checks/cleans his negatives before scanning. I thought he was describing my temporary quarters at first and I have a 1/2 mile dirt/gravel driveway...I have the exact same environment, except I don't have a paper cutting farm in my basement. One key is either keeping them clean in the first place, and therefore having to do minor if any, dust removal...or simply doing some level of dust removal prior to scanning. Also, as even Arthur has corroborated with me on, different scanners seem, for what ever reason, to have/not have dust problems, at least the dust is more/less visible, or physically there/not there. I believe this is reasonably universally known. Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? Art, Sheesh, I sure hope Austin doesn't read this! -JimD At 07:03 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: You've raised exactly the crux of the issue. Nikon scanner users have no choice. They must use dICE when it is available to them. I have an admission to make. I live is a rural area, where the air is often dusty. We live on a dirt and gravel road. My digital studio is in a finished basement. It is carpeted with a medium pile rubber backed glued down carpet. Because of all the equipment and furniture I have all over the place in my work area, and all the paper everywhere, and because I still have a lot of magnetically sensitive storage media around, I have only, in the last 10 years vacuumed here twice. It is just too much work to do it. I run part of my business in the same area where I manufacture paper goods which are cut and laminated by the thousands, and create a lot of particulate matter. The area directly connects to an unfinished basement area where I do shop work, auto repair, do airbrush painting, we store our recyclables, etc. and the rafters are covered in cobwebs. We have a 35 year old oil heat central hot air furnace, which is NOT clean, and the ducts have been cleaned exactly NEVER since we moved here, over 20 years ago, and were probably never cleaned since the house was built. Most all of the house is carpeted and the house has stupid blown textured ceilings which not only collect dust, but shed this white plaster-mica mix. We are in an earthquake zone and get hit every few weeks with one which gives the house a good shake. We have a standard low tech filter in the furnace and a electrostatic cleaner (ozone producing) which we run about once a month for a few hours. The chimney and firebox have been cleaned once in 20 years. I occasionally dust the digital lab area and I run a manual floor sweeper about once a year, if that, on the exposed areas of the carpet. Other than the spiders, we have no pets. If I run my finger down any flat surface I get a fair wad of paper dust and general dust. I do keep my slide and negs in boxes and holders. I use either a very soft 3/4 wide nylon artist's paintbrush (most of the time) (no radio- isotopes involved) or sometimes I set up an air compressor with a nozzle (only when running a lot of slides through). I print up to 13 wide and sometimes I double that to make proofs with a seam down the middle, so some images get pretty large. Some films are over 20 years old and have been around, and have some scratches. The SS4000+ scans I do require minimal to no spotting. Rarely do I have to spend more than 2-3 minutes at most to clone and clean images, and that is mostly when it is a very large print. On the other hand, every scan I do on the Minolta Dual Scan II needs some spotting work regardless how much I clean the film and some need a lot. If you have only worked with a Nikon or Minolta scanner, you probably think I am speaking from another dimension when I say even under the conditions I have here I need to do very little spotting on those scans. So, now that I have done a true confession, I hope you can still respect me ;-) Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: How does one do this? Seal the room and install an air filtration system? Wear a smock, hairnet and gloves? I store slides in boxes with no gaps between the slides, yet I still find dust on them. I clean them with proper fluid and pads until I can't see anything under a magnifier, pop them in the scanner (LS-2000), and find there's still crap all over them if I turn off ICE. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Austin Franklin Well, I'd say if you want the best results from any scanner, simply keep your work environment, film storage, scanner etc. free of dust. For many years before Digital ICE people made dust free images in both the darkroom and with scanners. IMO, Digital ICE
[filmscanners] Re: What can you advise?
Austin, Oh, I got confused. I thought it was going to take something like, at least, a class 100 clean room to get clean scans. -Jim At 12:48 AM 9/27/2002 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: Jim, Why? Like I do, he simply checks/cleans his negatives before scanning. I thought he was describing my temporary quarters at first and I have a 1/2 mile dirt/gravel driveway...I have the exact same environment, except I don't have a paper cutting farm in my basement. One key is either keeping them clean in the first place, and therefore having to do minor if any, dust removal...or simply doing some level of dust removal prior to scanning. Also, as even Arthur has corroborated with me on, different scanners seem, for what ever reason, to have/not have dust problems, at least the dust is more/less visible, or physically there/not there. I believe this is reasonably universally known. Austin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of JimD Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: What can you advise? Art, Sheesh, I sure hope Austin doesn't read this! -JimD At 07:03 PM 9/26/2002 -0700, Arthur Entlich wrote: You've raised exactly the crux of the issue. Nikon scanner users have no choice. They must use dICE when it is available to them. I have an admission to make. I live is a rural area, where the air is often dusty. We live on a dirt and gravel road. My digital studio is in a finished basement. It is carpeted with a medium pile rubber backed glued down carpet. Because of all the equipment and furniture I have all over the place in my work area, and all the paper everywhere, and because I still have a lot of magnetically sensitive storage media around, I have only, in the last 10 years vacuumed here twice. It is just too much work to do it. I run part of my business in the same area where I manufacture paper goods which are cut and laminated by the thousands, and create a lot of particulate matter. The area directly connects to an unfinished basement area where I do shop work, auto repair, do airbrush painting, we store our recyclables, etc. and the rafters are covered in cobwebs. We have a 35 year old oil heat central hot air furnace, which is NOT clean, and the ducts have been cleaned exactly NEVER since we moved here, over 20 years ago, and were probably never cleaned since the house was built. Most all of the house is carpeted and the house has stupid blown textured ceilings which not only collect dust, but shed this white plaster-mica mix. We are in an earthquake zone and get hit every few weeks with one which gives the house a good shake. We have a standard low tech filter in the furnace and a electrostatic cleaner (ozone producing) which we run about once a month for a few hours. The chimney and firebox have been cleaned once in 20 years. I occasionally dust the digital lab area and I run a manual floor sweeper about once a year, if that, on the exposed areas of the carpet. Other than the spiders, we have no pets. If I run my finger down any flat surface I get a fair wad of paper dust and general dust. I do keep my slide and negs in boxes and holders. I use either a very soft 3/4 wide nylon artist's paintbrush (most of the time) (no radio- isotopes involved) or sometimes I set up an air compressor with a nozzle (only when running a lot of slides through). I print up to 13 wide and sometimes I double that to make proofs with a seam down the middle, so some images get pretty large. Some films are over 20 years old and have been around, and have some scratches. The SS4000+ scans I do require minimal to no spotting. Rarely do I have to spend more than 2-3 minutes at most to clone and clean images, and that is mostly when it is a very large print. On the other hand, every scan I do on the Minolta Dual Scan II needs some spotting work regardless how much I clean the film and some need a lot. If you have only worked with a Nikon or Minolta scanner, you probably think I am speaking from another dimension when I say even under the conditions I have here I need to do very little spotting on those scans. So, now that I have done a true confession, I hope you can still respect me ;-) Art Paul D. DeRocco wrote: How does one do this? Seal the room and install an air filtration system? Wear a smock, hairnet and gloves? I store slides in boxes with no gaps between the slides, yet I still find dust on them. I clean them with proper fluid and pads until I can't see anything under a magnifier, pop them in the scanner (LS-2000), and find there's still crap all over them if I turn off ICE. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Austin Franklin Well
[filmscanners] RE: What can you advise?
Yeah, that's another possible criterion: depth of field. This is important if you have lots of badly warped slides. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Alex Zabrovsky In the past people have lament about AF uneven performance on originals with certain degree of bending (mostly slides bended a bit into not-so-tight frames). Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
