Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: teddillard on July 27, 2010, 02:20:23 pm
-
I'm not sure if this is the place for this subject, but I just did some setup and testing of our iQsmart scanner with the fluid-mount station. While I was at it I did a few comparison scans between fluid and non-fluid mounting. Here's the blog post: http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111 (http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111)
Here's the short story:
Non fluid mount, 100%, 2500dpi scan:
(http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Picture-11.png)
Fluid mount:
(http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Picture-2.png)
-
Guessing you like the wet scanning?
-
The non-fluid scan looks sharper to me, but will require some work. Looks like the fluid makes for some diffusion. Probably more than adequately sharp for printing, though.
I remember a client scanning some of my 4x5 sheets and returning greasy transparencies to me. No one told me, and those were one of a kind originals. Never allowed anyone to use a fluid mount scanner on my film after that without paying for the originals, in advance, in full, beforehand.
-
The non-fluid scan looks sharper to me, but will require some work. Looks like the fluid makes for some diffusion. Probably more than adequately sharp for printing, though.
I remember a client scanning some of my 4x5 sheets and returning greasy transparencies to me. No one told me, and those were one of a kind originals. Never allowed anyone to use a fluid mount scanner on my film after that without paying for the originals, in advance, in full, beforehand.
From the actual files, the two scans are exactly the same sharpness. You can't really take a good look here, but if you look closely at the black edge on the right side, it's identical.
The grease has always been a concern to me. We're using the LUMINA fluid- much more volatile and easier to clean than the old-school mineral oil.
-
Kami is of the volatile type but evaporates completely, leaving no residue.
-
I'm not sure if this is the place for this subject, but I just did some setup and testing of our iQsmart scanner with the fluid-mount station. While I was at it I did a few comparison scans between fluid and non-fluid mounting. Here's the blog post: http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111 (http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=111)
Fluid mounting works well on flatbeds and the Nikon 8000-9000 if you use the right method and the right holders. I have advocated that method for many years. Never had a problem with spilled fluid. While it reduces dust problems it is still nice to have ICE working on scanners like that, the wet mounting still allows it.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
Kami is of the volatile type but evaporates completely, leaving no residue.
As far as I know, the Kami is no longer available.
-
As far as I know, the Kami is no longer available.
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information! Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks. And no, no one uses mineral oil any more, and haven't for many years! So no grease worries! As has been mentioned, Lumina fluid works terrifically, just the right combo of not too volatile, but easy to clean up (actually, clean-up means letting the fluid evaporate- there is no "clean-up" required).
Fluid scans are just as sharp as non-fluid scans, as Ted says. The reason the fluid works is it has the same refractive index as the film- so when it fills in the tiny cracks and scratches, it gives you the same sharpness available from the film. There is no diffusion happening.
Finally, while wet mounting with a flat-bed gets you the advantages of less retouching, it can't touch the quality of a real drum scan, with its lower noise, non-existent flare, and perfect focus every time over the entire film.
As with everything, check your options for yourself before committing to any one solution.
Bill
-
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information! Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks.
mis-information? Like I said, as far as I know...
Thanks for the correction...
Just out of self-respect, too, the iQsmart is no ordinary flatbed. Unfortunately, it's also no longer available from Kodak- officially discontinued as of the last month or so.
Just found this link, not sure how much longer it will be up: http://graphics.kodak.com/US/en/product/im...rt3/default.htm (http://graphics.kodak.com/US/en/product/image_capture/professional_scanners/iqsmart_scanners/iqsmart3/default.htm)
-
While more work, fluid (oil/gel) mounting is preferable. And if you get netwon rings (try a shot of anything against a white bkgnd), its a life saver. No way to retouch out that mess. Generally the scans appear sharper too.
-
WOW- Where to begin with the mis-information! Kami is available (although I don't recommend it!) from Aztek, the drum scanner folks.
I got mine at Vistek in Toronto. Don't know if they still stock it.
-
I've found the perfect solution for my scanning needs (4x5 and 2 1/4, some 35mm) has been a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 Ultra and vuescan. No flatbed, no glass, no fluid and it's razor sharp. Capable of very hi-res. Back when folks were using drum scanners I got virtually all the local film scanning biz from some commercial printers who were doing drum scans because they couldn't compete with our prices. Still get quite a bit from a few local pro fine-art film devotees, university art faculty and a couple of commercial shooters. Of course the vast majority of commercial folks are almost 100% digital now. I regularly print 40x50 inches from 4x5 scans and the prints are immaculate. Mix a little of the old with a little of the new, throw in some knowledge and experimentation, and you can get a lot for a little!
-
a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 Ultra and vuescan.
hoo boy! That's an old one... (...step aWAYYY from the SCSI sir, and keep your hands where I can see 'em!)
I ran one of them a looong time ago- I remember it as painfully slow... as a friend of mine once said, "I'm not young enough to wait for that thing!" Or was that the 3-pass Leaf I'm thinking of?
I've got to say, though, I've run more than a few Imacon/Hasselblad Flexframe scanners, too- ultra high resolution, no glass, and I thought really nice scans... until I saw what the fluid can do. It changed my tune.
-
hoo boy! That's an old one... (...step aWAYYY from the SCSI sir, and keep your hands where I can see 'em!)
I ran one of them a looong time ago- I remember it as painfully slow... as a friend of mine once said, "I'm not young enough to wait for that thing!" Or was that the 3-pass Leaf I'm thinking of?
I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005. Can't remember the exact date of the bankruptcy. Polaroid sent me 2 of apparently the last Ultras in exchange for finding some problems in the older Sprintscan 45 that came before the Ultra. I'm still using the first one they sent. The other is new, in the box as a backup if this one ever dies. The Ultra isn't too slow. At max resolution, a 4x5 takes about 4-5 minutes. 2 1/4" film is of course faster. I have 2 holders, and by the time I have the next neg or trans cut and mounted in the holder, the other one is usually on the way out of the scanner. I have to live with about a 1/4" crop on the long edge of the 4x5. There is a glass holder that fixes that problem, but I have never located one (haven't tried that hard either). Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.
-
I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005. Can't remember the exact date of the bankruptcy. Polaroid sent me 2 of apparently the last Ultras in exchange for finding some problems in the older Sprintscan 45 that came before the Ultra. I'm still using the first one they sent. The other is new, in the box as a backup if this one ever dies. The Ultra isn't too slow. At max resolution, a 4x5 takes about 4-5 minutes. 2 1/4" film is of course faster. I have 2 holders, and by the time I have the next neg or trans cut and mounted in the holder, the other one is usually on the way out of the scanner. I have to live with about a 1/4" crop on the long edge of the 4x5. There is a glass holder that fixes that problem, but I have never located one (haven't tried that hard either). Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.
I could be wrong, but I think either Aztek or someone else makes a wet mount holder for the Ultra. If not Aztek, check with the maker of Lumina fluid (http://scanscience.com/).
I started scanning 4x5's with a Polaroid Sprintscan 45 back in '97. Boy they were great back then! Boy the drum sure beats 'em hands down! ;^) Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up. I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.
Bill
-
I think Polaroid made the Ultra until around 2002 or 2004, maybe as late as 2005.
...
Here it is 7-8 years later, and the Ultra is still going strong. Been very dependable.
I have the date of the Ultra45 discontinued as of June '03, so your memory is serving you well... I think the last one I used was around "00- sounds like they made 'em go faster.
I'm curious, what system are you using to run that? Is it an old OS9, or do you have some combo of OSX and/or a SCSI/FW adapter? I know the old Betterlights, Imacons and some other scanning systems got pretty hard to keep running with Leopard. We're still running a Betterlight on Tiger with a SCSI and it's running swell... I tried to get an Imacon Photo to play nice with a Ratoc SCSI/FW converter and Leopard- kitty wouldn't play nice.
-
Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up. I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.
I had the same thought as soon as I saw the "glass holder" comment.
-
I have the date of the Ultra45 discontinued as of June '03, so your memory is serving you well... I think the last one I used was around "00- sounds like they made 'em go faster.
I'm curious, what system are you using to run that?
Runs great on XP Pro. Adaptec SCSI card. There's one Adaptec SCSI card that works particularly well with this scanner and it's the one I have. Just can't remember the model right now. Probably harder to find now.
I've read elsewhere about someone wet mounting with an Ultra, but when I can print 4x5's to 40x50 inches and see film grain, I don't know. It might be an interesting comparison, but for practical purposes, certainly for my purposes printing photographs on the z3100, the Ultra is still a perfect for me as is. If it ain't broke, etc. Would like to find one of those Polaroid 4x5 glass holders, though, so I don't have to stitch if I absolutely have to have that 1/8" on the long edge of a 4x5.
Can still pick up an ultra from time to time on ebay or somewhere. Can usually get them cheap because people think it's "broke" but they usually just don't know what they're doing and aren't willing to learn.
-
I could be wrong, but I think either Aztek or someone else makes a wet mount holder for the Ultra. If not Aztek, check with the maker of Lumina fluid (http://scanscience.com/).
Seriously, tho, if you could use a wet-mount with the Polaroid, that would be a great set-up. I think you'll find the reduced clean-up more than makes up for the additional hassle of the wet-mounting.
Bill
Looked at the scanscience site. Interesting, but looks like they only support the Sprintscan 120 medium format scanner. I don't see any 4x5 Polaroid reference or accessories. Nor at Aztek.
The purpose of the Polaroid 4x5 glass film holder is if you are using film that is not adequately flat when mounted in the traditional holder, or if you need full frame on a 4x5. The regular non-glass Polaroid holder crops about an 1/8" off the long side, usually not a big deal, but a problem one will have using that default holder in any scenario. I've never had a problem with film flatness. Occasionally would benefit from full frame 4x5 capability. Should have picked one up on Ebay when I had the chance.
-
How does fluid scanning resolve film flatness issues?
Does it just force the film to be flat? Or is there some optical effect happening?
-
How does fluid scanning resolve film flatness issues?
Does it just force the film to be flat? Or is there some optical effect happening?
Capillary and/or Van der Waals forces pull the film to the "perfectly" flat glass surface with wet mounting. "Perfectly" = with the curve of the earth's surface for float glass. Yes, it just forces the film to be flat. That flatness in itself improves the optical path of light but there are other optical effects that improve the light transmission on for example the matte emulsion coating side of B&W film. In general less scattering and less layer boundary refraction. Of course the main advantage is focus being perfect on all spots of the film with the assumption that the focus is in a flat field. My Nikon 8000 may have a slightly cilindrical focus field though given what I measure in the last focus differences left after creating a wet mount holder and tweaking that holder for even focus.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm)
-
I've read elsewhere about someone wet mounting with an Ultra, but when I can print 4x5's to 40x50 inches and see film grain, I don't know.
You see "aliased" grain. The result of the actual optical resolution + the film grain or dye cloud size scanned. Even on a Nikon 8000-9000 with actual resolution around 3700 PPI it is aliased grain that we see, even Tri-X developed in Rodinal isn't resolved at grain size
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm)
-
Capillary and/or Van der Waals forces pull the film to the "perfectly" flat glass surface with wet mounting.
With a few exceptions. The clip marks on the 4x5 film can sometimes cause some trouble. I tape two corners and then use a cover sheet, and I try to tape down the clipmark corners, but if they're too buckled there's not much you can do. You get a bubble, that scans as a line. If the film was creased or otherwise damaged you'd probably get the same problem. Thankfully I haven't seen any film that bad... yet.
-
The "aliasing", Moiree sort of artifact is stronger with old, thick films, like Tri-X.
Modern, monodisperse, thin films are much better scannable, e.g. T-Max.
-
The "aliasing", Moiree sort of artifact is stronger with old, thick films, like Tri-X.
Modern, monodisperse, thin films are much better scannable, e.g. T-Max.
Let's rephrase it then: if he sees grain with a scanner that has a true resolving power of 2000 PPI in best case then it is aliased grain. From whatever film.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html (http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html)
-
With a few exceptions. The clip marks on the 4x5 film can sometimes cause some trouble. I tape two corners and then use a cover sheet, and I try to tape down the clipmark corners, but if they're too buckled there's not much you can do. You get a bubble, that scans as a line. If the film was creased or otherwise damaged you'd probably get the same problem. Thankfully I haven't seen any film that bad... yet.
A PET cover sheet of 10 micron and an overlap of 15mm all around is usually enough in my experience. Ample fluid between the layers. The Nikon holders I made have some spring clamps to hold the overlay at one side so I can insert the MF film in between.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html (http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html)
-
You see "aliased" grain. The result of the actual optical resolution + the film grain or dye cloud size scanned. Even on a Nikon 8000-9000 with actual resolution around 3700 PPI it is aliased grain that we see, even Tri-X developed in Rodinal isn't resolved at grain size
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm)
That's interesting.I guess what I should have said is I scan my 4x5 film and my final prints from the z3100, even at 40x50 inches, are indistinguishable from what I made in the darkroom. Well, that's not entirely true. My prints from the scans on the z actually look better than the darkroom prints. So with virtually perfect results, I'm not convinced I need to do anything to make them better.
You guys have me intrigued by the wet scanning now. Doesn't look like a wet scanning kit is available for the 45 Ultra, but if I come across one I'll look into it. I do spend a fair amount of time cleaning up scans, especially from customers, but I also don't do as much scanning for clients as a few years ago.
-
You guys have me intrigued by the wet scanning now. Doesn't look like a wet scanning kit is available for the 45 Ultra, but if I come across one I'll look into it. I do spend a fair amount of time cleaning up scans, especially from customers, but I also don't do as much scanning for clients as a few years ago.
heh... all part of the Master Plan!
I haven't seen a kit for that scanner either, but you mentioned a glass carrier- that would work. If you have one, I'd give it a test!
-
I haven't seen a kit for that scanner either, but you mentioned a glass carrier- that would work. If you have one, I'd give it a test!
I guess LL needs to add a "Wanted" section. I'll have to watch the auction sites and maybe one comes up. That crashing sound is the sound of all those Polaroid 4x5 scientific glass holders landing in the dumpster over the last 5 years!
-
NOTHING beats a drum scan, and they are always fluid mounted. A good operator will not damage fillm.
The Photo Multiplier Tube technology just blows away CCD scanners.
The Tango drum scanner will run circles around the Imacon Flextite scanners or flatbeds.
Too bad it is so much more expensive.
Craig
-
NOTHING beats a drum scan, and they are always fluid mounted. A good operator will not damage fillm.
The Photo Multiplier Tube technology just blows away CCD scanners.
The Tango drum scanner will run circles around the Imacon Flextite scanners or flatbeds.
Too bad it is so much more expensive.
Craig
This is the thing that is so weird. My drum scanning is competitive (sometimes more, sometimes less) with services that are clearly inferior such as Imacons and various flatbeds. (Don't get me wrong, the best Scitex's are great for images that won't wrap on a drum!) In particular, the Imacon hype is incredible.
Bill
-
As an aside, has anyone any experience of using PEC-12 as a scanning fluid?
Cheers
Peter
-
As an aside, has anyone any experience of using PEC-12 as a scanning fluid?
Cheers
Peter
PEC-12 will destroy any acrylic drum or holder. Don't know about glass, but I imagine it might work. However, it's MUCH to volatile, evaporates too quickly. Stick to Lumina for plastic, Kami for glass.
Bill
-
NOTHING beats a drum scan, and they are always fluid mounted. A good operator will not damage fillm.
The Photo Multiplier Tube technology just blows away CCD scanners.
The Tango drum scanner will run circles around the Imacon Flextite scanners or flatbeds.
I always love to hear when something "blows away" some other thing in digital imaging... The lesson I've learned, over and over in this business, is that it's about the right tool for the job. The right tool will "blow away" every other tool for that task.
The Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are incredibly fast and good for the money and speed- I've used several, and for years. If I had 150 4x5 scans to make of good condition film I'd pick it in a heartbeat. The desktop film scanners have their place too- most of my portfolio and website was scanned using one- and it was perfect for that purpose- relatively small inkjet portfolio presentations. Come in to the studio, set up the thing to scan away, rescan at will if you need to. The low-end flatbeds, the Epson V700 in particular, is a great scanner, and will adapt to fluid mount.
Fluid mount, whether a drum or a flatbed, is an incredibly helpful process for damaged film, as I showed at the start of this thread. Drum scanners are obviously at the top of the pecking order here, but they're not without their problems, as anyone who's had the pleasure of running one knows...
For example... got a pinball machine playtable to scan? Our Cruse blows away everything else out there...
http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=108 (http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=108)
Sorry, but it's unfair to give anyone the impression that unless they're getting a drum scan they're not doing it right... it's just not the case.
-
I always love to hear when something "blows away" some other thing in digital imaging... The lesson I've learned, over and over in this business, is that it's about the right tool for the job. The right tool will "blow away" every other tool for that task.
The Imacon/Hasselblad scanners are incredibly fast and good for the money and speed- I've used several, and for years. If I had 150 4x5 scans to make of good condition film I'd pick it in a heartbeat. The desktop film scanners have their place too- most of my portfolio and website was scanned using one- and it was perfect for that purpose- relatively small inkjet portfolio presentations. Come in to the studio, set up the thing to scan away, rescan at will if you need to. The low-end flatbeds, the Epson V700 in particular, is a great scanner, and will adapt to fluid mount.
Fluid mount, whether a drum or a flatbed, is an incredibly helpful process for damaged film, as I showed at the start of this thread. Drum scanners are obviously at the top of the pecking order here, but they're not without their problems, as anyone who's had the pleasure of running one knows...
For example... got a pinball machine playtable to scan? Our Cruse blows away everything else out there...
http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=108 (http://www.parrotcolor.com/store/blog/?p=108)
Sorry, but it's unfair to give anyone the impression that unless they're getting a drum scan they're not doing it right... it's just not the case.
Hi Ted-
While it's certainly true that many tasks do not require the best processes, and without debating the merits of "blown away" kinds of language, this is in fact the point. For some tasks, some processes are demonstrably better than others, and while you may complain about hyperbole, I am much more bothered by the "as good as a drum scan" baloney (is that hyperbole? ;^) from Imacon and others. It's just not true!
Your Cruze is IMHO the best process for photographing art; BetterLight is also excellent, but in most cases cheaper. Why not say so? And don't let the Epsons of the world get away with "It's almost as good as a Cruze!"
(Wishing I could afford more Cruze scans)
Bill
-
... bothered by the "as good as a drum scan" baloney (is that hyperbole? ;^) from Imacon and others. It's just not true!
Your Cruze is IMHO the best process for photographing art; BetterLight is also excellent, but in most cases cheaper. Why not say so? And don't let the Epsons of the world get away with "It's almost as good as a Cruze!"
(Wishing I could afford more Cruze scans)
Bill
Yeah, I get caught up with picking nits, as far as word use goes... My Color Pipeline book has a whole section on terms I'd just as soon never hear used again- because they're never used correctly, or to clarify a concept. (Anyone for a little metamerism?) Drove my editor crazy.
You're right, the Imacon is not the same as the drum scans, or even these flatbed (iQsmart3) scans I've posted because of the fluid, also the CCD limitations of the Imacons... of course, I've been lucky enough to use just about everything at one time or another, so I have a basis of comparison, I realize not many people have had that curse... oh, I mean chance... Until you actually see the differences, it's hard to make a call on which to use and when.
As far as Betterlight being cheaper, yeah, the machine is cheaper... actually the scans on the Cruse are cheaper though. Because we can literally fire the scanner up, place the work and do the scan, the pricing is very close to standard scanning costs, MB for MB. Better too, due to the incredible control you have over the light sources. In any case but when you can't bring the art to the camera. I have a video of that too, showing the light control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14eRrLmwsM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n14eRrLmwsM)
-
OK, as a result of this thread I made my way over to Bill's studio in the South End here in Boston last night, for the First Friday open studios... Info on his location and website is on his sig, as you can see, but there I set eyes on a project he's been working on for a while- a series of prints (DRUM) scanned from negatives his grandfather shot as a missionary in China over more than 40 years.
Amazing.
I'd encourage anyone in the Boston area to get over there and see these pieces. It's really a unique opportunity. It was great seeing you (again, I think ), Bill, and that is some beautiful work you're doing! You're really fortunate, too, to have such a rich collection to work with- a rare glimpse into daily life in China in the early part of the 20th century.
Oh, and on topic- it's also a perfect use of a drum scanner and fluid mounting. (Older originals, possible damage, and delicate- scan 'em once and put them back into safe storage... )
Thanks for the opportunity to visit, Bill, and great work!
-
FYI I started a thread on the Cruse here:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=45339 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45339)
We have several videos up of the thing in action...
-
OK, as a result of this thread I made my way over to Bill's studio in the South End here in Boston last night, for the First Friday open studios... Info on his location and website is on his sig, as you can see, but there I set eyes on a project he's been working on for a while- a series of prints (DRUM) scanned from negatives his grandfather shot as a missionary in China over more than 40 years.
Amazing.
I'd encourage anyone in the Boston area to get over there and see these pieces. It's really a unique opportunity. It was great seeing you (again, I think ), Bill, and that is some beautiful work you're doing! You're really fortunate, too, to have such a rich collection to work with- a rare glimpse into daily life in China in the early part of the 20th century.
Oh, and on topic- it's also a perfect use of a drum scanner and fluid mounting. (Older originals, possible damage, and delicate- scan 'em once and put them back into safe storage... )
Thanks for the opportunity to visit, Bill, and great work!
Ted, thanks for the kind words; it was great to see you Friday night! I've been working on my Grandfather's archive of 40 years of photos in China for the last 15 years. I've scanned them with a Polaroid 4x5, a Scitex, and 2 different drum scanners. But the best part, and the reason I spend all that time and money, is for responses such as yours.
BTW, I also showing the work of one of my clients, Bruce Rathbun ( http://berathbun.com) (http://berathbun.com)), whose 8x20 Platinum Palladium contact prints are also incredible Bruce was featured in a recent issue of Black and White magazine. I've heard alot about this process, but this is my first chance to see the prints up close. They are wonderful. Bruce will be showing his work for the next two months as well in my studio, so if you're in the Boston area, come on in for September and October open studios. I have been scanning Bruce's 8x20 negs for the past few months; the results are amazing.
Bill