Scanning 8x10 Negatives

[Smitty]

Hi All,
Anyone had experience with scanning 5x7 and 8x10 negatives? Would say an Epson Perfection V800 be up to the task? Is there a big difference between V800 and V850?
Thanks, Steve

[Duolab123]

Hi All,
Anyone had experience with scanning 5x7 and 8x10 negatives? Would say an Epson Perfection V800 be up to the task? Is there a big difference between V800 and V850?
Thanks, Steve

Nope to your question. Everyone seems to be jumping on the high resolution digital camera wagon these days. I had an old Microtek scanner probably 15 years back, they still make a version, on high resolution even modern scanners take forever and a day. It had a carrier for 8x10, but it took forever.

[Two23]

I scan with Epson v700, mostly b&w 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. I lay the two bigger ones flat on the glass emulsion side down. I think the difference between 800 & 850 is the 850 includes Silverfast software. I'm using Vuescan. Results are good.


Kent in SD

[Alan9940]

I've been scanning 8x10 for nearly 20 years on an Epson Expression 1680 Pro. It doesn't have the higher resolution of today's scanners, but it's fine for my needs.

[j.e.simmons]

I’ve scanned 8x10 for many years, first with an Epson 4990, then with a V750. The higher resolution lens on the 750 will not cover 8x10, but it scans well with the lower resolution lens for my purposes. I use Vuescan, too.

[Pere Casals]

Hi All,
Anyone had experience with scanning 5x7 and 8x10 negatives? Would say an Epson Perfection V800 be up to the task? Is there a big difference between V800 and V850?
Thanks, Steve

As j.e. said, the Epson has two different lenses, the high resolution lens covers 5.9" so the 8x10 negatives are scanned with the lower resolution lens on the bed with emulsion side down, this still yields +300MPix effective which is an insane amount. Many drum scanning services only offer 2000dpi scans for 8x10", the same the Epson obtains for 8x10", a 4000dpi drum scan costs hunders of $ if offered, so we can say that the Epson and 8x10" size is a powerful combination.

See my "famously infame" bell, epson 8x10 scanned, showing in your monitor like in a 6m high print: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/

See the bolts over the wood... well, this would be in a 6m print... if your print is 1.5m then it would be perfect.


The V850 includes a Silverfast version that makes multi-exposure (https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html) that is useful for very underexposed velvia slides. If you purchase the V800 you later can upgrade the SF version to have M-E for some bucks.

The 50 it usually includes a second set of holders, so you load next batch while scanning

Also the 50 has lenses with better coating, but it's not clear if this adds any benefit in practice.


The V800-850 does not include 5x7 holders so you have to scan it on bed with the lower resolution lens like with 8x10", but as the high resolution lens covers 5.9" wide you can scan it in holder at higher resolution with other third party or DIY solutions.

[Smitty]

That is all good information. I have an older version of Silverfast but also use VueScan for most of my work. Just contemplating returning to the dark room or continue on the Epson print solutions. I am primarily a black and white printer have been using pezio

[paulbarden]

I use an Epson V750 for all my 8x10 negatives and it delivers outstanding results. I could print billboards from the scans.

[Pere Casals]

That is all good information. I have an older version of Silverfast but also use VueScan for most of my work. Just contemplating returning to the dark room or continue on the Epson print solutions. I am primarily a black and white printer have been using pezio

Return to the darkroom please.

Scanners are important but a well crafted darkroom print is precious.

[mdarnton]

I scan with an HP G4050. As with most flatbeds it isn't supposed to meet it's resolution specs, but I wouldn't know because I never scan over 1000ppi, which is more than enough for large format. You can buy them used on Ebay for $50 plus shipping. Then power it with Vuescan--another $50 or so. Don't even *think* of using the HP software! I've been very happy with it. Scans on my LF flickr site, if you want to see what it does. Any lack of sharpness on those is because I'm using X-ray film, which isn't too sharp, itself.

[Alan9940]

That is all good information. I have an older version of Silverfast but also use VueScan for most of my work. Just contemplating returning to the dark room or continue on the Epson print solutions. I am primarily a black and white printer have been using pezio

Why not do both? I enjoy both the analog wet darkroom and working via the desktop for different reasons.

[Jim Noel]

I do both. Does anyone know if Microtek has a driver for Scanmaker i900 which works on Windows 11?

[Alan Klein]

As j.e. said, the Epson has two different lenses, the high resolution lens covers 5.9" so the 8x10 negatives are scanned with the lower resolution lens on the bed with emulsion side down, this still yields +300MPix effective which is an insane amount. Many drum scanning services only offer 2000dpi scans for 8x10", the same the Epson obtains for 8x10", a 4000dpi drum scan costs hunders of $ if offered, so we can say that the Epson and 8x10" size is a powerful combination.

See my "famously infame" bell, epson 8x10 scanned, showing in your monitor like in a 6m high print: https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/32535835184/

See the bolts over the wood... well, this would be in a 6m print... if your print is 1.5m then it would be perfect.


The V850 includes a Silverfast version that makes multi-exposure (https://www.silverfast.com/highlights/multi-exposure/en.html) that is useful for very underexposed velvia slides. If you purchase the V800 you later can upgrade the SF version to have M-E for some bucks.

The 50 it usually includes a second set of holders, so you load next batch while scanning

Also the 50 has lenses with better coating, but it's not clear if this adds any benefit in practice.


The V800-850 does not include 5x7 holders so you have to scan it on bed with the lower resolution lens like with 8x10", but as the high resolution lens covers 5.9" wide you can scan it in holder at higher resolution with other third party or DIY solutions.

Have you personally scanned Velvia with Silverfast?

[Alan Klein]

Does the V850 provide a better result scanning 8x10s with the required low-resolution lens or a 4x5 with the high-resolution lens?

[wilderness]

I do both. Does anyone know if Microtek has a driver for Scanmaker i900 which works on Windows 11?

Was not aware there was even a driver for Win 8 or 10!

[rawitz]

Does the V850 provide a better result scanning 8x10s with the required low-resolution lens or a 4x5 with the high-resolution lens?

Not really, I have a V700 and a modern V800 (same as V850) and made test with both. IQ and sharpness is the same, because the basic optical and CCD technic is the same. Epson driver and scan software is a bit different, but not really better and faster.
I tested resolution from groundglass and imageholder with 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi with the US-Airforce-Target: the differences are marginal:
Groundglass resolution from 2400dpi scan was 2000 dpi net, from 4800dpi scan was 2200 dpi. Imageholder resolution from 2400dpi was ca. 2200dpi net, from 4800 dpi scan was 2400dpi net. My scans are not sharpend or contrasted.
Many other tests outside confirm my results (within small differences). The construction limit definitly is about 2400dpi.
But 2400 dpi is nearly 50 line-pairs per mm translated to filmphotography. I doubt that many real world LF-filmshots have this resolution!
So answering your question: I mostly do my 8x10 colorfilm scans on groundglass and only sparely on WMFilmholder with later stichting. The only real advantage using the filmholder way is I have the ICC dust removal tools, which only works with color slides and negs, not with BW film.
regards
Rainer

[stiganas]

I also have the G4050 on the cheap and recently bought a Canon 9950f (on the cheap) and I am not impressed. I know for sure the G4050 is bad and was hoping that 9950f is better but is not. Did you ever have the chance to compare the G4050 with an Epson scanner (for 5x7/8x10 format) ?

I gave up doing 35mm due to bad scanner but now I am happy again with Canon 5Dmk2 and a cheap diaduplicator.



I scan with an HP G4050. As with most flatbeds it isn't supposed to meet it's resolution specs, but I wouldn't know because I never scan over 1000ppi, which is more than enough for large format. You can buy them used on Ebay for $50 plus shipping. Then power it with Vuescan--another $50 or so. Don't even *think* of using the HP software! I've been very happy with it. Scans on my LF flickr site, if you want to see what it does. Any lack of sharpness on those is because I'm using X-ray film, which isn't too sharp, itself.

[Alan Klein]

Not really, I have a V700 and a modern V800 (same as V850) and made test with both. IQ and sharpness is the same, because the basic optical and CCD technic is the same. Epson driver and scan software is a bit different, but not really better and faster.
I tested resolution from groundglass and imageholder with 2400 dpi and 4800 dpi with the US-Airforce-Target: the differences are marginal:
Groundglass resolution from 2400dpi scan was 2000 dpi net, from 4800dpi scan was 2200 dpi. Imageholder resolution from 2400dpi was ca. 2200dpi net, from 4800 dpi scan was 2400dpi net. My scans are not sharpend or contrasted.
Many other tests outside confirm my results (within small differences). The construction limit definitly is about 2400dpi.
But 2400 dpi is nearly 50 line-pairs per mm translated to filmphotography. I doubt that many real world LF-filmshots have this resolution!
So answering your question: I mostly do my 8x10 colorfilm scans on groundglass and only sparely on WMFilmholder with later stichting. The only real advantage using the filmholder way is I have the ICC dust removal tools, which only works with color slides and negs, not with BW film.
regards
Rainer

Sorry. I didn't understand your answer past "Not really" Can you explain without all the figures. Which is better? 4x5 with the better lens or 8x10 with the inferior lens? By how much?

[rawitz]

Sorry for my confusion, but I`m always talking about the same absolute film-resolution not comparing different film size. My comparison of 8x10 film from groundglass-scanning to (wetmounting-)filmholder-scanning so is the same for 4x5 film. Or to compare the filmsizes: 8x10 scanning from groundglass is nearly the 4x absolute resolution as 4x5 scanning from filmholder (2200dpi to 2400 dpi).
regards
Rainer

[bmikiten]

Quick update to those following this. I purchased a piece of museum glass (2.50mm) and used a .060 shim (cardboard for the test) on both sides of the glass and got great full frame 8x10 negative scans. I used the Betterlight glass I use for 4x5 and measured from a granite base to the surface of the glass as I knew that it was perfectly in focus for my scanner. I then produced shims to move the museum glass to exactly the same plane above the lens. No issues at all and I can wet or dry mount with great clarity. This was much less expensive than any of the other methods (special printed or cut frames, etc) I tried and the entire assembly is less than $50.00.

[Jim Noel]

I scan 8x10 with Microtek, Scanmaker i900. It scans via transmission, not reflection and has done a great job for about 20 years.

[bmikiten]

I would 100% agree, love to spend all my time in the darkroom and really, really don't love hanging digital (inkjet) prints. That said, I shoot 6x17 as well and don't have an 8x10 enlarger so making digital negatives is actually a reasonable solution and provides a fiber based print in the end produced in the darkroom. I also love 8x10 contacts but have a few times where a larger print makes sense and again, the digital negative has some benefits. Photoshop makes it so simple to remove dust and artifacts and make small layer adjustments that I came to the realization that it can't be ignored anymore. Just my excuses for the day.

[Jim Andrada]

I've scanned 5 x 7 color negs with the 750, but upgraded to a IQsmart 2. It does a better job (no surprise, I suspect) but the 750 results were quite acceptable. Not sure what film the negs were - they were shot in 1973. I'll try to remember to pull a couple out of storage and check the film type tomorrow. I did a couple of 8 x 10 scans as well, but most of what I do in LFis 5 x 7

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've been using a V750 for several years for negatives up to 8x10. Does a nice job. Good enough for my needs.

[Tin Can]

Once upon a time I DIGI spotted all negative scans

Bought my V700 new 8-9 years ago, almost never turn it off

It is fine for my purpose and I never spot wet DR prints or negatives

I embrace flaws

I am careful about dust, yet my DR is always humidified, in winter, that helps


I've been using a V750 for several years for negatives up to 8x10. Does a nice job. Good enough for my needs.

[jesse1996]

Quick update to those following this. I purchased a piece of museum glass (2.50mm) and used a .060 shim (cardboard for the test) on both sides of the glass and got great full frame 8x10 negative scans. I used the Betterlight glass I use for 4x5 and measured from a granite base to the surface of the glass as I knew that it was perfectly in focus for my scanner. I then produced shims to move the museum glass to exactly the same plane above the lens. No issues at all and I can wet or dry mount with great clarity. This was much less expensive than any of the other methods (special printed or cut frames, etc) I tried and the entire assembly is less than $50.00.

Would it be possible for you to post photos of this setup? I just got a V850 and have about 100 negatives that need to be scanned. I shoot almost exclusively 8x10 so a solid wet mounting setup for $50 sounds almost too good to be true. Thanks in advance!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

To give an idea here is a comparison of the v850 at 4000dpi and my Howtek HiResolve 8000 at 2000dpi. I need to adjust the distance of the 8x10 on the v850 to improve focus. That being said this comparison shows the radical difference between drum and v850. Using a digital camera still won't approach this and you have a lot of extra steps to do with stitching images together.

Image on left is flat bed. Image on right is drum scan

[bmikiten]

I would hope it is different. I use a Scitex scanner and the results are far better than any standard flatbed but of course, the cost is 5x - 10x higher. As others have mentioned, it all comes down to your final product, needs and your attention to detail and your craft.

[rawitz]

To give an idea here is a comparison of the v850 at 4000dpi and my Howtek HiResolve 8000 at 2000dpi. I need to adjust the distance of the 8x10 on the v850 to improve focus. That being said this comparison shows the radical difference between drum and v850. Using a digital camera still won't approach this and you have a lot of extra steps to do with stitching images together.

Image on left is flat bed. Image on right is drum scan

Hm, before showing critical comparison between V850 and Howtek or else you must adjust Epson focus, or what else do you want to prove? Did you scan on groundglass or filmholder (wet-mounting FH)? How did you get the film flat? What is the view-ratio of your comparison pics, 100%?
My own comparisons between V850 with (adjusted) filmholder 3200dpi and Nikon LS9000 4000dpi shows only marginal sharpness differences I can show if you want ...
regards Rainer

[AuditorOne]

I contact print the 8x10 negative onto RC VC paper using a contact print frame and a light in my bathroom. Develop the print in the bathtub and then scan the print. Once you get started it is actually pretty easy. I don't mess with fiber prints, just use inexpensive Arista EDU RC VC glossy paper. It is not that hard. Attached is a small example from my Conley #1 camera.

245517

[Alan Klein]

Hm, before showing critical comparison between V850 and Howtek or else you must adjust Epson focus, or what else do you want to prove? Did you scan on groundglass or filmholder (wet-mounting FH)? How did you get the film flat? What is the view-ratio of your comparison pics, 100%?
My own comparisons between V850 with (adjusted) filmholder 3200dpi and Nikon LS9000 4000dpi shows only marginal sharpness differences I can show if you want ...
regards Rainer

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

[bmikiten]

The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field. I have and 850 and it wasn't until I paid for a professional scan that I realized the enormous difference. I still have my V850 and use it to make quick contact prints for the digital files I used to track negatives.

[rawitz]

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

Hi Alan, comparing your pics after sharpening the Epson scan I see not much difference. Its clear that the flatbed technic with diffuse lighting always produce some blurring that can be nearly elimated by USM in postprocessing. So I agree with your results.

But I dont scan 8x10 film any more on the groundglass as standard, but with the (focus calibrated) FM-Holder in high-resolution mode 3200dpi and AN-Glas for flatness.


The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field.

The limiting factor is the whole system especially the (vertical) stepping resolution, so a better optics alone would not help so much.
The glassholder for me was a must for the Nikon LS9000 for flatness the same day I got it 20 years ago.

I never will go back to 8x10 high-resolution scans without ICE-dust-reduction.

regards
Rainer

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hm, before showing critical comparison between V850 and Howtek or else you must adjust Epson focus, or what else do you want to prove? Did you scan on groundglass or filmholder (wet-mounting FH)? How did you get the film flat? What is the view-ratio of your comparison pics, 100%?
My own comparisons between V850 with (adjusted) filmholder 3200dpi and Nikon LS9000 4000dpi shows only marginal sharpness differences I can show if you want ...
regards Rainer

First, not really sure why you have to be rude, second, as I have stated on many posts I wet mount my film either on the better scanning mount with anti newton glass and optical Mylar or directly to the Epson for 8x10. I also wet mount to 8x10 anti newton glass and I adjust for focus by using precision shims under the glass.

If you look you will notice they are both same scale.

And they are at 100%.

To throw out a number, I have close to 1000 scans on my V850. I know how it performs and have done studies of it.

My point in posting these was just a comparison not a critical scientific work complete with statistical numbers, etc. can I do that sure. But what is the point? I like my Epson and I like my drum scanner. Both will produce the results I desire depending on my needs for an image.

Not too mention the LS9000 only scans up to medium format. I am talking 8x10. I would expect the 9000 to be similar to a salt. They are both digital sensors.

My drum scanner is an analog process all the way except for recording the image to disc. The Epson is als a digital sensor with leds whereas the drum scanner uses tungsten bulbs and optical fiber and PMTs.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

I saw that post a while ago. Who was the scan operator and how did he scan the film? What was the set up. Again my post is not to debate the pros and cons of one scanner over the other. It was simply here is a result I have and it is noticeably different between the two n

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The V850 with a film holder that is adjusted or/and a fluid mount system will still suffer from less than optimum optics and mechanical systems over something like a Howtek or Scitex scanner. The Nikon has similar issues with film flatness and optics depth of field. I have and 850 and it wasn't until I paid for a professional scan that I realized the enormous difference. I still have my V850 and use it to make quick contact prints for the digital files I used to track negatives.

I would agree. 850 will do well, but can't touch the drum scanner.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I contact print the 8x10 negative onto RC VC paper using a contact print frame and a light in my bathroom. Develop the print in the bathtub and then scan the print. Once you get started it is actually pretty easy. I don't mess with fiber prints, just use inexpensive Arista EDU RC VC glossy paper. It is not that hard. Attached is a small example from my Conley #1 camera.

245517

Nice

[Alan Klein]

I saw that post a while ago. Who was the scan operator and how did he scan the film? What was the set up. Again my post is not to debate the pros and cons of one scanner over the other. It was simply here is a result I have and it is noticeably different between the two n

Hi Steve. I wasn't commenting on your scans. I was only giving my experience with one comparison. I don't have a drum scanner so it was done by someone else. All that info on who and what his settings were on his Howtek as well as my settings on the V850 is in my first post of that thread.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

[rawitz]

Steven, sorry for the critical words but I was irritated by your statement still having to "adjust the distance of the 8x10 on the v850 to improve focus".
Thank you for your explanantions, now I see your comparison about on par with Alan (without final USM step). Alan compares a non-sharpened Howtek 4000dpi scan with a sharpened Epson 2400dpi scan - so not bad for the Epson! And in my scans there is a markable step-up from 2400 dpi to 3200 dpi for the Epson (not much more up to 6400).

As professional photographer in the 90th I had the first drumscanner in town (Frankfurt/Main) and made 10 years scanservice for my other colleges before they switched to digital cameras. I had a Scanmate5000 and 11000 (tried Howtek and Screen too). Today I´m out of bussiness and do analog only 8x10 and larger in Color-Neg. I found for some reasons drumscanning not optimal for 8x10.

regards
Rainer

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No problem. I get a little touchy right now after going thru house build from hell. Builder stole from us, then ditched us and I had to finish home on my own and still have a lot to do.

I found the Epson using Vuescan, 6400dpi binning by 2 to 3200 dpi to be quite good. Vuescan also lets me scan a true raw image (no film curve) which I prefer for post-processing. What I like about the Howtek and DPL is the ability to create a cms file that then scans the film at the hardware level. Not at software therefore, I get a scan with no film curve, ie, linear. And I am starting to like converting my bw with DPL.

What I typically do is bring in an unconverted image into colorperfect and invert it there. But the Howtek is giving some good linear conversions by creating a cms file. Eventually my Epson will be used to scan glass plates both landscapes and astrophotography.

I will do a better comparison once I get settled in the new home.

My two images above were not sharpened. I use high pass filter to do most of my sharpening.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hi Steve. I wasn't commenting on your scans. I was only giving my experience with one comparison. I don't have a drum scanner so it was done by someone else. All that info on who and what his settings were on his Howtek as well as my settings on the V850 is in my first post of that thread.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

From what I can see the Howtek is much better. The Epson as well as the Howtek has native optical resolutions as well as non-optical (interpolated) resolutions. Could be the 4800 is an interpolated resolution. Did you wet mount and use something like the Betterscanning wet mount to adjust the focus?

I like the idea of not having to sharpen my images which the Howtek seems to produce scans that do not need to be sharpened which is ideal and shows the quality of ones image at capture. At least as far as focus.

Also, there isn’t a native aperture for a given dpi setting. It is highly dependent on the film as well as the dpi chosen. There is what can be described as an optimal setting that can be determined by the software such as DPL can do. I use that as my starting point make some test scans with and around the “optimal” aperture chosen. It is not always what the software may chose or some guideline.

Not bagging on your comparisons, they are quiet good and informative.

[rawitz]

Also, there isn’t a native aperture for a given dpi setting. It is highly dependent on the film as well as the dpi chosen. There is what can be described as an optimal setting that can be determined by the software such as DPL can do. I use that as my starting point make some test scans with and around the “optimal” aperture chosen. It is not always what the software may chose or some guideline.

Old drumscanner wishdom: Opening the scanner aperture gives a small loss of sharpness but a big gain of grain reduction.

[jnantz]

Why not do both? I enjoy both the analog wet darkroom and working via the desktop for different reasons.

couldn't agree more .. im using a perfection4870 for scanning, 6foot by 8foot panels looked very nice.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I enjoy both worlds. will start soon on darkroom printing.

[Alan Klein]

From what I can see the Howtek is much better. The Epson as well as the Howtek has native optical resolutions as well as non-optical (interpolated) resolutions. Could be the 4800 is an interpolated resolution. Did you wet mount and use something like the Betterscanning wet mount to adjust the focus?

I like the idea of not having to sharpen my images which the Howtek seems to produce scans that do not need to be sharpened which is ideal and shows the quality of ones image at capture. At least as far as focus.

Also, there isn’t a native aperture for a given dpi setting. It is highly dependent on the film as well as the dpi chosen. There is what can be described as an optimal setting that can be determined by the software such as DPL can do. I use that as my starting point make some test scans with and around the “optimal” aperture chosen. It is not always what the software may chose or some guideline.

Not bagging on your comparisons, they are quiet good and informative.

No I didn't wet scan. I used the standard V850 4x5 film holder with the glasss to hold the film flat. When I had an opportunity to compare scanning, I thought it would be interesting. I was surprised that the V850 would do that well. It does give a blurry kind of product if scanning flat. It requires loads of sharpening afterwards. Does the Howtek apply sharpening during its scan process?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No I didn't wet scan. I used the standard V850 4x5 film holder with the glasss to hold the film flat. When I had an opportunity to compare scanning, I thought it would be interesting. I was surprised that the V850 would do that well. It does give a blurry kind of product if scanning flat. It requires loads of sharpening afterwards. Does the Howtek apply sharpening during its scan process?

You can apply sharpening with the Howtek, but I have not done so yet as I prefer to do it in PS. Although, I may try it down the road. You should try to wet scan. Results will improve. Yes, am impressed with the V850 overall. I had an opportunity to get the Howtek so I did, now going back is not possible. :)

[Alan Klein]

You can apply sharpening with the Howtek, but I have not done so yet as I prefer to do it in PS. Although, I may try it down the road. You should try to wet scan. Results will improve. Yes, am impressed with the V850 overall. I had an opportunity to get the Howtek so I did, now going back is not possible. :)

Yes I remember when you bought it. You've done a good job with it. I'm pretty satisfied with dry scanning with the V850 as it's used for posting on the web and seems mostly good enough for that purpose. If I print, I'll probably do a pro scan on a drum scanner.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes I remember when you bought it. You've done a good job with it. I'm pretty satisfied with dry scanning with the V850 as it's used for posting on the web and seems mostly good enough for that purpose. If I print, I'll probably do a pro scan on a drum scanner.

If you want, you could send me an image and I can drum scan it for you. It wouldn't cost you anything to give it a try? I could also do a wet mount on my V850 for comparisons.

How is the center spot filter working out? I need to get a couple here soon.

[Alan Klein]

If you want, you could send me an image and I can drum scan it for you. It wouldn't cost you anything to give it a try? I could also do a wet mount on my V850 for comparisons.

How is the center spot filter working out? I need to get a couple here soon.

Thanks for the offer. Right now, I haven't been shooting much. With the center filter, its very large because the lens is a f4.5 90mm Nikkor with 107mm filter requirements if using the CF. So if I need to use a filter, I use my 75mm lens without center filter that will take my 77mmm filters with step up adapter.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks for the offer. Right now, I haven't been shooting much. With the center filter, its very large because the lens is a f4.5 90mm Nikkor with 107mm filter requirements if using the CF. So if I need to use a filter, I use my 75mm lens without center filter that will take my 77mmm filters with step up adapter.

Gotcha. I have the Schneider Super Angulon 90mm, ginormous filter thread. But I know I need a center spot for it and for my 75mm Nikkor lens. Very obvious when I shoot subjects like the Grand Canyon when it is stormy or sunrise/set.

Well, if you want to send an image you already have, let me know.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Here's a comparison I did with V850 and Howtek 8000 using 4x5 film in its holder on the V850 at 2400 with sharpening with Howtek afterward. The results compare favorably to the Howtek.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners&highlight=howtek

I always sharpen in PS after scanning with the V750. Makes a huge difference. Dry mounting or wet mounting.