Epson 850 and 8x10 negs

[Sal Santamaura]

If you're scanning, put the neg emulsion down. Then simply flip it in PS.

Shiny side down ........right??

nope, other way around. dull side (emulsion) down, base is up

Epson flatbed scanners are capable of no more than 1200 samples per inch across the length of their moving sensors when using "Area Guide," i.e. the device's lower resolution lens. Achieving even that much is predicated upon 8x10 film emulsion being at the point of best focus. Although there's sample variation, the manufacturer's intent is that the lower resolution lens' plane of focus is above scanning bed glass by the thickness of sheet film base. Doing opposite of what the instructions say and placing 8x10 film emulsion, rather than base, down on the glass might be great for avoiding Newton's rings, but there's a good chance focus will be noticeably off.

We're back to a likelihood-consequences situation. Given how imprecisely the plane of focus is positioned in Epson V-series scanners, there's no way to know without trials on your particular V850. If it were my choice, I'd go with 320TXP. Or at least buy one 10-sheet box of 320TXP, clear a sheet in fixer without first developing, then use the washed and dried blank negative as a spacer upon which you can place any other 8x10 film emulsion side down, subsequently flipping it in your software program of choice. That will put your negative's emulsion exactly where Epson tries to put its low resolution lens' plane of focus and still eliminate Newton's rings.

[ndwgolf]

Or at least buy one 10-sheet box of 320TXP, clear a sheet in fixer without first developing, then use the washed and dried blank negative as a spacer upon which you can place any other 8x10 film emulsion side down.

Thanks for this
Just so I fully understand what you are saying, all I need to do is take a new sheet of 8x10 film (in the darkroom) and load it into a developing tank. Fill that tank with fixer and let it fix for 5 minutes, wash the film and then use that when it is dray as a spacer..........is that correct?? No need to used developer or stop??

Thanks

Neil

[Sal Santamaura]

...Just so I fully understand what you are saying, all I need to do is take a new sheet of 8x10 film (in the darkroom) and load it into a developing tank. Fill that tank with fixer and let it fix for 5 minutes, wash the film and then use that when it is dray as a spacer..........is that correct?? No need to used developer or stop??...

That's correct. Actually, unless you're concerned about the other nine sheets of 8x10 320TXP (TRI-X) in the box, i.e. want to use them to actually make pictures, there's not even any need for a darkroom or developing tank. In full room light, just place a sheet of film into a tray of fresh fixer, agitate for five minutes or so, then wash and dry. Spacer ready for use.

To ensure preparedness for when the spacer is accidentally scratched or gets dirty/fingerprinted, I'd clear a couple of extra sheets instead of just one. Use fresh fixer for each sheet, since there'll be a lot silver in the used stuff.

[ndwgolf]

That's correct. Actually, unless you're concerned about the other nine sheets of 8x10 320TXP (TRI-X) in the box, i.e. want to use them to actually make pictures, there's not even any need for a darkroom or developing tank. In full room light, just place a sheet of film into a tray of fresh fixer, agitate for five minutes or so, then wash and dry. Spacer ready for use.

To ensure preparedness for when the spacer is accidentally scratched or gets dirty/fingerprinted, I'd clear a couple of extra sheets instead of just one. Use fresh fixer for each sheet, since there'll be a lot silver in the used stuff.

Perfect...........does it have to be 320TXP, could it me TMAX 100 for example??

[Sal Santamaura]

...does it have to be 320TXP, could it me TMAX 100 for example??

Absolutely 320TXP and no other sheet film still manufactured. It's the only one left that has a matt coating on its base side intended to accept physical retouching dyes/inks/pencil. That's what prevents rings. Shiny plastic base material on every other sheet film causes rings when in contact with glass.

[locutus]

Actually, unless you're concerned about the other nine sheets of 8x10 320TXP (TRI-X) in the box, i

...That would be one expensive spacer!

[Sal Santamaura]

... Actually, unless you're concerned about the other nine sheets of 8x10 320TXP (TRI-X) in the box...

...That would be one expensive spacer!

Even if he wastefully used the entire box for one spacer sheet, it would cost $75 (not including shipping to Malaysia/Thailand). While not inexpensive, neither is it exorbitant for a lifetime of freedom from Newton's rings, especially taken in the context of how much a V850 and all the other digital printing equipment costs.

[ndwgolf]

I will be home on Thursday.....I will make a couple of spacers

[koraks]

Epson flatbed scanners are capable of no more than 1200 samples per inch across the length of their moving sensors when using "Area Guide," i.e. the device's lower resolution lens.

To which scanners does this apply? I opened up my 4990 for cleaning several times and surely, it only has one set of optics. No separate low-res and high-res lenses.

Achieving even that much is predicated upon 8x10 film emulsion being at the point of best focus. Although there's sample variation, the manufacturer's intent is that the lower resolution lens' plane of focus is above scanning bed glass by the thickness of sheet film base.

In my experience (again with the older 4990), the plane of sharp focus is quite a bit above the platen, around 1-2mm, both for the Film Area and Holder settings.

Is there any conclusive evidence that the situation is different for the newer V-series scanners? Do they indeed employ two different optical paths? And is the plane of focus indeed at about 0.1mm above the platen when the Film Area Guide option is selected?

[Doug Fisher]

>>To which scanners does this apply? <<

V7xx and V8xx series.

>>In my experience (again with the older 4990), the plane of sharp focus is quite a bit above the platen, around 1-2mm, both for the Film Area and Holder settings.<<

That height is in the very common range. Yes, since you have a single lens on that scanner the focus point would be the same.

>>Is there any conclusive evidence that the situation is different for the newer V-series scanners?<<

Yes, for the second "film with film holder" lens on the V7xx and V8xx it is supposed to be about 3 mm but there still is variation from scanner to scanner for the true best suspension height. That is the reason for the variable height function on film holders.

Doug