Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

[Pere Casals]

As I noted in my original post, the 2400 dpi was, for me, the best overall compromise.

That's how things worked out for me, but others may find different approaches work better for them, hence the suggestion to make one's own tests, perhaps with these starting points.

2400 also works for me most of the times for LF, but if a LF negative is really sharp then I scan it at higher dpi, anyway this is more important in 4x5 than in 5x7, IMHO.

YMMV, of course... it depends on print size, for example.

The amount of additional resolution beyond 2400 dpi is fairly minimal ................ If the effective resolution isn't on the film, scanning at a higher dpi makes little difference except perhaps in a totally theoretical as opposed to practical way.

Of course, it depends on how sharp is your shot and how "microcontrasty" textures are, some shots benefit from a higher dpi and some not. Anyway an image requires a x2 effective pixel count (x1.4 linear resolution) to see a real improvement, Image Quality it's very expensive in image size terms.

At 2400 you get under 2000 effective dpi with the EPSON, but you may reach 2900 in the horizontal axis, if this makes or not a benefit for a particular shot and if that improvement is necessary... it depends...

When I shot ADOX CMS 20 sheets I easily see the difference, TMX resolves more or less depending on microcontrast, datasheet tells very different resolving power depending on contrast.

You may also start bumping into Lightroom's file size limit, and Epson Scan sometimes has difficulty saving the file beyond a 5x7 2400 dpi scan, which results in a 340MB or so file size at 2400 dpi.

With bundled Silverfast, Ps and a SSD disk I've no problem.

The amount of additional resolution beyond 2400 dpi is fairly minimal but the file size is much larger and contrast and tonal quality are somewhat (but visibly) reduced.

I don't agree with that, tonality is exactly the same, scan a crop at 2400 and at 6400, make images of the same size and compare, if you noticed a difference it had to be an edition effect or scanning settings. Why tonal tonality has to change with dpi ?

PD: if scanning 16 bits per channel then you do what you want with tonality in the curve edition, of course a problem is is there if scanning or saving the file in 8bits: banding soon happens.

a super-sharp Fujinon 210mm NWS lens, which resolves as good as my CM-W lenses and better than the Sironar N lenses, and noticeably better than any of my Dagor and Protar VII optics that I also tested at the same time.

In LF lenses there is a sample to sample variation, a Sironar N may be better or worse than a CM-W. Fujis don't usually include shims for the front cell, many Sironars do, if the original shims are lost then the right shimming has to be found.

NWS or CM-W lenses are not better or worse than Sironar N.

An old Dagor/Protar should resolve less in a good shot, of course, another thing is when this makes a difference or not.

The scanning at 2400 dpi was good enough to see sharply rendered film grain on this very fine grain film, which suggests little real improvement beyond that 2400 dpi point. Beyond that point, one is creating artifacts, not real data.

YMMV, but to depict well the film grain structure you need higher efective dpi than the EPSON is able, fortunately grain structure is mostly irrelevant in LF, most of the times. In fact it's really difficult to depict well grain structure in the hybrid processing, nothing like a "through the negative" wet print for a pleasing grain structure (when enlargement vs film nature and processing shows the grain).