Epson V850 work-around for scanning 5x7 negatives.

[Joseph Kashi]

Hi, I'm new to this forum but not to large format photography, which I've done since the 1970s. Recently, I started using 5x7, mostly Ilford Delta 100 BW film in that size, but now scanned rather than wet-printed as previously

Initially, I had some difficulties getting a really in-focus scan of 5x7 film with an Epson V850 using both the included Epson Scan program and VueScan. Mostly, the difficulty arose from the lack of 5x7 film holders that would properly register with the scanner's film holder mode Aside from some wet/dry mounts that involve taping the negative to the ANR glass, I found no easy, commercially available 5x7 solutions for home processing and scanning.

I did find a highly satisfactory work-around and want to pass along the information in the hope that it will save others from similar initial hassles. Basically, I constructed my own 5x7 film holder for the Epson scanner by deconstructing and then revising a dual 4x5 Epson 4990 film holder.

Here's what I did: On Ebay, I bought a new Epson 4990 film holder that was set up to scan two 4x5 negatives at a time. I then carefully cut out the center cross-piece between the two 4x5 sections. I also cut the inner edges of the top-clamps for each 4x5 aperture. Use a very thin hacksaw blade carefully to ensure that only the minimum necessary material is removed in the saw kerf. You'll need that tight fit when you relocate the cut segment to the 7" point and epoxy it into place so that the aperture and edge supports exactly fit a 5x7 negative on the 7" side as well as the 5" sides.

Using a Dremel tool, smooth down any raised areas that interfere with negative seating and with top-clamp locking. The remaining portions of both partially-cut top-clamp pieces should close and lock normally. Epoxy part of one of the removed top-clamp segments to bridge the cut, otherwise unsupported, ends of the two 4x5 clamps, basically so that they form a single longer top-clamp and move simultaneously, supporting each other.

The cut-out section of the second top-clamp is used loose and separately as a friction fit top clamp on the second 5" edge that was part of the center section moved and epoxied at 7 inches. As a means to hold down the remaining 5" edge on the relocated center piece, that removable friction fit piece works well if your initial cuts are smooth and fit snugly.

I now had a 5x7 film holder that registered properly as a film holder of the right height in the Epson V850's central 5" high resolution scanning area and that supported the Ilford Delta 100 5x7 negatives quite flatly without requiring ANR glass on top.

Scanning with both VueScan and Epson scan produced very good to excellent edge to edge sharpness when using the makeshift 5x7 film holder at 2400, 3200, and 6400 resolutions and at most VueScan manual focus ranges from -.36 to +.74.

Using this makeshift 5x7 film holder, I judged that VueScan's manual focus seemed best at +.56. Scans at 2400 dpi and at 3200 dpi resolutions seemed to work best. I judged that the 2400 dpi scan had marginally better tonal separation on Delta 100. 6400 dpi scans had excellent sharpness but low acutance, even after strong post-processing in Lightroom. The test images, made with a Fujinon 210/5.6 NWS lens were sharp at 1:1 even when scanned at 6400 dpi inherent resolution but I did not particularly like the tonal quality at 6400 dpi.

Hence, my judgment was that the best 5x7 BW negative scans on the V850 scanner with VueScan seemed to be at manual focus +.56 and 2400 or 3200 dpi. With Epson Scan, setting the film holder setting, with or without setting 6400 dpi (which activates the high-resolution lens system), resulted in good focus.

On a 5x7 negative, 2400 dpi works out to making 40"x 56" digital prints at full native 300 dpi print resolution without any interpolation needed. Luckily, Delta 100 and the Fujinon NWS 210mm lens had ample native resolution.

[Hugo Zhang]

Is it possible to lay 5x7 negatives on the scanner like prints and simply scan them? I was told to use 24-bit-color and at 300 dpi. I just want to digitize all my 45, 57, WP and 810 and larger negatives and won't do large digital prints.

I struggled for a few hours this afternoon and don't know what to do.

[djdister]

I would avoid setting the negs directly on the glass if possible. In addition to Mr. Kashi's excellent solution, I made a decent 5x7 neg holder out of two pieces of mat board.

Is it possible to lay 5x7 negatives on the scanner like prints and simply scan them? I was told to use 24-bit-color and at 300 dpi. I just want to digitize all my 45, 57, WP and 810 and larger negatives and won't do large digital prints.

I struggled for a few hours this afternoon and don't know what to do.

[Joseph Kashi]

I would avoid setting the negs directly on the glass if possible. In addition to Mr. Kashi's excellent solution, I made a decent 5x7 neg holder out of two pieces of mat board.

I first tried the mat board approach with corner holders but could not get a scan that was in sharp focus on the V850. That's why I hacked the dual 4x5 4990 holder into a 5x7 holder. There was probably only a small difference in thickness but that was too much for sharp focus.

[Oren Grad]

Is it possible to lay 5x7 negatives on the scanner like prints and simply scan them?

Yes. Emulsion side down. That's what I do.

IMO 300 samples per inch is too low if one intends to print the scans, but with sheet film there are difficult tradeoffs to be made between scan resolution and file size / file manageability. You should make your own decision about what works best for you by making a set of scans at different settings up to the maximum and judging the results and the handling burdens for yourself.

[Joseph Kashi]

Is it possible to lay 5x7 negatives on the scanner like prints and simply scan them? I was told to use 24-bit-color and at 300 dpi. I just want to digitize all my 45, 57, WP and 810 and larger negatives and won't do large digital prints.

I struggled for a few hours this afternoon and don't know what to do.

Yes, you can lay the 5x7 negatives on the scanner, emulsion side down facing the glass. Then, put Anti-Newton Ring glass on top (mat side down on to top of negative) to hold the negative flat. I found that worked well enough with Epson Scan up to 2400 dpi, but the makeshift 5x7 film holder worked somewhat better with Epson Scan and much better with VueScan. I would urge you to do some consistent, documented scanning tests before deciding upon your final workflow specs. Epson Scan is a good start because it produces decent results without a lot of fiddling.

If you lay your negatives directly on the glass, then use the setting for film guide and try to center negatives on the scanner glass. The Epson Scan software that comes with the scanner is best for this setup. If all you're doing is digitizing old photo negatives or prints, then those minimum quality settings that you mention will work but not very well. You'll likely be better off at 1200 dpi or 2400 dpi and 48-bit color for two reasons:

You extract much more data from the higher resolution and higher bit depth negative scans, and that data may be of value some day to others - if you don't get that data when you can, then you've precluded any higher level use that may be desired in the future, either by you and by those to come; and,

Even if you just print same size, the downsizing and higher bit depth will result in a better print. When digitizing an analog process like a negative or paper print, a higher sampling rate ( higher resolution and bit depth) than the intended final output will minimize the inevitable loss of information in the final digitized result, resulting in better apparent sharpness and less banding.

Disk storage is now very cheap and inexpensive, so there's no practical reason to do tiny scans unless you 1.) don't have the time, or 2. ) store everything "in the cloud".

Scanning an analog item like a negative or a paper print at 300 dpi will result in effective resolution that's lower than 300 dpi. I've forgotten most of the math to calculate the actual loss of effective resolution but higher sampling rates result in much less loss. I've found that 1200 is good enough for a lot of 5x7 negatives on a flat bed scanner and that 2400 dpi high bit rate scans seem optimum. ( As I mentioned in my original post, higher than 2400 dpi scans don't seem to capture any additional real resolution, tend to reduce micro-contrast somewhat and quickly result in excessive file size.)

When I started doing large format photography back at MIT with Minor White back in the early 1970s using the Zone System, we had to go through a lengthy series of camera, lens, and exposure meter calibrations and then calibrations of our film and print exposure and development. These were, and remain, fairly tedious and time-consuming but are unavoidable if you want to do high quality film photography.

Digitizing analog film and paper prints introduces into the final workflow yet another step requiring careful calibration of your monitor, of your scanner settings and technique, and of your printer in addition to the same equipment and film developing calibration tests required for Zone System.

These are just optimized starting points and if you're after the highest quality output, you'll still need to make tweaks for different images and also in your digital post-processing with Lightroom or a similar program. Ideally, a scanned film negative image will have a full and well-differentiated tonal range without being too contrasty. That allows you to optimize afterwards in post.

However, once you have your complete system dialed in, digitized storage and final printing is much easier and more consistent than making a final wet print and you only have to spot the print once, digitally. It's ultimately worth the effort when you're intent upon exhibition quality results.

[Oren Grad]

Then, put Anti-Newton Ring glass on top (mat side down on to top of negative) to hold the negative flat.

I get artifacts in my V700 scans when I have AN glass on top of the negative, I think generated by reflections from the extra glass surface. Often my film stays flat even without; otherwise the negative needs to be held down some other way.

I may try again at some point with antireflection coated glass. It's a pain to find large pieces without subtle flaws, but perhaps that will matter less when the glass is being used to hold down a negative for scanning than it does in a negative carrier or in contact printing.

[Joseph Kashi]

I get artifacts in my V700 scans when I have AN glass on top of the negative, I think generated by reflections from the extra glass surface. Often my film stays flat even without; otherwise the negative needs to be held down some other way.

I may try again at some point with antireflection coated glass. It's a pain to find large pieces without subtle flaws, but perhaps that will matter less when the glass is being used to hold down a negative for scanning than it does in a negative carrier or in contact printing.

I've found that anti-glare glass from a picture-framing shop also works OK if the mat side is down and in contact with the negative. It's also much less expensive. I bought commercial ANR glass for this purpose but later found that mat glass is OK. It appears that as long as the rougher side is in contact with the top of the negative and the emulsion directly on the scanner glass, then Newton rings are less likely.

[Hugo Zhang]

I have just read somewhere that a sheet of undeveloped but fixed 8x10 film could be used as a spacer placed directly on the scanner glass and then the 8x10 negative to be placed shining side down. Does this work? I would find some 5x7, WP and 8x10 blank negatives as spacers.

[Pere Casals]

I have just read somewhere that a sheet of undeveloped but fixed 8x10 film could be used as a spacer placed directly on the scanner glass and then the 8x10 negative to be placed shining side down.

Perhaps this would be suitable for the 4990 scanner but not for the V700 - V850 series.

The V850 has two lenses, when you use the area guide you may scan two sheets on glass (with emusion down, as mentioned, to avoid newton rings) as that frame may take a 8x10 negative and the Low Res lens is used. The High Res is used when a holder is detected and it covers only 5.9" maximum width.

The High Res Lens has an effective optical yield of 2900pi in the horizontal axis and 2300dpi in the vertical one, while the Low Res lens has a proportionally lower yield, around 2200 to 1900dpi effective (X-Y) that anyway it's an insane amount of image quality from a 5x7 sheet.

The HighRes lens is focused some mm over the glass, where the holders place the film. The LowRes lens is focused on the glass bed surface.

I have just read somewhere that a sheet of undeveloped but fixed 8x10 film could be used as a spacer placed directly on the scanner glass and then the 8x10 negative to be placed shining side down.

Perhaps this was good for the preceding 4990 model, it has a single lens that probably is focused in an intermediate position, to work acceptably both for mediums placed on bed and also for mediums raised by the holder, but IMHO placing that extra sheet makes no sense for scan on glass with the V850 area guide. What you may do is wet mounting your film directly on bed glass.

I was told to use 24-bit-color and at 300 dpi.

As Oren pointed, 300 is too low ! If on bed, scan it 2400 dpi at least, better if 3200. You want always a good quality for edition, after edition you donwnsample to the suitable size for the printer (use "bicubic ideal for reductions" setting).

Don't scan 24-bit-color !!! this is 8 bits per channel only, with 256 levels as you modify the curves you soon will obtain a nasty banding.

Scan single channel grayscale at 16 bits per channel, and save it in TIFF format (BMP nd jpg will only save 8bits/ch), you have 65k gray levels and you always have smooth tonal transitions.