8x10 negative scanning, masks blocking Epson V850 Pro?

[rsvpw]

I am using an Epson V850 pro (with Newtonian glass) to scan 80+ year old 8 x 10 industrial photographic negatives. Most are coming out extremely well, but...

Some negatives have black paper glued to them (or a reddish-brown "paint) to mask the object - they didn't want the back ground to interfere with the object, or they simply wanted it to be more prominent.

Whatever the case, most of the "openings" within the mask are not rectangular making scanning difficult. I can scan with the mask in the field, but the results are "muddy". I tried changing contrast and exposure, and some are moderately better, but most remain less than "sharp".

I'm using Epson's software that came with the scanner - and for the negatives, slides, photos, glass plates, etc. - in professional mode. I have tried searching the web but... I obviously don't even know what the proper term is for the mask or blocking of the negative.

Removing the paper does not appear to be conducive to archiving or to improved clarity.

Any ideas, hints, derisive comments? Thanks in advance!

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Whatever the case, most of the "openings" within the mask are not rectangular making scanning difficult. I can scan with the mask in the field, but the results are "muddy". I tried changing contrast and exposure, and some are moderately better, but most remain less than "sharp".

It would really help to see a sample image of this.

I don't think the software is the issue. Epson software is really god for their flatbed scanners. There's always Vuescan, or Silverfast, but I just don't see software as having an advantage here.

[rsvpw]

Thanks for the reply - an image as masked? I can provide that, but scanning removes the mask from the result. It simply acts as background, screwing up, I think, the exposure. I'll see if I can find one and take a snapshot of it - the negatives are not all here , just a few I work on and this batch may not have one.
I agree, the software shouldn't be an issue - I believe it is getting "tricked". If the "open" image was rectangular, I could modify the focus such that it only "sees" that part - and the "normal" exposure, contrast, et al take over. If you have negatives that are on the full film, but only 70% exposed, you know the drill - focus just on the object, and the image is sharper, clearer, etc.

-- merged --

Ok - Excuse the hands. The negative is in a sleeve - you can see some issues right off - these negatives are curved (due to the storage conditions they were in) and they are fragile. BUT..

You can see the mask on this (which you couldn't see on a scan). In this case, it is a bell shape (sort of) in other cases, trapazoidal. But...it makes scanning difficult, inexact and...if there are critical aspects that are within the scope of the mask, the focusing of the scan means they come out less than desirable.

[lordsmurf]

I'm still not sure what I'm looking at here.
I may need a further zoomed out image, which also includes the scanner in the image.

[rsvpw]

You are looking at an 8x10 b/w negative from about 1933. The negative is masked by glued on black paper. You can see the are that is not masked (looks like a bell shape). The scanner is incidental, really - I simply need to know what terms to apply to this type of "touch up" - the black paper mask is the best I can do - and how to scan the open area when it is so masked. It may be that my terminology is not right - I am not a photographer. I have been looking for information on how to scan the image when in a mask like this. I have several hundred if not thousands of these to do and the results to date have been less than ideal. Other negatives & glass plates of the era and before scan beautifully. It's just the masked ones that cause an issue. Thanks!