Vuescan or SilverFast?

[john neal]

I have been playing with the trial versions of these scanning programs. Initially, I thought that Vuescan would be the one for me, but now I'm not so sure.

Vuescan is pretty good, but has struggled with one or two of my B&W negs, and does not like APX 400 at all. I have attached a couple of crops of one neg to illustrate. This is a small part of a Technical Pan neg - Vuescan seems to generate artifacts that look like a double exposure, while Silverfast copes quite well - it also produces a better range of tones in one shot. I tried with Vuescan 5 or 6 times and got the same result every time - very odd. The neg is fine, as shown by the SF scan

On the other hand Silverfast is just that - fast! It runs my scanner at about 4 or 5 times the speed that Vuescan runs at - and still sems capable of producing a 300dpi scan.

Converting the costs from either US$ or € to £ gives me an outlay of about £40 for Vuescan Pro (which includes multi-pass scanning) and £35 for SilverFast SE (no multipass) or £63 for the plus version to get multipass.

Does anyone have experience of these products and any insight into pitfalls to watch out for?

 

[jaffa_777]

Hi John,

I have both and have used both. I first started on Vuescan, then tried Silverfast and have never gone back. Silverfast was more of a learning curve though and your settings have to be right to get great results. The negafix profiles are excellent for scanning b&w and print film, while you really need to create profiles to get the best results out of slides. Silverfast gives me more control and operates my Nikon 9000 better with all the different trays. It seems to handle trickier/problem negatives better than Vuescan, and when using Silverfast HDR I feel it gives superiour results.

Just my opinion.

 

[JNewell]

John, what scanner are you using?

 

[john neal]

John, what scanner are you using?

At the moment, I have a very basic Prime film 1800u, but will have to upgrade at some point next year - I know that is the downside of SilverFast, in that it is hardware specific.

Jaffa,

thanks for your thoughts too (no mention of the World Cup!)

 

[DavidH]

I'm a big fan of Silverfast Ai and have used it for years - in fact it is Silverfast that has allowed me to carry on using film - I have to deliver digitally and had a frustrating time with Vuescan.

Silverfast is expensive, is restricted to one particular scanner (I have 2 and so had to buy 2 versions and then HDR as well - quite an investment), I find it slower to do the actual scan than Vuescan or any of the bundle packages, has quite a learning curve, I find the SE (cheaper) versions too limiting and have upgraded to Ai for both scanners.

But it gives absolute control over the scan including incredibly powerful color control tools, and works in a truly wysiwyg way. Using Ai I can produce rich color scans from neg film that would only have been possible from slide film years ago, giving me all the advantages of working with neg film.

I dont have the Multipass versions - I tried them out but found no advantage with the film I was scannign at the time.

good luck

 

[kjoosten]

I agree with pretty much everything DavidH said. I do all my B&W scanning with a Coolscan V and SilverFast AI. It is the only software I have found that will consistantly NOT blow out highlights in Ilford negs. The levels/curves, lamp control and HDR will pretty much guarantee you can retrieve all the infomation there is.

See my gallery for examples.

 

[Jonathan R]

Of these two programmes, I only have experience of Vuescan. It is a bit quirky (e.g. it often seems to ignore my crop lines) and the help material is rubbish. On the other hand, it mostly functions pretty well, and is miles better and quicker than the scanner's own software (Canon FX4000US).

Your left-hand example above can surely only have been cause by a double pass? Do you have any option boxes checked that would cause a double-pass? For instance, long exposure? I have never seen such an artefact. In my experience this is not at all typical of Vuescan. Also, when Vuescan does heed my crop lines, it consistently preserves highlight detail, contrary to what kjoosten says.

 

[Tuolumne]

I use an Epson 4990 scanner and a Minolta 5400 scanner. After reading and reading about scanning I was sure I would have to use either Vuescan or Silverfast. I tried them both: hated Vuescan; never really warmed up to Silverfast. Instead I found that Epson's software was both more intuitive and gave me much better scans. Go figure - no one else seems to believe that. But I am happy with my results so I don't really care about other's opinions on the topic. Which gets to the point - you have to try it out yourself and see which you like best. No one can tell you - even when everyone seems to agree.

/T

 

[semrich]

Does the Epson software support the Nikon coolscan 5000? If so what version and where can you buy it?

 

[Tuolumne]

Does the Epson software support the Nikon coolscan 5000? If so what version and where can you buy it?

I doubt it, but don't know for sure. It just comes with the Epson scanner. I use the Minolta provided SW with their scanner.

/T

 

[john neal]

Thanks for all the input guys - I'm not sure i am much further forward. I could get by with Vuescan, and it probably is the most "future proof" if i'm going to upgrade my scanner in the near future.

I'll sleep on it a while......

 

[DeeCee3]

Epson TWAIN

Epson TWAIN

I agree with Tuolumne about the 4990 software vis-a-vis Silverfast. I've never tried Vuescan so I can't comment on it. The 4990 is my second Epson flatbed with film/slide adaptor and with both it, and the earlier one, I found the TWAIN software Epson built into the scanner to be perfectly adequate for my needs. The newer version (4990) even has ICE as a part of the package.

My workflow begins with the preview scan and ends with Photoshop (either v.6 or Elements 3) and from there either to my hard drive for storage, or to the printer.

I think lots of folks are turning their noses up at the Epson too quickly. Just because it's labeled as a flatbed doesn't mean it won't turn out decent scans of film.

dc3

 

[drewbarb]

I'm just getting back into scanning after a hiatus of several years. In the past I really liked the results from Silverfast, but I found it to be very complex software. I'm a digi-tech idiot; everything about digital imaging is a steep learning curve for me, and I find very little fun in it.

So I wanted to look at other, simpler programs this time around. I tried a few other programs, including Vuescan. I love the idea of having one program for all my scanning needs, and on the surface I liked the simplicity of the interface. But it seems somehow limited or dumbed-down in function. The scans I've produced with it are ok, but not great. Maybe I just haven't worked with it enough.

Now I'm back to using Silverfast. The amount of control it affords is incredible, and for me this trumps all the drawbacks: it is expensive- and you need to buy a separate version for each scanner!- and it's complex to learn to use well. But if you can wade through all that, (if I could wade through it!) I think it's the best scanning software yet written. It affords far more control and precision over my scans than anything else I've used.

 

[Photon42]

Vuescan

Vuescan

this thread temps me again to try Silverfast. I've yet to find out the real difference between the SE and UI version, though ...
I was using the NikonScan software provided with the Coolscan V at first. Now I've changed to Vuescan. The interface is a nightmare at first, but it is always funny to see, to what quirks one can acustom to.
In that sense, I am running Vuescan now and I must say it delivers much faster than it's Nikon counterpart and I like the Vuescan results much better.

Not being a scan pro, I still have the feeling that scanning - much like darkroom work and Photoshopping - requires some experience and proper application of parameters. Something I still work on.
I've attached a recently taken picture (M6 / Bio 2.0/35, Delta 100 in DDX), scanned with Vuescan.
Regards
Ivo

 

[triplefinger]

I'm with you on the epson software.

vuescan hates my 4990 and the epson software works great and is very fast.

I use an Epson 4990 scanner and a Minolta 5400 scanner. After reading and reading about scanning I was sure I would have to use either Vuescan or Silverfast. I tried them both: hated Vuescan; never really warmed up to Silverfast. Instead I found that Epson's software was both more intuitive and gave me much better scans. Go figure - no one else seems to believe that. But I am happy with my results so I don't really care about other's opinions on the topic. Which gets to the point - you have to try it out yourself and see which you like best. No one can tell you - even when everyone seems to agree.

/T