paapoopa
Established
Hi , I am using a epson V700 and has been constantly using vuescan for my scans, have been hearing a lot about silverfast and a lot of people prefer silverfast over vuescan. so i decided to test some scan in silverfast.
this is what i get, it seems i get quite a bit more from the vuescan instead. and the scan from silverfast seems to be cliping alot of highlight and shadow away.
I am just curious why is there so many people going towards silverfast instead, i am hoping that somebody tell me that i am missing out something in silverfast that will give me excellent result.
the one on the left is vue scan and the right is silverfast
by the way i am scanning both on a epson v700 and
vuescan version 8.5 and silverfast version 6.6
this is what i get, it seems i get quite a bit more from the vuescan instead. and the scan from silverfast seems to be cliping alot of highlight and shadow away.
I am just curious why is there so many people going towards silverfast instead, i am hoping that somebody tell me that i am missing out something in silverfast that will give me excellent result.
the one on the left is vue scan and the right is silverfast
by the way i am scanning both on a epson v700 and
vuescan version 8.5 and silverfast version 6.6
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I use Viewscan, and have for 10 yrs now. Its the best scan software I have tried on my Nikon 8000ED. Silverfast is disgustingly overpriced for my scanner, about $500!
That said, there is probably an adjustment for clipping amounts in Silverfast. I know there is on Viewscan. I have mine set to zero clipping of highlight and shadows, which gives a flatter scan, but makes preserving detail in high contrast images easier, even after using curves in Photoshop to increase the flat scan's contrast.
That said, there is probably an adjustment for clipping amounts in Silverfast. I know there is on Viewscan. I have mine set to zero clipping of highlight and shadows, which gives a flatter scan, but makes preserving detail in high contrast images easier, even after using curves in Photoshop to increase the flat scan's contrast.
I dont like it either. Just use what works best for you and dont bother.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
I think you're not the only one who are struggling in choosing correct work flow for scanning. A little bit off-topic, I use both Vuescan and Nikon Scan 4 for my Coolscan IV and I like both. In short, I use Nikon Scan 4 for color scanning and B/W scanning that don't need much manipulation. I use Vuescan for B/W scanning that I will edit the file later on. I attached here an example FYI
Scan-120302-0003 copy copy by kiemchacsu, on Flickr
Scan-120302-0003 copy copy by kiemchacsu, on Flickr
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I used to use Vuescan and my scanner's own software (Reflecta scanner) but since I downloaded Silverfast about one month ago, I am really surprised about the scanning quality. It's like I bought a new high end scanner. IMHO, Silverfast is the best out there. It has more controls than any other software, but you have to give it some time to learn it.
willie_901
Veteran
I will never use Silverfast again.
There is absolutely nothing about Silverfast that adds value to my scanning experience.
There is a relatively inexpensive eBook available about Vuescan. I found reading this book saved me a lot of time.
There is absolutely nothing about Silverfast that adds value to my scanning experience.
There is a relatively inexpensive eBook available about Vuescan. I found reading this book saved me a lot of time.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I personally don't like Silverfast, but I can see why some do. It does give you a lot of tools for getting good color (and probably B&W) out of your scans. Vuescan always gave me funny colors with color negatives and the interface is obtuse at times (as is Silverfast's in my opinion). That being said, Vuescan is pretty cheap and gives great 'flat' scans, color and B&W, if you are willing to work with them a bit in PS. Since my scans are destined for PS anyway, I use Vuescan and am very happy with it.
Ronald M
Veteran
If you are tying to scan on auto anything, scans will be all over the map.
It sometimes works as well as auto exposure on a camera, ie does not unless conditions are perfect.
I strive to get two things correct in the scan, color balance & exposure. All else is done in photoshop. This is as close to a "raw" digital image as you can get. All data the scanner sees should be visible. If one is clipped, there is some uncontrolable clipping in the software and I would ditch it right fast.
It sometimes works as well as auto exposure on a camera, ie does not unless conditions are perfect.
I strive to get two things correct in the scan, color balance & exposure. All else is done in photoshop. This is as close to a "raw" digital image as you can get. All data the scanner sees should be visible. If one is clipped, there is some uncontrolable clipping in the software and I would ditch it right fast.
cabbiinc
Slightly Irregular
I've found that to get scans more consistent go to the crop tab and set the Buffer % to something above 15%, default is 5% and any vignetting throws the whole thing off.
v3cron
Well-known
I'm really disappointed in the scammy/unprofessional nature of Lasersoft - their upgrade schemes and unreliable registration system. I have not been able to register my SF software since re-installing my OSX because they can't recognize my registration info, which has been verified through their website. Also, I cannot upgrade my OS to Lion because SF requires an $80 *ransom* to "upgrade" to a new version that works on an Intel-based Mac without Rosetta (unsupported in Lion). So basically, they are charging a ridiculous amount to get off of the 1990s version of their mediocre software because they think they have the market cornered. They are lazy, sleazy, and wrong.
Ed Hamrick sells a solid product with frequent and FREE updates. It works with every scanner out there, and can totally change your life if you do any kind of batch scanning. I was only using the bundled SF software that came with my Plustek because it was easy to spit out a RAW HDR scan, but it is just as easy in Vuescan. I won't be emailing Lasersoft to fix the registration issue. I bought the pro version of Vuescan something like 8 years ago, and Ed has never asked for another dime. And it works. And it doesn't freeze up my computer.
Ed Hamrick sells a solid product with frequent and FREE updates. It works with every scanner out there, and can totally change your life if you do any kind of batch scanning. I was only using the bundled SF software that came with my Plustek because it was easy to spit out a RAW HDR scan, but it is just as easy in Vuescan. I won't be emailing Lasersoft to fix the registration issue. I bought the pro version of Vuescan something like 8 years ago, and Ed has never asked for another dime. And it works. And it doesn't freeze up my computer.
paapoopa
Established
i think i should clarify something, i still prefer silverfast over vuescan to scan color negative and slides, but for black and white, i just dont seems to get very good results from silverfast.
i guess i will stick to my usual workflow, using vuescan for black and white, use silverfast for color negative and slides.
1 thing that irritates me a lot is, i cant seems to get vuescan batch scan to work propertly. any ideas?
i guess i will stick to my usual workflow, using vuescan for black and white, use silverfast for color negative and slides.
1 thing that irritates me a lot is, i cant seems to get vuescan batch scan to work propertly. any ideas?
Nando
Well-known
I've used both Vuescan and Silverfast with three scanners; a Nikon Coolscan V ED, a Microtek M1 and an Epson V700. I used Silverfast primarily on the M1 as Vuescan didn't fully support it. The scanner was a piece of crap and failed after two years of use. I never got along with Silverfast. The interface is absolutely horrible and I can never get as much image information out of my scans with Silverfast as I can with Vuescan. Given the ridiculous price for Silverfast, I don't see any point in using it over Vuescan unless Vuescan doesn't support your particular scanner.
runny
Established
Silverfast VS Vuescan
Silverfast VS Vuescan
I use both of these for my Coolscan 9000 and Epson V700. Some observations:
1. Silverfast is almost impossible to understand. It has a bizarre interface, overly complicated workflow and poor documentation. I have on most occasions given up with it - especially when scanning in batch mode. Simply terrible design and implementation.
2. When I can get it to work - usually using the rotating glass holder and 6x6 negative, it can do amazing things. This is especially true with colour negatives where the "Negafix" process is very good indeed. Note, this is only when I can get it to work and only for single images at a time.
3. Vuescan is a dream to use compared with Silverfast - and works just great with the 35mm holders when batch scanning. It does, however, make a real mess of the 120/220 holders and getting the frames right is a work of math well beyond my capability.
4. Vuescan does a much better job of scanning positive films - in my opinion - even though the film profiles are limited to say the least. I just go with "Generic" and it works fine. Why Vuescan do you think that only Kodak makes positive film? In fact now they don't make any. Some profiles for Fuji would be great.
So in summary - Silverfast can do very well, especially with colour negatives - but is is a pain in the backside to use and headache inducing to look at. Vuescan is easier to use and get acceptable and sometimes great results from. If I was starting again, I would only buy Vuescan and become an expert at that. Silverfast is not worth the dollars when compared with the pain of using it.
I hope that helps
David
Silverfast VS Vuescan
I use both of these for my Coolscan 9000 and Epson V700. Some observations:
1. Silverfast is almost impossible to understand. It has a bizarre interface, overly complicated workflow and poor documentation. I have on most occasions given up with it - especially when scanning in batch mode. Simply terrible design and implementation.
2. When I can get it to work - usually using the rotating glass holder and 6x6 negative, it can do amazing things. This is especially true with colour negatives where the "Negafix" process is very good indeed. Note, this is only when I can get it to work and only for single images at a time.
3. Vuescan is a dream to use compared with Silverfast - and works just great with the 35mm holders when batch scanning. It does, however, make a real mess of the 120/220 holders and getting the frames right is a work of math well beyond my capability.
4. Vuescan does a much better job of scanning positive films - in my opinion - even though the film profiles are limited to say the least. I just go with "Generic" and it works fine. Why Vuescan do you think that only Kodak makes positive film? In fact now they don't make any. Some profiles for Fuji would be great.
So in summary - Silverfast can do very well, especially with colour negatives - but is is a pain in the backside to use and headache inducing to look at. Vuescan is easier to use and get acceptable and sometimes great results from. If I was starting again, I would only buy Vuescan and become an expert at that. Silverfast is not worth the dollars when compared with the pain of using it.
I hope that helps
David
paapoopa
Established
Thanks David, i agree that I like to use Silverfast for color neg as well, and prefer vuwscan to scan my black and white neg.
But I just cant seems to get the batch scan to work in vuescan. any idea on that?
But I just cant seems to get the batch scan to work in vuescan. any idea on that?
fuji645
Established
I know I'm in the minority on Silverfast. I've been using it for about 8 years now, which was bundled with my Microtek i900 scanner. I've had excellent results with it. I tried Vuescan, didn't care for it. My motto: whatever works for you--use it!.
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
I don't see how silverfast is complicated. I turn off the scanning pilot (this is the scanning guide for kids and idiots) and turn off all filters except iSRD (infra red cleaning). The only adjustment I do is white and black points. It works great and manipulation time takes about 10-30 seconds.
runny
Established
silverfast VS vuescan
Vuescan's batch scanning is quite simple. You choose on the Input panel the All/List option to decide which of the frames to scan. You can page through the frames using the large arrows on the bottom right and apply changes to each frame or for all of them including rotating each frame individually. Then hit the Scan button and it does it all. It works in the same fashion for 35mm on both my Nikon Coolscan 9000 and the Epson V700. The story is not so strong on the 120/220 holder as I can never seem to get the frames right.
Silverfast is often my choice for a single frame scan - as Edward says, it can be simple and fast to get a good result from a single frame. Using it for multi-frame scans on the Epson V700 is marginally acceptable but I find a lot of work - while on the Nikon 9000 I have never got it to work and simply given up. So horses for courses I guess. I got better results for batch scanning with the previous version not the garish new one.
Best
David
Vuescan's batch scanning is quite simple. You choose on the Input panel the All/List option to decide which of the frames to scan. You can page through the frames using the large arrows on the bottom right and apply changes to each frame or for all of them including rotating each frame individually. Then hit the Scan button and it does it all. It works in the same fashion for 35mm on both my Nikon Coolscan 9000 and the Epson V700. The story is not so strong on the 120/220 holder as I can never seem to get the frames right.
Silverfast is often my choice for a single frame scan - as Edward says, it can be simple and fast to get a good result from a single frame. Using it for multi-frame scans on the Epson V700 is marginally acceptable but I find a lot of work - while on the Nikon 9000 I have never got it to work and simply given up. So horses for courses I guess. I got better results for batch scanning with the previous version not the garish new one.
Best
David
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Silverfast is a two edged sword.
NEG:
- The GUI is a train wreck.
- It takes a major effort to turn off the all the automation, curves and default settings to produce a simple, linear scan.
- Lasersoft will try to rob you blind. Their pricing model is seriously screwed up and basically BS.
POS:
- Multi-pass HDR scan. The only reason why I would be willing to put up with all the BS associated with using Silverfast.
Basically this allows many scanners to do a wedged exposure in a single scan and then assemble them in to a single HDR file. The amount of dynamic range that the scans contain is pretty astonishing and you'll also see a noticeable reduction in noise. Neither Nikonscan nor Vuescan can match this feature and it's hard to go back once you've seen the results. So, you grit your teeth and open your wallet.
NEG:
- The GUI is a train wreck.
- It takes a major effort to turn off the all the automation, curves and default settings to produce a simple, linear scan.
- Lasersoft will try to rob you blind. Their pricing model is seriously screwed up and basically BS.
POS:
- Multi-pass HDR scan. The only reason why I would be willing to put up with all the BS associated with using Silverfast.
Basically this allows many scanners to do a wedged exposure in a single scan and then assemble them in to a single HDR file. The amount of dynamic range that the scans contain is pretty astonishing and you'll also see a noticeable reduction in noise. Neither Nikonscan nor Vuescan can match this feature and it's hard to go back once you've seen the results. So, you grit your teeth and open your wallet.
Giant Ginkgo
Established
Harry,
What's the difference between this and the multi-exposure mode in Vuescan?
Personally I can't stand the UI of Silverfast, I can deal with Vuescan okay (but it sucks too), they all need some help from a UI designer...
I tend to use Vuescan purely to generate raw files, then convert them in Colorperfect with a very conservative output to preserve the full dynamic range, then adjust the final image in Aperture... I rarely ever see the raw scan data be exceeded by the dynamic range of the actual film I'm scanning.
What's the difference between this and the multi-exposure mode in Vuescan?
Personally I can't stand the UI of Silverfast, I can deal with Vuescan okay (but it sucks too), they all need some help from a UI designer...
I tend to use Vuescan purely to generate raw files, then convert them in Colorperfect with a very conservative output to preserve the full dynamic range, then adjust the final image in Aperture... I rarely ever see the raw scan data be exceeded by the dynamic range of the actual film I'm scanning.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
From what I can tell SF does a true wedged exposure. One biased for the shadows and one for the highlights. Basically like what you would do if you were shooting an HDR image. The Vuescan multi-exposure strikes me more of a type of multi sampling.
The SF GUI is pretty horrendous. Marginally better in SF8, but still a disaster.
I've owned a copy of Vuescan for a long time, but unfortunately SF and the HDRi mode gave me better results. But you have to go through and turn off all the crap they have on by default, so you get a linear scan. No profiles etc applied.
Believe me, if there was a way around using SF I would take it