differences between Silverfast and Vuescan

[orenrcohen]

What are the primary differences between Silverfast and Vuescan for use on a Coolscan 9000? Any thoughts........

 

[Steve Karr]

SilverFast is a meatier program in the things that can be done. I have both & like SF better. That said, it is a bit buggy .... but so is an old Mercedes ... we love 'em both.

Try Vuescan and see if you like it. If you do, bank the Extra $250!! No reason to throw money away.

 

[orenrcohen]

Which is best for scanning bw negatives?

 

[Steve Ash]

I upgraded Silverfast AI to silverfast archive. Now I scan my negatives into raw images including the infraret data. I do all processing in a second step within silverfast hdr (included in silverfast archive). Now the workflow has shortened a lot.

Regards
Steve

 

[Arjay]

I run Vuescan in parallel to NikonScan on a Coolscan V, so in terms of first-hand experience, I can only speak of Vuescan.

Having read a number of books about film scanning (and from my Vuescan experience), there seem to be two major differences:

1. Vuescan records IR data as a fourth color channel into its RAW scan files (it labels them TIFF files, but with a special denomination), so you can do an equivalent of ICE even after the fact, when you load RAW files for later processing. Silverfast doesn't do that, but implements ICE during scanning; so Silverfast does ICE at scan time which makes that step irreversible.
2. Silverfast offers more functions in terms image processing, whereas Vuescan is a scan-only application. Vuescan's operating concept assumes that the user has a separate image editor which is more capable anyway, so it doesn't make sense to duplicate functions in the image workflow.

Other than that, Vuescan has a rather spartan user interface. This doesn't mean it is reduced in terms of scanning functions (every function a scanner offers is indeed available, even double and multiscan for better highlight detail in negatives), but that some functions are hidden behind a rather frugal user interface. Consequently, the Vuescan learning curve may be steeper than with Silverfast. Also, the Vuescan documentation could offer more help for beginners. It is complete in terms of a functional reference, but rather aimed at users who are already familiar with scanning and its tricks & techniques.

Silverfast's user interface appears to be a bit more like that of well-known image editors, so presumably, getting acquainted with the software's functions may be easier.

A big plus for Vuescan is that the software supports some 750 scanner models all under one software license - even older ones whose native software is incompatible with current operating systems.

Silverfast is available for a large number of scanners too, but due to the manufacturer's restrictive licensing policy, users need to buy a new license separately for every scanner model!

Which is best for scanning bw negatives?

Depends on which BW film you use.

If you use a chromogenic film, you can use ICE. Then Silverfast with its ICE function may be more effective than the equivalent Vuescan function (which also uses the IR channel, but works with a less agressive algorithm).

If you use silver halide films, then there's no functional difference and you could use either software. This is because Silver reflects infrared light, and thus IR-based techniques such as ICE cannot be applied anyway.

 

[Jamie123]

I used to scan with Silverfast on my Epson 4990 flatbed and really liked the software and especially the neg film profiles. However, when I got a Nikon 9000 I just couldn't justify the price for Silverfast. I tried Vuescan but didn't like it so now I use NikonScan.

 

[dcsang]

I've only used Silverfast "lite" on an old Epson 2450. I've used Vuescan with everything else; Minolta DiMage Scan Elite II, Nikon 5000 and now Nikon 9000.

I personally have grown to like VueScan. As has been mentioned, the interface is spartan but Mr Hamrick continually adds bug fixes and updates. The curent VueScan I'm using from last year is miles ahead of what I had with the Minolta and even better than when I was using my Nikon 5000.

Take a look at my Flickr if you care to as most, if not all, of the B&W scans I've done there are done with VueScan.

It can't work miracles but with a properly exposed neg, it's pretty darn good 🙂

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Particular]

Scanning software performs two basic functions: (1) interfacing with the scanner and receiving the data, and then (2) processing that data.
Both vuescan and silverfast do #1 fine. I think silverfast is probably better at #2, but I think no scanning software I have ever used has given me the idea that I am really in control.
I use the pro version of vuescan to perform the scanning and I do minimal processing (ICE and cropping). I output as linear dng (which is essentially a tiff with lossless compression resulting in a smaller file), and then I do my adjustments in lightroom.
I do the scanning from an old G4. The advantage of vuescan applying the ICE after the scan, is besides control (as mentioned), that the speed of scanning is not slowed down by your computer. I do all processing on a faster computer. That way I can be working on one set of images while I am batch scanning another.
I like the image controls in lightroom much better than anything I have seen in any scan software, and by saving a raw file I feel like I am future proofing my images, as I will be able to adjust them with what ever improvements new versions of PS, lightroom, aperture etc. come up with. I also like that I can manage my film output in the same way as my digital files.

 

[luuca]

Scanning software performs two basic functions: (1) interfacing with the scanner and receiving the data, and then (2) processing that data.
Both vuescan and silverfast do #1 fine. I think silverfast is probably better at #2, but I think no scanning software I have ever used has given me the idea that I am really in control.
I use the pro version of vuescan to perform the scanning and I do minimal processing (ICE and cropping). I output as linear dng (which is essentially a tiff with lossless compression resulting in a smaller file), and then I do my adjustments in lightroom.
I do the scanning from an old G4. The advantage of vuescan applying the ICE after the scan, is besides control (as mentioned), that the speed of scanning is not slowed down by your computer. I do all processing on a faster computer. That way I can be working on one set of images while I am batch scanning another.
I like the image controls in lightroom much better than anything I have seen in any scan software, and by saving a raw file I feel like I am future proofing my images, as I will be able to adjust them with what ever improvements new versions of PS, lightroom, aperture etc. come up with. I also like that I can manage my film output in the same way as my digital files.

nice workflow.
I think I will do the same.
thanks.

 

[exlboy]

I purchased VueScan professional version.
Works great on different scanners.
It also provide drivers for the old scanners (like Konica Minolta Dual IV) to work on Vista/Win7.