Opinion Time! Silverfast vs. VueScan

[Rob-F]

Now that it's clear I ought to buy one of these: if I only get one, which should it be? I'll use it on my Epson 2450 for now, but in the future will no doubt upgrade to a V700, 4490, or very possibly add a more dedicated film scanner. That might be Coolscan 9000, or 5000, or I don't know what.

So: I'm reading good things about VueScan. What benefits or limitations might there be with Silverfast? How much do they overlap? Do they complement each other significantly? Any point in having both? Or is that just too much clutter in the hard drive?

 

[Keith]

I tried using Silverfast once with my V700 and hated it. I went straight back to the standard Epson software never to return.

Don't know much about VueScan though!

 

[croweater]

I'm using Silverfast with an OpticFilm 7600. The interface of the software is a bit ugly, but it gets the job done. I tend to use it to produce a good quality TIFF file which I then finish in other software. I haven't used VueScan so I can't comment on it. Also, I haven't tried using Silverfast with a flat-bed scanner, only a film scanner.

 

[John Robertson]

I upgraded my Vuescan for my new Plustek 7400 scanner, but can't get it to work, when I click scan or preview absolutely nothing happens. It was Ok with the Canoscan 4000.
I tried to contack Mr Hamrick but e-mail address from site not accepted. The site goes on about a scanlog but not being a computer geek I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about!!!

 

[Gradskater]

I have silverfast and vuescan, but I only use silverfast. Not necessarily because it makes better scans, but because I have gotten familiar with silverfast and know how to use it. I have a plustek 7300 that I use with a macbook.

 

[AusDLK]

Both are pretty bad from a user interface (UI) standpoint.

With Vuescan, it is nearly impossible to be certain that you have the "optimal" settings for a given scan. It's a case where too much control is a bad thing -- too many options, often poorly documented, to fiddle with. Which ones are important, which ones can be ignored? Ugh.

Silverfast is just plain clunky. It is easier to configure and my confidence level on a given scan is much higher then with Vuescan. But it is far from perfect -- for example, the control buttons arranged horizontally along the left edge of the preview window are just too darn small and it is very difficult to know at a glance how things are set.

Neither program conforms to the "standards" of UI design that would make them look like or operate like other good Windows or Mac programs. So there is a lot of hunting and pecking to figure out where certain options are, etc.

Silverfast has a lot of "how to" Quicktime movies that sometimes can be helpful. But again it amounts to too much -- there are SO many movies that learning how the program operates can appear to be very daunting.

And Silverfast is expensive.

Both are capable, I'm sure, of making excellent scans maybe even better then the software that comes with a given scanner.

But in the case of my Epson V750, Nikon 5000, and Minolta 5400, I use the manufacturer's software with each 90% of the time. Of course all three of these are different, also far from perfect, but the results are acceptable (any improvement with Vuescan or Silverfast is not easy to detect) and much easier to achieve.

I had purchased both products with high hopes both times.

But in the end there is no compelling reason not to use the OEM software unless there are some very unusual circumstances.

 

[ZeissFan]

I think that Epson has done a good job with its Epson Scan utility.

And most of the post-processing is done in an image editor. I also found VueScan to simply have too many buttons, sliders and dialog boxes. It was a never-ending challenge to fine-tune the software. And then I had to reinstall my OS and had lost my registration info. So we parted ways.

No experience with Silverfast.

 

[fuji645]

I have to agree with AusDLK above. I purchased a Microtek i900 which came with Silverfast & Microtek's Scanwizard. Silverfast is clunkly using the twain driver with my Photoshop Elements. I have no experience with Vuescan but Microtek's proprietary software seems to work the best.

 

[gavinlg]

I didn't like silverfast - can't remember why. Vuescans UI is horrible but the results are very good once you get used to the quirks.

 

[Rogier]

Vuescan is useful for a wide array of scanners. For the money it can’t be beat. However my personal experience is that it can be quite a feat to get it to work and learn how to use it.
Silverfast doesn’t look much better. Just their website and marketing strategy turned me off.
I recently bought a Canon 8800F with a Betterscanning holder. The original Canon software (Mac 10.6) is a pleasure to work with. Sure it has less options but you can make the same adjustments later with your editing software if needed.

 

[amateriat]

Let's just say that many scanning applications/plug-ins leave at least a bit to be desired on the UI front. The ones offered by scanner manufactuerers are a bit more slick in some ways, but in some ways they might not offer the fine-tuning ability of VueScan or Silverfast.

When I worked at a photo agency, we used Silverfast for everything (main scanners were an Epson 1600 flatbed and Nikon LS 1000). It was a love-hate thing for me. For my own work at home, I went for VueScan and never looked back. Yes, the early UI was daunting, but for me it worked; The current iteration has gone through a lot of changes, and I daresay most have been much for the better. Yes, there are a lot of options, which for me is a Good Thing, but if you consider yourself a bit allergic to all those option menus, you can always use the "fewer options" setting, which simplifies things a lot.

The real beauty of VueScan is that one scanning app covers a ton of scanners, new and old, flatbed, dedicated-film, and everything in-between. Unlike Silverfast, Mr. Hamrick doesn't force you to purchase a different copy for each scanner you own. It costs about $40 for the standard version, about $80 for the Pro version, but if, like me, you bought VueScan back before there was a Pro version, you got a free upgrade to Pro for no extra cost. And, for me it was worth every dime.

I do use the software that came with my Minolta 5400 from time to time, but VS gets the nod four times out of five. It always gets used with my UMAX tabloid flatbed, even though I have a standing order for the new, OS X-compatible version of UMAX' MagicScan software, and have yet to hear from them on my order.


- Barrett

 

[Rob-F]

I didn't realize that you have to buy a new version of Silverfast for each scanner. That's a deal-breaker for me, especially after reading the "I didn't like Silverfast" answers. So, Vuescan. Now: do I want the basic or deluxe version? I'm really tempted by RAW scan capability of the more expensive one. And it sounds like you get a lifetime membership, so to speak. Upgrades forever. I'm think the RAW capability would help me cope with dynamic range issues. All I'm trying to do at the moment is get my old Epson 2450 running (my Scan Dual IV is apparently kaput), but of course I will get a nicer scanner as soon as I decide on one, and it might be nice to be able to use Vue scan with anything I get in the future.

 

[Srono]

I think that Epson has done a good job with its Epson Scan utility.

And most of the post-processing is done in an image editor. I also found VueScan to simply have too many buttons, sliders and dialog boxes. It was a never-ending challenge to fine-tune the software. And then I had to reinstall my OS and had lost my registration info. So we parted ways.

No experience with Silverfast.

Have u experienced that the epson software chopped a lot of the film's area? I found it crop too much of the image edges when i tried to scan 120 film. If i change to manual crop, it is horribly slower and the result is not as good as auto cropping. It seems like they using 2 different scanning mode for manual crop and auto crop. :bang:

 

[Trius]

And it sounds like you get a lifetime membership, so to speak. Upgrades forever.

Whose lifetime? 😉 Not that the price for the professional version is bad at all, but I wonder if there's a succession plan should Hamrick depart this planet ... i.e., is it truly a "one man shop"? I can't imagine it really is, and nothing lasts forever, but still.

My CanoScan FS2710 has stopped functioning under XP with the latest service packs. (The Canon diagnostic software detects the scanner and can perform scans without the Canon GUI running, so I know there's nothing wrong with the hardware or SCSI connection.) I quite like the scanner. While it isn't as high rez or refined as later model scanners, it has met my 35mm needs (though lacking a batch scan capability,) and I'd like to keep using it.

The VueScan site states that the software works without the Canon drivers, so I suppose I will download the trial version to see if it works. I've used the trial version before, and agree the UI is woeful.

 

[Gid]

I looked at both Vuescan and Silverfast and found Silverfast easier to deal with - especially like the B&W film presets. Silverfast is significantly faster than the native Epson scanning software and produces much better results with my Epson 4990. However, having to re-buy SF every time you change scanners is poor. However, I'm sure I read somewhere that they are moving away from that, but can't be certain.

 

[Ronald M]

I need to repeat what Keith said, I tried to like it but failed. Went back to Epson.

I fail to see what software can do to improve a scan, the scanner is what is important.
I do believe anyone who tells you otherwise never spent enough time with the provided software to learn how it works.

On top of it all, scan to get right density and color. Everything else is best done in photoshop. And stay of automatic anything. It is no different tan auto exposure cameras, it does not work 100%.

One you set up a scanner for a film/color and exposure, there is no need to tweek each frame unless you can`t expose correctly or use daylight film under tungsten or do other abusive things.

Silverfast is a bunch of icons which I detest. I prefer to read words.

Buy a film scanner unless all you want a scans for the web.

 

[Rob-F]

Ronald, you said you went back to Epson, and also that you'd advise buying a film scanner. Does that mean you regard the Epson flat-bed models as film scanners? Or that you only need to scan for the web?

 

[Bruin]

Now: do I want the basic or deluxe version? I'm really tempted by RAW scan capability of the more expensive one. And it sounds like you get a lifetime membership, so to speak. Upgrades forever. I'm think the RAW capability would help me cope with dynamic range issues.

Definitely get the pro version. Your linear RAW scans are good for archiving--you'll never need to rescan a negative unless you upgrade your scanner. Setting up RAW scanning on Vuescan is relatively easy, then you can use Photoshop to process them if you don't like the Vuescan UI. Colorneg (a PS plugin) can read Vuescan RAW files directly and do most of the corrections for you. Vuescan does have a steep learning curve, but once you set it up you hardly have to change anything each time you scan.

 

[Honus]

VueScan takes a bit of a commitment on your part to learn the software. Once you do, however, it (imho) is the best, bar none.

 

[Gid]

I need to repeat what Keith said, I tried to like it but failed. Went back to Epson.

I fail to see what software can do to improve a scan, the scanner is what is important.
I do believe anyone who tells you otherwise never spent enough time with the provided software to learn how it works.

I beg to differ and don't like the inference that anyone that uses anything other than the native software doesn't know what they are doing. If that were true, then it would seem that most of the posters to this thread don't know what they are doing. Epson is a hardware manufacturer. Its just possible that software is not their strong point.