Scan software comparison

[VF101]

I've got an Epson Perfection V330 Photo scanner. I'm very pleased so far with the results using the Epson Scan software that came with the scanner. Now I tried the demo editions of Silverfast and Vuescan, hoping to get even better images.

Epson Scan

Silverfast

Vuescan

flickr Set Scansoftware

All scans were done with 2400dpi, using the default sharpening the scanner software did offer. Any other "enhancements", especially noise reduction, have been set off. 100% crops.

I'm really disappointed by the results I got from Vuescan, because I heard a lot of good things about it. Silverfast is a mess to use, but the results are good - at least with color negative film. Using b&w film, the Silverfast scan had to much contrast and was worse than the result from Epson scan software. (You can see the b&w scans in my flickr set.)

Do you have any ideas why Vuescan result is so soft and blurry?

So, I think it's not worth to buy any specialized scan software. Epson software not always gives the best results, but they are good enough for my intended usage.

 

[rjr]

I'm really disappointed by the results I got from Vuescan, because I heard a lot of good things about it.

Do you have any ideas why Vuescan result is so soft and blurry?

I started trying myself with Vuescan a few days ago and noticed the same; I aim to develop a Workflow based upon Vuescan DNG-files and Lightroom.

It seems that the other Scan software makers apply a much stronger sharpening on the scan if compared to Vuescan. With Vuescan it is up to me what I make of it and how much I sharpen in the following steps - I actually prefer that approach.

So, I think it's not worth to buy any specialized scan software.

It depends on what comes with the scanner. Vuescan gives me RAWs, Canonscan doesn´t.

Roman

 

[Steve M.]

My experience with scanner software goes against what most people commonly find. I found that there was essentially no difference in scans after editing them in Photoshop. The scans looked different pre-processing, but who leaves it at that? No matter which software you use, it will need to be setup initially for how you want it to scan (sharpening default, color, etc). After that, it's all a matter of editing the photo.

A little editing made the Vuescan look a lot better (too much contrast and sharpening though), although I'm still not sure that the Silverfast isn't resolving more detail somehow.

 

[craygc]

My experience with scanner software goes against what most people commonly find. I found that there was essentially no difference in scans after editing them in Photoshop.

Tend to agree in principle with this view. Basically, how you suck data from the scanner is fixed so the software cant change that part. What I find more important is how much control that software gives me in really turning off functionality. RAW from Vuescan doesn't interest me as its little more than a linear tif file with a gamma encoding of 1. Too much trouble to deal with gamma encoding in post when the scanner software can do a good job at setting it - although it can take a bit of fiddling in Vuescan to get right. Another nice aspect of Vuescan is being able to profile the base of individual films and save all this information in separate .ini files.

But really important is being able to fully turn off black and white point clipping and all sharpening, which often isn't the case in the original software.

However, I will say that sometimes Vuescan can be difficult to get right. I found trying to set up a profile for Ektar 100 very time consuming - even then I suffered a bit of magenta colour cast I could not fix that I remove in post. But I put that down to the film and not the software.

 

[VF101]

Thank you for your answers and the enhanced Vuescan image!

I'm in no way a pixel peeper, so I don't try to get the last pixel out of my negatives. I just heard so much good things about Vuescan, I've been surprised that Epson Scan can easily compete with it. Silverfast seems to bring more details from the marks in the sand. But what's most important for me is that Epson's results are reliably "good enough". I shoot film mainly because I'm not very interested in picture editing - and of course because film looks different.

So I think I'll stick with the Epson software. I'll just do another comparison with slide film; scanning slides yielded the least convincing results so far.

 

[segedi]

My wish would be that Lightroom or PS would be able to replace scanning software... Are you listening Adobe? 🙂

 

[cidereye]

My wish would be that Lightroom or PS would be able to replace scanning software... Are you listening Adobe? 🙂

Now there's a GREAT idea! 😎