bert26
-
Hi all,
I pulled the trigger and recently bought a Plustek 8200i. So far, I'm really happy with the results. The difference between my Epson 4490 and the 8200i is pretty substantial. But I have a few questions about settings.
I'm scanning black and white negatives almost exclusively; I'm generally shooting Tri-X pushed one or two stops.
I don't do a lot of work in post. I use Lightroom for cropping, spotting with the healing tool as needed, and once in a blue moon, I'll adjust brightness and contrast. That's it.
I've attached some screen shots of my settings in Silverfast, my export settings in LR, and an exported image from LR as a 100 quality JPEG at 3200 dpi (same dpi I use when scanning in SF). I'd attach the original image from the scan but the file is too large (20mb). It seems my export settings in LR hinder the image quality quite a bit. Exporting as a 16-bit TIF solves this, but leaves me with a huge 100-150MB file.
I'm going back and rescanning a lot of negatives for a website I'm putting up in a few weeks, but want to make sure I'm using the best possible settings so I don't have to do these scans twice. Also, what's everyone's take on multi-exposure?
Thanks!
I pulled the trigger and recently bought a Plustek 8200i. So far, I'm really happy with the results. The difference between my Epson 4490 and the 8200i is pretty substantial. But I have a few questions about settings.
I'm scanning black and white negatives almost exclusively; I'm generally shooting Tri-X pushed one or two stops.
I don't do a lot of work in post. I use Lightroom for cropping, spotting with the healing tool as needed, and once in a blue moon, I'll adjust brightness and contrast. That's it.
I've attached some screen shots of my settings in Silverfast, my export settings in LR, and an exported image from LR as a 100 quality JPEG at 3200 dpi (same dpi I use when scanning in SF). I'd attach the original image from the scan but the file is too large (20mb). It seems my export settings in LR hinder the image quality quite a bit. Exporting as a 16-bit TIF solves this, but leaves me with a huge 100-150MB file.
I'm going back and rescanning a lot of negatives for a website I'm putting up in a few weeks, but want to make sure I'm using the best possible settings so I don't have to do these scans twice. Also, what's everyone's take on multi-exposure?
Thanks!
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
I am not even going to try to give you a definitive answer on this, though I have been using
Silverfast software for several years, but not enough of an expert to offer advice as definitive and as specific as "what are the best settings to use". It is complex software, which is extremely capable, but I haven't found it to be exactly intuitive. Using their online tutorials helps, but it's a maze, and the lack of anything supplied with the software that is an actual manual which would even begin to scratch the surface is frustrating. Use it long enough in comparison to something like Vuescan and you will come to understand how much better it is. Vuescan is easier to come to grips with, but if you find it gives equal or better results to the Silverfast, you are not using the Silverfast correctly.
I do hope that someone who is more of a real pro with the software comes to your aid.
The only minor bits of advice I am not afraid to offer are these: you don't have to use the Kodak Tri-X preset for scanning Tri-X if you don't want to (for example). If another preset gives you the result you prefer with a given frame, use that one, all the presets have different tonal curves.
2. I moved up to the Silverfast Ai Archive Suite with the Silverfast HDR processing software (to process the 64 bit hdri RAW scans you generate in the Ai suite) several years ago, and it is well worth the money, but even more complex. Definitly the way to go if you really want the best scans possible, and it's is not a subtle difference. You will get RAW scans which are so much richer and so much more malleable in post without falling apart.
3. Even if you don't do that and stick with what you have, yes, using multi-exposure is definitely better. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Takes forever, and larger file, but you will downsize them anyway eventually, probably, so it is only the time that is an issue. Will get more out of the negative though.
Hope that helps a little, even though not as specific as you were asking for. Perhaps someone better with the nuances of Silverfast chimes in, but if not, I'd say to just try some variations yourself and take notes. Eventually you will find some settings that give you the results you like. What you will probably find is that using one concrete set of settings for everything you do won't really be the way to get the best results for a given frame.
Silverfast software for several years, but not enough of an expert to offer advice as definitive and as specific as "what are the best settings to use". It is complex software, which is extremely capable, but I haven't found it to be exactly intuitive. Using their online tutorials helps, but it's a maze, and the lack of anything supplied with the software that is an actual manual which would even begin to scratch the surface is frustrating. Use it long enough in comparison to something like Vuescan and you will come to understand how much better it is. Vuescan is easier to come to grips with, but if you find it gives equal or better results to the Silverfast, you are not using the Silverfast correctly.
I do hope that someone who is more of a real pro with the software comes to your aid.
The only minor bits of advice I am not afraid to offer are these: you don't have to use the Kodak Tri-X preset for scanning Tri-X if you don't want to (for example). If another preset gives you the result you prefer with a given frame, use that one, all the presets have different tonal curves.
2. I moved up to the Silverfast Ai Archive Suite with the Silverfast HDR processing software (to process the 64 bit hdri RAW scans you generate in the Ai suite) several years ago, and it is well worth the money, but even more complex. Definitly the way to go if you really want the best scans possible, and it's is not a subtle difference. You will get RAW scans which are so much richer and so much more malleable in post without falling apart.
3. Even if you don't do that and stick with what you have, yes, using multi-exposure is definitely better. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Takes forever, and larger file, but you will downsize them anyway eventually, probably, so it is only the time that is an issue. Will get more out of the negative though.
Hope that helps a little, even though not as specific as you were asking for. Perhaps someone better with the nuances of Silverfast chimes in, but if not, I'd say to just try some variations yourself and take notes. Eventually you will find some settings that give you the results you like. What you will probably find is that using one concrete set of settings for everything you do won't really be the way to get the best results for a given frame.
Gregm61
Well-known
Silverfast is more complicated than I needs to be and doesn't provide the output I prefer. I can do a multi-scan using Vuescan software that will cover highlight and shadow detail and output a DNG file I can then do whatever I want using Adobe Camera raw.
Every so often I'll open Silverfast and mess with it, but it does not take long before I'm right back in Vuescan. Silverfast tries to be everything you'd need and does not do a very good job of it.
Every so often I'll open Silverfast and mess with it, but it does not take long before I'm right back in Vuescan. Silverfast tries to be everything you'd need and does not do a very good job of it.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Its obvious from my prior quote that I don't agree with this, but to each his own. I used Vuescan for a long time, and it is a lot easier to get up and running. I found "The Vuescan Bible" to be a very useful resource in helping me get everything out of Vuescan that it is capable of providing.
Silverfast not nearly so user friendly, for me, at least at first. So when I would try if "from time to time" I tended to get frustrated and not really get out of it what it could do. But, worth the effort to learn it, for those so inclined.
bert26
-
Thanks for the help, Larry. Looks like I'll play around with the different presets. Ai Studio seems overkill for me since I am only shooting black and white. I'm not in front of my laptop/scanner right now, but am I able to do high quality raw scans with SE+ also? I remember trying to do that, but it wouldn't allow me to use any of the film stock presets. My needs are really as simple as putting out a good high quality scan without having to make a bunch of adjustments in post, and be able to export the file from LR without hindering the sharpness, grain, and details of the image. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like spending a ton of time doctoring a scan from a negative sort of defeats the purpose of shooting film in the first place.
Perhaps I should just buy a book on Silverfast and read it front to back? There's one floating around online by Taz Tally from 2003 and there is an eBook available directly from LaserSoft by Mark Segal which is supposedly updated when upgrades become available.
Perhaps I should just buy a book on Silverfast and read it front to back? There's one floating around online by Taz Tally from 2003 and there is an eBook available directly from LaserSoft by Mark Segal which is supposedly updated when upgrades become available.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
(bolded) Why? Producing high quality prints from negatives always meant careful darkroom work in setting printing exposure, and dodging and burning, in the film world, even with perfect negatives ... even with a well balanced printer in a photofinishing lab. Why should it be any different with a negative to scan process?
I use VueScan. I have a couple of presets I use for B&W film scanning that out put both linear gamma VueScan raw files (that can be reprocessed however I want without needing to run the film through the scanner again) and 'nearly there' TIFF files. I preview the scans, finalize cropping and levels, then scan. The results are good enough that I usually spend only a couple of minutes in LR per final rendered image. I don't use any plug-ins.
I've never used Silverfast but, from experience with the Imacon Precision III scanner, my preference would be to make a scan at the highest resolution that has everything contained in the negative. That results in a flat, low contrast scan which I would process further in Lightroom according to however I might the print to look and in the future, so that I wouldn't have to rescan in the future. All this is for B&W — perhaps for color negative film Silverfast would be more useful. Can someone let me know whether this iis the case?
Nor do I have experience with the Plustek but from what I've read it has a dynamic range of 3.6. One can get to 4.0 by multi-scanning, which is almost 1½ stops more, but takes 20-25 minutes for a 35mm negative. That's all I know about multi-scanning.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine
Nor do I have experience with the Plustek but from what I've read it has a dynamic range of 3.6. One can get to 4.0 by multi-scanning, which is almost 1½ stops more, but takes 20-25 minutes for a 35mm negative. That's all I know about multi-scanning.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine