> What specifically can be better in the final result then, please Ian?
1. The ability to edit the image in a preview screen that displays the image
as it will appear in Photoshop
2.The ability to make global colour/tone/hue,saturation, etc corrections
3. The ability do as item in 2 in selected colours
4. The ability to do selective "area" edits to the image
5. The ability to apply varying degrees of Lab based USM to images at scan
time. Not just the micky mouse USM that Photoshop provides. I rarely use it,
but its there!
6. The ability to adjust and fine-tune the curves associated with negative
films.
7. The ability to make multiple or selective area scans of the same frame
each with it's own set of parameters.
If you don't know how anyone one of these can better your scan then I can't
really help. To claim that many of these can be done after the fact in
Photoshop completely misses the point of high bit editing and its
limitations.
As I previously wrote I wasn't criticising VueScan. However many of the
reasons for using VuesScan in lieu of SilverFast have been eliminated in
recent times, that is except for the cost. SilverFast is by no means
perfect, but then again neither is Vuescan, NikonScan, CanoScan, etc.
Likewise it can occasions be unstable and even downright pigheaded enough
not to work, but then again Vuescan, NikonScan, CanoScan, etc.
Ian Lyons
> From: "Colin Maddock" <cmaddock@clear.net.nz>
> Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 12:10:30 +1200
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or VueScan
>
> Ian Lyons wrote:
>> .......whilst SilverFast is initially quite complex it has the capacity to
>> produce scans from the SS4000
>> that VueScan users can only dream about (that's not a criticism of VueScan)
>
> What specifically can be better in the final result then, please Ian?
>
> Colin Maddock
>
>
>
>
