I been using and working with scanners since 1994 and I agree 100% with Ian.
Vuescan is a good scanner software but Silverfast is a scanning tool.
The time its takes in Photoshop to striating up a picture from Vuescan
regarding contrast,colors, color cast and curves are much longer compare to
measure and scan a picture in Silverfast.
(Silverfast has also a auto function and calculate the picture similar as
Vuescan and other scanning softwares)
Best way IMO is to measure the picture by using gray , white and black
point. This work takes max 5 sec. Set the white point at 250 instead of
255 and black point at 5 and not 0. Use the gray pipette.
Vuescan and negative film
Set gamma low as 1.4 to 1.6 . You can also try to set 0,8 0.9 in the
brightness settings instead of 1. This gives much better contrast and not so
flat colors in Vuescan.
I often use Nikonscan 3.1 for best results with Kodakcrome slides.
There are no perfect software to use with a film scanner but
If you learn to handle Silverfast, then you know how to scan a picture and
also know how to get rid of color cast as magenta and cyan who often can
sees in bad scans. And IMO its fun to learn and understand how to measure a
picture for best results.
Mikael Risedal
>From: Ian Lyons <ilyons@mac.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or VueScan
>Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 17:11:45 +0100
>
>
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
