VueScan Vs. Silverfast

[susan_schultz]

<p>I have a MacBook Pro with Leopard and a Nikon 4000 film scanner. I have not been able to work the Nikon software and scan film.<br>

I have heard different things about VueScan and Silverfast. I have always tried to use curves and such before scanning and VueScan doesn't seem to have that in the interface, but I have also heard that Silverfast doesn't work with the Nikon film scanners and Leopard because it uses the Nikon profiles...</p>

<p>HELP!</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Susan</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>This belongs in the digital darkroom forum, so I'm moving it there.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Vuescan has (limited) curves. Try enabling the advanced options- you might need the professional version for some.</p>

[mike pirie]

<p>Silverfast needs to be "compiled" for the scanner you want to use it with, so during purchase you need to tell them which scanner it's used on. Mine is set for my Epson V700 so haven't had the opportunity to try it with my LS8000.<br>

A list of supported Nikon scanners is at: http://www.silverfast.com/product/Nikon/en.html<br>

Regards,<br>

Mike</p>

[scott_turner]

<p>Susan,</p>

<p>If you want to use curves as part of the scanning process, then Silverfast is the way to go. Roger is correct - VueScan does have a curve feature, but it's a VERY, VERY rudimentary contrast curve, and is so primitive that I'd almost say it lacks the feature. I view it less as true "curves", and more as a rough contrast adjustment. It's useful, but not really curves.</p>

<p>In general, if you like to do most of your processing at scan time, Silverfast is the tool of choice as it has extensive image editing capabilities. Just be aware that the user interface is "quirky". You can download a full-featured trial version for your scanner at their website. It watermarks the output, but is otherwise uncrippled.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

[eric_brody]

<p>I use the Nikon scan software with my Mac Pro tower on my Nikon 9000, I have also installed it on my Macbook Pro. Both run the latest version of Leopard. I wonder what problem you have had with it. Both Vuescan, which I own and find a bit clunky to use, though many love it, and Silverfast, which I use on my Microtek 1800f, cost extra money and are more complex in my view than the simple but quite useful Nikon scan software. I scan black and white medium and large format negatives exclusively and find Nikon scan does all I ask, set white points and a bit of curve correction occasionally. I much prefer to do most of my work in Photoshop, a much more sophisticated program than any of the scanner software.<br>

Let us know what problem you have with Nikon scan and Leopard, perhaps we can help.<br>

Eric</p>

[sknowles]

<p>I think you heard wrong about Nikon scanners. I have the latest version of Silverfast AI Studio IT8 with my Nikon Coolscan 5000ED and Epson V750, both with new updates (r6.6.0r4c) this month. I also calibrated it with their Fuji film profile (Kodak also available). The list of supported scanners lists the <a href="http://www.silverfast.com/product/Nikon/200/en.html">Nikon 4000 ED</a>. If you have a chance to use the Silverfast software, you'll see why it's worth the price.</p>

[susan_schultz]

Thanks much for the info...

 

It would great if you could help with the Nikon software! I have installed the Nikon 4.0 software with and without the update. I've tried

starting and restarting...once I was able to scan a strip and then when I inserted another, it wouldn't take it. It sounds like its trying over

and over again to connect, but gets stuck there.

 

I've heard some people say that the Nikon software doesn't work with Leopard and others say it does. Nikon is not much help...all they

say is that they don't guarantee compatibility and they have no other information.

 

Thanks again..

Susan

[sknowles]

<p>It sounds more like it's a communications or scanner problem than the software. The only problem I've had with the Nikon software was the upgrade to Leopard, and after uninstalling and reinstalling the original software and then the upgrade, it worked fine, but only after several contacts with Nikon to get an answer. I don't have the film strip adaptor, so I can't test it. I know when scanning individual slides the scanner (5000ED) likes to pause (blinks) before working on a new slide. I just wait until it stops and continue working.</p>

<p>Do you want to download the trial version of Vuescan or Silverfast to see if that works with the scanner? Outside of that I don't know except the Silverfast should work. I prefer it because it does a full size prescan you edit with preview, and then scan the final into a file. It also scans considerably faster than Nikon's software.</p>

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

<p>Does the Silverfast software work with Vista 64 bit operating systems, or even XP 64 bit? The last time I looked Silverfast did not...</p>

[susan_schultz]

Hi Scott

Did you update the firmware as well? I didn't do that...I'll try that tonight...

 

I think a lot of people with the 4000 using film strip adapters are having issues.

 

I hear good things about Silverfast except that it can be cost prohibitive...

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Vuescan is a lot less expensive. When you buy a single "Pro" license, it will likely work with any and all scanners you currently have, and any you might acquire in future, as long as they are main stream and typical hardware. The Vuescan Pro license is good forever, with frequent upgrades as the product evolves. Silverfast licences, otoh, are for a specific scanner, and upgrades cost, as far as I know.</p>

<p>I have very limitted experience with a Silverfast trial, all I can say is I much prefer the Vuescan interface. It is objective, logical, bare-bones, whereas Silverfast presented me with a myriad of bewildering icons and sub-menus, could not come to grips with it.</p>

<p>As far as your curves requirement, I would consider doing curves in Photoshop, post-scan. If you want to scan once, and subsequently output different versions, always sourcing from the raw data the scanner captured, Vuescan is the best choice.</p>

[scott_turner]

<p><em>"Does the Silverfast software work with Vista 64 bit operating systems, or even XP 64 bit? The last time I looked Silverfast did not..."</em></p>

<p>I have Silverfast AI Studio working just fine on my Vista 64 system, as well as Nikonscan and Vuescan. The key is to install Vuescan first and exercise the option to allow it to install drivers for legacy hardware. Once you've done that, you can install the 32-bit Vista version of Nikonscan (but tell it not to install its drivers) and/or Silverfast, and they'll work without a flaw.</p>

<p>As for Silverfast vs Vuescan, certainly Vuescan is less expensive, but frankly, I don't think either has a particularly intuitive UI. Sure, Vuescan is simpler to use in "just set everything for me" mode, but once you move beyond that, Vuescan can certainly frustrate as well.</p>

<p>I find both valuable, as I use Vuescan for color negatives, and Silverfast for color transparencies, but if you want to do most of your editing in the initial scan, Silverfast is the only choice.</p>

<p>Quite honestly, I think Nikonscan, while not perfect, has the easiest, most intuitive UI of all, including a very nice curves implementation. The problem is that it is so broken when it comes to color that it's essentially useless to me for either color negs or trannies.</p>

<p>Scott</p>

<p> </p>

[jtk]

<p>I couldn't find anyone to translate from South-German-neo-Anglish to Amurrican, but Silverfast did manage to ask repeatedly for more money and I understood that part.<br>

IMO Vuescan becomes as intuitive as Nikonscan. Nikonscan offers more "features," all of which are best ignored. Vuescan calls for linear-think, which was initially harder for me. Most color problems have to do with perception...a minimally skilled traditional darkroom color printer can quantify color changes in CC units, which makes inkjet printing similar to color darkroom printing.</p>

[susan_schultz]

<p>AARGH!<br>

I can't get the Nikon software to work.<br>

I have always thought that to do as much photo editing at the time of scanning is better because it prevents image degradation after scanning and I like the Nikon software, but I give up! It's better to have a scan than none at all...<br>

Vuescan seems crude in the interface but seems to do the job and Silverfast is too expensive, so Vuescan it is...<br>

Anyone has anymore info, please let me know....<br>

Thanks for all the help</p>

<p>Susan</p>

[bobmichaels]

<p>Susan, there is no advantage to image editing with the scanner software vs. using an image editor. But there are many advantages to doing the editing in a real image editor (i.e. controlability, WYSIWYG, layers, ability to undo)<br>

I have used Vuescan for about 7 years now. All I do with Vuescan is make sure I capture as much data as possible from the film (no clipped histograms) and do all the adjustments in Photoshop.</p>

[gt1]

<p>That's the advice I read over and over again, so like Bob I do all adjustments in PS.</p>

 

[susan_schultz]

<p>Bob, I understand what you're saying about the layers and undos and such, but I've found if color correct in PS, I often end up with toothcomb histograms. I am new to scanning my own film, so I'm learning.<br>

Do you think there is a benefit to getting the professional version of VueScan or is the standard fine?</p>

<p> </p>

[yoshio]

<p>Susan</p>

<p>if you are getting tooth combed histograms are you scanning in 16 bit? I recommend that you do this if you are not. If using 16 bit and still you are getting combing in the histograms it might just be the refresh of the histogram display. 16 bit will find numbers between the 8 bit numbers displayed to actuall not comb your file.</p>

<p>WRT adjustment in scanner VS ps I feel that setting levels is most critical to be done at this point, there after PS is better. Interesting and good advice is found on <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00SErZ">this recent discussion thread</a> where a fellow known to have good knowledge said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The place to do the big tone and color work is in the scanner driver. That's your Raw processor.</p>

</blockquote>

[bobmichaels]

<p>Susan: I think the only differences between the standard and the pro versions are Vuescan are:<br>

1) the ability to profile your scanner, not a big deal with worthwhile<br>

2) lifetime upgrades, a major deal and well worth the money. I paid $35 for Vuescan seven years ago and have gotten free upgrades since then.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Susan, regarding:</p>

<p>"I have always thought that to do as much photo editing at the time of scanning is better because it prevents image degradation after scanning"</p>

<p>I would say the opposite. Your scanner software is dealing with raw data from the scanner. If that dealing can be postponed, and done repeatedly, trying different iterations, that's the way to go. This is the Vuescan "Raw File" and "Scan from disk" workflow. The Vuescan site has the full helpfile online, you can read up on this topic here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc14.htm#topic11">http://www.hamrick.com/vuescan/html/vuesc14.htm#topic11</a></p>

<p>To Bob Michaels: without the Pro license you also lose the ability to output Raw Files (per the above).</p>

[susan_schultz]

<p><em>if you are getting tooth combed histograms are you scanning in 16 bit?</em><br>

Thanks, Yoshio that thread was interesting.<br>

I heard a while back that ps didn't do well with 16 bit scans, that they had to be reduced to 8 bit for functionality. This was back with CS2...has it improved?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I would always make the intitial scan output file 16 bit per channel, with red, green and blue channels, regardless of film type, including black and white. You're scanner is always reading thus, if you don't output thus you are discarding data.</p>

<p>Each new release of Photoshop incorporates more functions that which will work in 16 bit. Even back in version 7 there was very little you couldn't do in 16 bit. I wouldn't tailor my scan output to suit some downstream program. If a program <em>needs</em> the file to be 8 bit you can always do a conversion on a copy, but don't throw away data at the outset.</p>

[susan_schultz]

<p>Good point.</p>

[roger_smith4]

<p>Vuescan outputs real 16 bit data and does its edits at the same level of precision. There should be no downside to exporting unadjusted images from Vuescan (this was not true a decade ago when some scanner drivers could do internal adjustments at 16 bit and only output at 8 bit.) </p>

<p>I do not agree that Photoshop does not do well with 16 bit scans. Until last summer I used Photoshop 7 with 16 bit scans and used history brush and other work-arounds to deal with its limited support for 16 bit files. Now I use CS3 and use 16 bit adjustment layers.</p>