The unthinkable?: switching from Vuescan to Silverfast

[philipus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Mani, thanks for the update. How long are the scan times? I'm currently scanning 120 film. My workflow is to preview at 667dpi and then scan at 2000dpi. From pressing the Preview button until complete takes 1 min 8 sec. The scan, without multi-sampling or fine mode, takes 1 min 56 sec. It will take longer at a higher dpi but I rarely scan above 2000 dpi.

 

About over-exposed negatives, I will add a resounding yes, that's bloody annoying. I have this with Ektar 120 film, which I have only recently begun to shoot. Weirdly I have not had it with any other 120 (or 135) film I have shot. I recently posted about it in the I like film thread and also received help over at APUG. Yesterday and today I made masks from an opaque plastic sheet but this still does not completely deal with the problem. It can be addressed a bit in post (I use ACR) or by cropping but the latter sucks if I've composed a shot like I want it in-camera.

 

I hope it works out for you. I'd be happy to troubleshoot the speed and quality issues you see. Also, out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see comparisons of how much better quality SF gives compared with Vuescan.

 

Best
philip

 

A year later and a new update: Vuescan problems have continued to bother me - very long scan times (especially on batch scans, so probably poor memory management in the application), and also disappointing results when trying to scan over-exposed negatives.

 

I'm testing the Silverfast trial again - and this time I decided to just stick with testing for as long as I can bear it. Every time I've tested it before, the interface has given me too many headaches to persist for more than a dozen scans.

 

The short story is that I'll probably be buying Silverfast, after all. The scans are orders of magnitude faster, and the results are simply better straight out of the scanner. There are some small problems I'm debating with myself about, but I'm reluctantly leaning towards the change.

 

In the end the largest drawback is the horrible licensing and hefty price tag - looking back over this thread it seems I decided against buying SF when it cost €340. Now it costs €450. That's not bad for one year's inflation.

 

Thanks all for a good discussion. Still interesting to see the thread high up on the first page of Google results when searching the topic.

[plasticman]

Philip, I don't have any explanation for the incredibly long scan times I've been experiencing for a very long while with Vuescan.

I'm running the application on a late-2015 MacBookPro with a fast processor and 16GB ram, and writing to an external SSD, but if I batch-scan more than five or six 35mm frames at 4000ppi, then each frame can sometimes take 30-40 minutes! (note: each single frame)
The scanner begins at a cracking pace, and scans the first couple images in around 7-10 minutes each, but then gradually gets slower and slower, until at last it's ticking along like an old clock.

I'm always careful to make sure Vuescan is the only open application, and I've been through the settings, and upgraded to the latest version, what feels like a thousand times. I've cleared the laptop itself of almost anything apart from a very lean selection of image-related applications, and carefully monitor input/output - including sometimes watching all running processes in a terminal window.

One factor is definitely the grossly dense negatives I've been putting through the scanner - I've been playing around with over-exposure of Portra to get more pastel colors, but the negs do become very, very dark, which Vuescan accomodates by lengthening exposure time in the scanner. If I lock exposure, then the speed becomes acceptable, but the quality is atrocious.

So the tedious scan times (which means it can take weeks of after-work scanning to just get through a few rolls from a vacation), together with other irritations (such as the difficulty of coping with the uneven frame-spacing of a couple of my 120 cameras), means that I'm regularly drawn back to Silverfast as an undesirable option.

If the application cost 200 or even 250 euros, then I'd have jumped on it without hesitation. Over 300 seemed steep (though, in answer to the thebarnman - for the record - I've only got my own old comment in this thread to go on, when I say it's increased by 110 euros in a year).
At any rate, it's 450 euros now. I can honestly say I've never faced the prospect of spending that amount of money with less enthusiasm.

As for the results - they're not worth the 300+ extra euros over the cost of Vuescan Pro on their own. I'd definitely stick with VS if my scan times matched yours. The differences are really just tiny, and are mostly only visible seen at 200% on screen. But almost always if I switch back and forth between 2 images without knowing which is which, and try to choose a favorite, then the Silverfast image is usually just somehow slightly more attractive (to my eye), although I'm not always sure why.

Anyway, I still haven't pulled the trigger. Four hundred and fifty euros for a grotesquely user-hostile application.

I guess if it were a lens I'd consider it a bargain...


 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[MarkP]

That is indeed now a 'user-hostile' price. I think mine was less than half that when I bought it, with a few ~50 Euro upgrades along the way.

 

As it is priced depending on the scanner just think how lucky you are that it's not for an old Heidelberg scanner.

Edited April 14, 2017 by MarkP

[philipus]

Dense frames will sometimes (weirdly not always) have my 9000 literally 'ticking' along almost line by line in the preview window. You've probably tried all manner of things but did you try changing the cable? I seem to remember you use a Thunderbolt adapter as well, perhaps that one influences? Any difference if you save the scans to the internal drive? Have you tried using Vuescan from a newly created user account? And what does Ed Hamrick say? He's been able to troubleshoot problems I've had with Vuescan using the log file. I know you know your things so these are probably pretty useless suggestions so they're fwiw. 

[plasticman]

Thanks for all the suggestions Philip. I've tried a lot of things but I must admit I haven't switched cables, or tried another adapter - but then the slow times only occur during batch scans, and because of this I'm pretty certain they're a combination of dense negatives and cumulative memory management.

 

Naturally I could sit with the scanner and capture one image at a time, but then I'd be losing one of the best aspects of the whole process: deciding which images to scan at highest resolution then going off to do something fun.

 

A while ago I had a short exchange of mails with Ed Hamrick where I (inadvertently) touched what I assume was a sensitive nerve, comparing how Vuescan captured the absolute darkest shadow detail in a negative compared to Silverfast, and he pretty much banned me from ever contacting him again. In retrospect I'm not at all sure I was correct in my comparison, but I admit I was surprised by how combative he was from the outset.

 

I'll probably bite the bullet and buy Silverfast sometime over the weekend. Feel as though I've agonized enough in public over this particular decision now, but it would be easier if there were a better range of software to choose from.

[thebarnman]

Plasticman; if you do buy Silverfast...please let us know if that works faster for you...

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well right now I'm torn about Silverfast: I paid the King's ransom they demand for the software, and started scanning a roll of 35mm straight away.

My usual workflow in Vuescan is to have all my settings stored in external .ini files, that I load according to which format, and even which camera (especially in 120 - where framespacing is often unique to each camera) I've been using.

In the first stage, I load a low-res 'thumbnail capture' profile, and scan all the images in low-res versions to a folder for each roll of film. From these low-res reference files I choose which images I want to scan at full 4000ppi resolution. By keeping all my settings easily to hand in external files that take an instant to load, the whole process is really quick and less prone to user-error.

I tried to emulate the same workflow with Silverfast - it has a feature for storing what it calls 'framesets', which seems to fit my requirements - but each time I tried to save and then load these profiles, some aspect of my settings didn't seem to have 'stuck', or the profile I thought I'd saved didn't show in the available dropdown of choices. After a few tries I realized I could continue using Vuescan for the low-res files - so I simply quit SF and scanned the small files with Vuescan.

Then came the first real 4000ppi 48bit scan of ten frames from two strips of six in Silverfast. The first 8 frames just zipped through - roughly 6 minutes per frame, including the multiexposure setting (which means 2 passes) - and then something that's never happened before, in the five or possibly six years I've owned the LS9000: the autofocus refused to lock on the final 2 frames (although the error message from SF was only a cryptic "Error from NikonFS").
 
When I attempted a retry, the application crashed. I tried a couple more times, and each time the autofocus failed. In the end I took the film out of the holder and switched the positions of the strips (so that the frames that had been at 11-12 were now at 5-6). This time it worked to scan the last 2 frames - but I'd spent 45 minutes messing around with the application, and getting very frustrated.

The next couple of strips were fine, but then the last two of the roll repeated the whole procedure - with "Error from NikonFS" as the only sign of what had gone wrong. Essentially I had to troubleshoot the problem myself - and then with some help from Google (and after writing a bad-tempered bug-report on the SF feedback form), I realized that the software was capable of manual focus. So after trying this on the problem images, I was able to scan all the remaining frames.

As I said, I'm torn about this: on the one hand the batch scanning is messed-up if the application is going to regularly freeze or malfunction because autofocus doesn't lock onto the images. On the other hand, there have been times when I've been dissatisfied with the focus on some Vuescan captures - so possibly freezing is the better option...

I'll probably have more to say about the eccentric interface as time goes on.

As for the results, I'm really pleased with the first roll: just snapshots from a vacation with my family in Barcelona a few weeks ago. But much less post work in Colorperfect and Photoshop than I've needed to do with Vuescan captures. The images just look nicer to my eye without much tampering. And the problem I've often had with high-key, over-exposed frames - where Colorperfect seems to introduce a very difficult high-contrast effect (filling-in the darks) - this seems to be much less problematic with SF captures, which just seemed to have a better range of tones automatically.

I'd be pretty satisfied if the software had cost me 200 euros (and overjoyed if it had been 100). Wallet is still aching after this particular distress purchase. I'm hoping the pain is going to wear off...

 

Sorry for the long post - had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner tonight.

Edited April 16, 2017 by plasticman

[pop]

So it appears that two different apps have been able to scan six or eight frames at acceptable speed, after which one takes the better part of an hour to process another frame and the other reports the scanner raising errors.

 

Is there any testing procedure for the scanner? Is there even the faintest possibility of the scanner overheating, perhaps because of dust having accumulated in the vents?

[thebarnman]

Plasticman, thanks for the long post.  It wasn't that long because it was interestingly filled with great detail.  I would agree it's frustrating to have to use two sets of software to end up with low res scans (basically thumbnails,) and fine high resolution scans.  The issue with your scanner's error message (apparently only happening with the Silverfast software) is concerning...even if it was from the Nikon scanner.  It seems you don't have that issue when using Vuescan.  Still, it's great to learn you were able to get past that, but only after setting it on manual focus.  Does setting it on manual focus slow you down?  I would not know how to manually focus a scanner; though it did not sound like it troubled you very much.  Would it be better to manually focus the whole strip of film at one time...so it won't freeze or come up with some error message? 

 

From the end results; it sounds like your getting better scans.  At the same time; I hope the learning curve is worth the extra time...regardless of money spent.

 

Further thoughts: I wonder if the same issues would crop up if using a different scanner?  Also; are you scanning B&W or Color?  I would think color would be a nightmare due to all the different color settings, and types of color film.   

Edited April 17, 2017 by thebarnman

[plasticman]

So it appears that two different apps have been able to scan six or eight frames at acceptable speed, after which one takes the better part of an hour to process another frame and the other reports the scanner raising errors.

 

Is there any testing procedure for the scanner? Is there even the faintest possibility of the scanner overheating, perhaps because of dust having accumulated in the vents?

I like the lateral thinking involved here, but it doesn't quite fit what's happening: Vuescan slows down gradually from the first or second scan onwards - becoming progressively slower and slower, but then most times speeding-up for the final couple scans (by which time it's too late, having taken several hours for the intermediate work).

 

I am a little concerned that Silverfast choked on scans towards the end of both strips (one problem frame was at position 5) which worries me because it suggests that the alignment of the entire holder is slightly worse towards the end. I feel the sample so far (a single roll of film) is too small to come to any conclusion.

 

Other than that, the scanner has been really carefully protected from dust by a whole array of babying strategies, and actually doesn't get particularly warm either.

 

In any case, thanks Pop, for the suggestion!

 

After sleeping on it, I'm wondering whether it's simply a good thing that Silverfast won't scan unless focus is spot-on? But I'm also concerned because the 35mm film strip that failed was remarkably flat and even - 120 film is often much less straight in the normal holder, and I'm dreading the newton rings and other hassles of the glass holder, if that becomes necessary...

[plasticman]

Plasticman, thanks for the long post.  It wasn't that long because it was interestingly filled with great detail.  I would agree it's frustrating to have to use two sets of software to end up with low res scans (basically thumbnails,) and fine high resolution scans.  The issue with your scanner's error message (apparently only happening with the Silverfast software) is concerning...even if it was from the Nikon scanner.  It seems you don't have that issue when using Vuescan.  Still, it's great to learn you were able to get past that, but only after setting it on manual focus.  Does setting it on manual focus slow you down?  I would not know how to manually focus a scanner; though it did not sound like it troubled you very much.  Would it be better to manually focus the whole strip of film at one time...so it won't freeze or come up with some error message? 

 

From the end results; it sounds like your getting better scans.  At the same time; I hope the learning curve is worth the extra time...regardless of money spent.

 

Further thoughts: I wonder if the same issues would crop up if using a different scanner?  Also; are you scanning B&W or Color?  I would think color would be a nightmare due to all the different color settings, and types of color film.

 

The autofocus is preferable for my workflow, because it takes each image in turn within the batch, and continues without user intervention - I'm a lazy scanning person.

 

I'm unhappy that Silverfast simply stops and then subsequently crashes when it first encounters an autofocus problem - I'd rather it failed gracefully: skipping a frame with an informative error message, and then continuing with other frames, so the user could come back to failed frames afterwards, and manually focus if necessary. Usability isn't a strong point of the software.

 

Incidentally, 95% of my photography is color film (almost always Portra 400 these days). Black-and-white scanning hasn't ever been a problem for Vuescan - the 16-bit monochrome files scan in just 3 or 4 minutes.

 

Anyway, I'm trying to get some perspective on this: currently using a high-end scanner and two separate applications for a workflow that really mostly outputs just family photography... Some aspect of my obsessiveness may be implied from the fact that I started researching the feasibility of writing my own scanning software (my work currently involves writing a totally unrelated iOS application).

[thebarnman]

Anyway, I'm trying to get some perspective on this: currently using a high-end scanner and two separate applications for a workflow that really mostly outputs just family photography... Some aspect of my obsessiveness may be implied from the fact that I started researching the feasibility of writing my own scanning software (my work currently involves writing a totally unrelated iOS application).

 

Your perspective is interesting, and that got me thinking.  Originally when investing in Leica equipment; I wanted to shoot artful studio work.  I did some, and captured some nice shots...though it never paid off like I hoped it would.  What I've realized that unless there's some sort of event, or family visiting/vacation; I rarely take out the camera.  At the same time; even if the images are of family vacations...I'm usually able to get some interesting shots, and the fact I'm using a Leica lens; any shot that's great looks beautiful because of the Leica lens (including the Leica slide projector with Leica lens on the big screen.)  For that I'm thankful.  Further; growing up in the 70s, and seeing friends family photos shot on point & shoots, and polaroid made me thankful I have spent the extra money to view memories in a very quality way.  

 

Polaroid, point & shoot, and 110 film has it's uses, but for me the portability of 35mm (as apposed to medium format or larger) with a Leica lens is to me the best of both worlds...convenience with quality.  

 

The fact your taking all this extra time to get scans from film to digitally share is I'm sure appreciated by your family and friends.  It may not have the convenience that your friends (and family's) digital photography can offer, but I'm sure they enjoy, and appreciate the look of your images they're not able to capture. 

[pop]

....

 

After sleeping on it, I'm wondering whether it's simply a good thing that Silverfast won't scan unless focus is spot-on? But I'm also concerned because the 35mm film strip that failed was remarkably flat and even - 120 film is often much less straight in the normal holder, and I'm dreading the newton rings and other hassles of the glass holder, if that becomes necessary...

I wouldn't find it particularly surprising if the two apps had different and independent bugs. That's practically my definition of software. However, some of the symptoms you describe do not preclude possible issues with the scanning hardware or even the material to be scanned. What raises my suspicion is your mentioning that Vuescan at times failed to properly focus for single scans.

 

Can you control the order in which each app scans the individual frames of each batch? If so, I would try composing a batch which exhibits the problems particular to each of the apps, and then scanning the batch forward and backward. Do allow some time between consecutive tests. This might show whether the stall or crash depends on the position of the frame within the holder or on the duration of the processing of the batch.

 

Do the timestamps of the scanned frames reflect the scanning speeds attained with both apps? If so, you can run the tests without sitting by the scanner and biting your nails.

Is there a log file or an option that would you enable to find the particulars of the scanner error reported by the software?

 

Do the frames where Vuescan fails to focus and Silverfast reports an error have anything in common, perhaps more-than-common densities? Some of my cameras fail to focus in dark environments and it certainly would not seem surprising for scanners to suffer from the same problem.

[plasticman]

Well I certainly need to eat my words. I feel I've turned around my assessment 180-degrees.

I started up the scanner this afternoon, and began again with the same ad hoc workflow from yesterday, and the scanner simply whipped through the scans with no problems or hitches, whatsoever. I was nearby the whole time and several times I heard the scanner come to a halt and thought something was wrong, only to find that it had actually simply finished scanning with such speed that I was totally unprepared to see it done.

 

Just this afternoon I've scanned more full-resolution images than I usually get through in a week of evenings.

 

Anyway, I've written some very long posts - here's a few 'take it or leave it' impressions:

 

- the Silverfast scans look like the negatives: if the negative is really dense and almost black, the scan looks virtually black before being inverted. My Vuescan scans haven't looked like this - they tend to all look similar: I can see the figures or the landscape in a dense scan, and a scan from a thin negative looks about the same. Maybe all these years I've done something wrong trying to get a straight, untouched negative scan from Vs - but that's how the negative files look: all roughly similar in density. I feel that Silverfast isn't doing whatever it is Vuescan is doing to get all the negs looking roughly similar.

 

- When I opened the files in ColorPerfect, they almost all looked exactly the way I wanted straight away. My Cp workflow with Vuescan files has almost always been something like: pull down the Black tails value, pull back the highlight clipping, tweak the color balance, sometimes open the curves interface to get back some detail in the shadows, and so on. This hasn't felt like a chore but more like a habit. Time after time today I've opened the Silverfast negative in Cp, and just pressed 'OK' to accept the image the way it opened. I'm not even sure how this has happened. Other people's experience may definitely be different.

 

Anyway, barring more problems I'm totally sold on Silverfast right now. I may be back tomorrow wailing about what a terrible application it is, but today I feel evangelized. Maybe that 450 euros was cheap after all...

[pop]

Well, this certainly is good news.

[Martin B]

I have no experience with Vuescan and only use Silverfast in its latest firmware update version to scan my 35 mm negatives. I am quite happy with it especially after the most recent software update - now the prescan frame doesn't move anymore between separate scans as it did before which was annoying. Now the prescan frame remains in the same spot which saves a lot of time by not needing to move it anymore to select the scan dimensions.

I also like the presets for films which Silverfast uses - it uses a very good white balance (or contrast/brightness) correction depending on the film. With the completed scan, I don't need to do a lot of post processing - just a bit more tweaking for brightness and contrast in PS and maybe removing some dust or water residue spots, but this is all.

[kiwibob]

Having read through this forum I hesitate to post a query as I’m not nearly as advanced as most contributors are, but I would like to ask a question about Vuescan.

 

I’m in the midst of a long-term archiving project to scan in thousands of old 35mm negatives from the 70’s and 80’s – mostly Kodacolor Safety Film 5035.  I’ve been using a ‘vintage’ Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV scanner and its ‘native’ software on my Windows XP computer and getting reasonably satisfactory results for my purposes.  However, I’m not able to use it on Windows10, as there is no driver available.

 

I then found that Vuescan will interface my scanner to Windows10, so have been experimenting with a trial version for several months.  I like it for it’s easy of use, speed, and reduced wear/tear on my scanner.

 

However, I am not satisfied with the scan results – they are uniformly pale, with weak/insipid color. Overall color balance is fine but the colors are just too weak.  Unlike other contributors who want ‘flat, un-manipulated’ scans I seek a one-pass scan that is good enough to need no or only occasional post-processing.  I have experimented with all of  Vuescan’s adjustments, film types, etc available in the trial version but see no significant changes or improvements.  I have perused other forums and even contacted Ed Hamrick on two occasions; and then tried their suggestions – all to no avail.

 

What seems to be missing from Vuescan – and a common tool in other scan and photo editing software - is an ability to adjust overall color saturation. I’m not looking for competition quality or dramatic/punchy results, just scans that appear natural and are pleasant to view.  Not the weak/insipid results I currently am getting using Vuescan.

 

I know my scanner and negatives are not the problem as they produce the results I want when I use the ‘native’ Konica Minolta software on my XP computer.  Can anyone help me achieve similar results using Vuescan???

[EoinC]

...What seems to be missing from Vuescan – and a common tool in other scan and photo editing software - is an ability to adjust overall color saturation. I’m not looking for competition quality or dramatic/punchy results, just scans that appear natural and are pleasant to view.  Not the weak/insipid results I currently am getting using Vuescan.

 

I know my scanner and negatives are not the problem as they produce the results I want when I use the ‘native’ Konica Minolta software on my XP computer.  Can anyone help me achieve similar results using Vuescan???

I use Vuescan, but don't do any adjustments in there usually. One way to achieve what you are after is to import the files into Lightroom, and apply the saturation changes to 1 image, then select all images and apply the adjustment.

[thebarnman]

Here's a link to a video that will show you how to apply color saturation (and/or any other adjustments) you want to adjust for one image in Lightroom, then be able to apply that, or those adjustments to multiple images with the simple click of a button.   

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJiLqVEhiAM

Edited June 2, 2017 by thebarnman

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[philipus]

It would help if you posted an example but, generally speaking, "pale" or "weak" scans are good for further processing as they contain the most information. 

 

If you do wish to batch process you could also set up an action in Photoshop. It's quite easy to do. When I do colour editing in Photoshop (which I very rarely do because I prefer Adobe Camera Raw for my scans) I work in the Lab colour space. So I have recorded an action which enters that colour space and then adjusts each end point in the a and b graphs by an equal amount and adds a gentle S curve to the L graph. Then the action adds a bit of sharpening in a new layer, flattens the image and saves it.

 

But, of course, for best results it's best to tweak each image individually because even photos shot in the same light on the same spot with just a few minutes apart will, due to changes in the light and exposure on-camera, result in different scans, meaning that an automated colour adjustment will give rather different results. 

 

In Adobe Camera Raw, colour adjustment is extremely simple and very fast. There are simple saturation and vibrance sliders (the latter will skip adjusting colours on areas that are already saturated which is great for more natural-looking colour). And if you do wish to adjust colour balance (though I understand you may not usually feel the need to do that) there's a colour picker tool for white or grey and a few sliders too. So if all one wants to do is adjust colour it's a matter of 10-15 secs per image.

 

Best

Philip

 

Having read through this forum I hesitate to post a query as I’m not nearly as advanced as most contributors are, but I would like to ask a question about Vuescan.

 

I’m in the midst of a long-term archiving project to scan in thousands of old 35mm negatives from the 70’s and 80’s – mostly Kodacolor Safety Film 5035.  I’ve been using a ‘vintage’ Konica-Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV scanner and its ‘native’ software on my Windows XP computer and getting reasonably satisfactory results for my purposes.  However, I’m not able to use it on Windows10, as there is no driver available.

 

I then found that Vuescan will interface my scanner to Windows10, so have been experimenting with a trial version for several months.  I like it for it’s easy of use, speed, and reduced wear/tear on my scanner.

 

However, I am not satisfied with the scan results – they are uniformly pale, with weak/insipid color. Overall color balance is fine but the colors are just too weak.  Unlike other contributors who want ‘flat, un-manipulated’ scans I seek a one-pass scan that is good enough to need no or only occasional post-processing.  I have experimented with all of  Vuescan’s adjustments, film types, etc available in the trial version but see no significant changes or improvements.  I have perused other forums and even contacted Ed Hamrick on two occasions; and then tried their suggestions – all to no avail.

 

What seems to be missing from Vuescan – and a common tool in other scan and photo editing software - is an ability to adjust overall color saturation. I’m not looking for competition quality or dramatic/punchy results, just scans that appear natural and are pleasant to view.  Not the weak/insipid results I currently am getting using Vuescan.

 

I know my scanner and negatives are not the problem as they produce the results I want when I use the ‘native’ Konica Minolta software on my XP computer.  Can anyone help me achieve similar results using Vuescan???

Edited June 3, 2017 by philipus