The unthinkable?: switching from Vuescan to Silverfast

[tobey bilek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My original KM software no longer works with current Mac OS.  Vue sucks, sorry. They have email address and don`t answer.  

 

I will not spend $500 on a no longer repairable scanner, KM5400 original.  I tried the $500 version of silver and new interface is great.  When I would not buy,  they called or mailed to try to sell.  They did offer an upgrade at a very low price,  but alas there are no really good scanners affordable and repairable.  Result of my conversation is there is a $30 version now available which I have not tried.   All I want is a flat scan tiff to take to PS.  

 

Meantime the negs will go into my V35 or IC where negs are supposed to go anyway.   M8 & M9 have very low miles on them.   It is not hard to dust off my copy stand or do an Epson flat bed scan .

 

I will order some Bergger 400 Panchro this week to feed my M6.

[Martin B]

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

 

I tried this approach in the beginning before I used SiverFast 8 with its negafix app which automatically chooses the correct white balance that the colors come out > 95% right directly after scanning. I found the "manual" way to get this right - with color picker, S curves, etc - quite a pain in the neck to handle. I was able to get close to the "real" colors of the scene, but there was still some difference. Again, the best solution - at least for me - was SilverFast 8 especially for color negative white balance adjustment. The only thing I need to do is slightly changing brightness and contrast, and in a few cases I use the saturation tool in PS to make minor adjustments. 

[Advertisement]

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

[philipus]

Thanks for sharing, Martin. I responded to kiwibob whose question was not about colour balance but saturation. Apparently his workflow does give accurate enough colour. The procedure I described using the Lab colour space is a very quick and easy way to punch up perceived saturation of an image without overdoing it. The easiest and fastest is probably, however, to open each image in ACR and simply pull the vibrance slider.

 

Fwiw, it may be that he has Silverfast but he only mentions Vuescan in his post.

 

 

 

 

I tried this approach in the beginning before I used SiverFast 8 with its negafix app which automatically chooses the correct white balance that the colors come out > 95% right directly after scanning. I found the "manual" way to get this right - with color picker, S curves, etc - quite a pain in the neck to handle. I was able to get close to the "real" colors of the scene, but there was still some difference. Again, the best solution - at least for me - was SilverFast 8 especially for color negative white balance adjustment. The only thing I need to do is slightly changing brightness and contrast, and in a few cases I use the saturation tool in PS to make minor adjustments. 

[kiwibob]

To EoinC, the barnman and philipus,

 

Thank you all for your responses.  I really appreciate that you have the willingness to share your experience and offer advice.

Until now I have been plodding along, scanning one image at a time, and then repeatedly making the same time-consuming editing adjustments… over and over and over…

 

As a result I really wanted to avoid the additional time needed to use a second program for editing - given I have 1,000’s still to do!

However, your suggestions to use ‘batch’ processing methods have given me the push to try experimenting with it. If ‘batching’ minimizes the extra time needed to double-handle the images, while giving me the more vibrant results I want I’ll be very pleased.  And based on what you and several other contributors have said it may just be that VueScan is producing what the ‘marketplace’ wants – flat/neutral scans that interface well with the full-featured editing programs commonly in use today. 

 

So I may just have to ‘get with the program’ and accept that scanning and editing are best done in separate steps.  But I’m slow and I’m old, so it’s going to take me a while to come to grips with the whole process – so I won’t promise a timely report - either good or bad!

 

 Again, thank you all for your replies.

Bob K

[EoinC]

Hi, Bob. Do you have a photo editing application? Many of them have a batch processing function.

This is the basic technique in Lightroom (using 'Synch'):

[wlaidlaw]

When I was having a few problems with my recently acquired Plustek 7400 last week, I switched back from Silverfast 8 to Vuescan (the latest version 9.5.77). It seemed very old fashioned looking (back to the early 90's?) but actually worked just as well as Silverfast, if not better. The problems it turns out are due to a sloppily written Mac USB driver for the scanner, doing things like outputting a default mirror image. I told Plustek about this but they just said to reverse the image in software. Wow: I had never thought of doing that! I suspect little if anything will be done to correct this. Before you ask, yes I do have the film the correct emulsion down, orientation. I am actually not very impressed with the Plustek and may go back to my Epson V700 flatbed. I had hoped a dedicated film scanner would blow the multi-tasking Epson into the weeds but it doesn't. It is not nearly as good as my old Polaroid Artixscan 4000 dedicated film scanner was. Sadly while trying to use a cobbled together firewire to SCSI interface (open circuit board with a SCSI female socket glued to it), the Artixscan went up in flames. 

 

Wilson

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I switched back from Silverfast 8 to Vuescan (the latest version 9.5.77). It seemed very old fashioned looking (back to the early 90's?) but actually worked just as well as Silverfast, if not better.

 

I think there's little to differentiate between Vuescan and SilverFast for the most part - but they do behave differently under certain circumstances (where I prefer the process and results from SF). I'll try to find time to document one such example over the weekend.

[kiwibob]

Hi, Bob. Do you have a photo editing application? Many of them have a batch processing function.

This is the basic technique in Lightroom (using 'Synch'):

Hi EoinC,

 

Apologies for my delayed response, but we've been busy here in the midst of major home renovations - so all else has gone on the back burner!

 

To answer your question: I have several editing programs with Photoshop Elements being the most 'featured'. 

I only use it on an irregular basis so probably don't know its full capability/limitations but intend to use it for the batch testing of VueScan scans. 

 

But before I try the 'batching' process I first want to see if I can get satisfactory results doing the editing 'one-at-a-time' - as my main goal is to get better results than I have so far just using VueScan.  If I can achieve that I will then proceed to try batching in order to reduce the processing time.

 

I've only had a quick try so far, using a negative that produced good results with my Dimage scanner's native program but poor result with VueScan.  Photoshop Elements did improve the VueScan output - but the result still falls well short of what my 'native' program provides. 

 

I intend to do much more testing before I decide - but that will have to wait till the smoke settles here!

 

I'll get back to you once I've done more testing - both one-at-a-time and batching.

 

Thanks much for your help and advice.

 

Bob

[EoinC]

...I intend to do much more testing before I decide - but that will have to wait till the smoke settles here!

 

I'll get back to you once I've done more testing - both one-at-a-time and batching.

 

Thanks much for your help and advice.

 

Bob

Thanks, Bob. Other priorities often take precedent. I think that, once you do get time to experiment, being systematic will give you something that has a high rate of success.

[plasticman]

I think there's little to differentiate between Vuescan and SilverFast for the most part - but they do behave differently under certain circumstances (where I prefer the process and results from SF). I'll try to find time to document one such example over the weekend.

Apologies for not having had the time to follow-up on this promise. I'll do my best to put together some impressions after this week's break (here in Sweden), but discussing locally with some other people who have a similar workflow, I've come to realize that one special factor that's relevant to me and possibly not particularly relevant to a lot of other photographers, is my increasing fondness for over-exposed color film (and the soft 'pastel' look it gives images). 

 

So a lot of my problems with Vuescan have been to do with very dense negatives - something that SilverFast takes in its stride far more successfully. My experience is probably of only limited interest.

[wlaidlaw]

Apologies for not having had the time to follow-up on this promise. I'll do my best to put together some impressions after this week's break (here in Sweden), but discussing locally with some other people who have a similar workflow, I've come to realize that one special factor that's relevant to me and possibly not particularly relevant to a lot of other photographers, is my increasing fondness for over-exposed color film (and the soft 'pastel' look it gives images). 

 

So a lot of my problems with Vuescan have been to do with very dense negatives - something that SilverFast takes in its stride far more successfully. My experience is probably of only limited interest.

 

I was scanning from positives, so rather different. 

 

Wilson

[vuescan]

Hello,

 

I am responsible for the marketing of VueScan.

 

I have just read through all these comments, and will summarise them for comment by Ed Hamrick -  the developer of VueScan. There are some technical issues here which I am sure he can address.

 

If there is anything in particular you would like me to ask, or you have a request (for a new feature or for some help on a specific topic) then please let me know. You can also email me at beverley@hamrick.com. Please use this forum as a reference.

 

Many thanks, Beverley.

 

[raphael]

Everyone here is complaining about the higher price of Silverfast. But couldn't you just buy the SE version for $50 instead of the Ai Studio version for $300?

 

If I understood correctly, the SE version just lacks some minor features such as batch scanning and IT-8 target calibration (which VueScan lacks, too). Additionally, IT-8 target calibration is only useful for slides, not for negatives.

 

I'm thinking about making this purchase:

 

SilverFast 8 SE for $50

 

Instead of:

 

VueScan for $90 + ColorPerfect for $67

 

 

 

 

Am I missing something?

[philipus]

Vuescan can be IT8 calibrated, I believe. But I've never seen the use for it.

 

I might be doing something wrong (and not that I'm interested in Silverfast, just curious by nature) but when I select the SE version and go to buy, input my scanners (Coolscan 9000 and V ED) then the version changes to the AI version at 449 Euro. For a Plustek 120 it's even a lot more. 

 

For an Epson flatbed, though, like the 850, one gets several options, from the SE at 49 Euro and up. 

 

I'm not sure how Silverfast's "upgrade" options work because one needs to input a serial number, but with Vuescan's full version one gets unlimited future updates. I'm not working for Hamrick or anything but am just a happy user of Vuescan. I've also contacted him several times over the years and he's lightning fast with suggestions.

 

br

Philip

 

Everyone here is complaining about the higher price of Silverfast. But couldn't you just buy the SE version for $50 instead of the Ai Studio version for $300?

If I understood correctly, the SE version just lacks some minor features such as batch scanning and IT-8 target calibration (which VueScan lacks, too). Additionally, IT-8 target calibration is only useful for slides, not for negatives.

I'm thinking about making this purchase:

SilverFast 8 SE for $50

Instead of:

VueScan for $90 + ColorPerfect for $67




Am I missing something?

[raphael]

What I'm missing with VueScan is the proper setting for color tones.

I'm mainly scanning color and black and white negatives. The color scans always look wrong and "off"...

 

With SilverFast I'm able to set the film type in the NegaFix option.

[WideAngle]

While deciding between SilverFast and VueScan, I found their web sites make a bad impression.

 

SilverFast web site has broken links, and wrap-back links (go to same page holding the link).

Comparing SilverFast versions is a bother, and maybe impossible without running demos.

Mark Segal's book is six years old.

"Movies" are nice, but mostly display features; they are only feebly instructive.

 

The Vuescan website seems not to have much info.  Maybe that's unfair: there are numerous links.

Vuescan is Ed Hamrick.  Kudos to Ed for making a splendid product.  Is he going to retire next week?

Having the Vuescan company's website named www.hamrick.com is unprofessional.

 

SilverFast seems a hodge-podge.  Vuescan seems amateurish.

I think we cannot expect improvement, since the future of film scanning is likely not long, and no biggish company will commit resources to it.  I'm surprised Epson bothered with EpsonScan.

[thebarnman]

Vuescan is Ed Hamrick.  Kudos to Ed for making a splendid product.  Is he going to retire next week?

Having the Vuescan company's website named www.hamrick.com is unprofessional.

 

 

SilverFast seems a hodge-podge.  Vuescan seems amateurish.

I think we cannot expect improvement, since the future of film scanning is likely not long, and no biggish company will commit resources to it.  I'm surprised Epson bothered with EpsonScan.

 

I'm not convinced that having a URL "hamrick.com" is unprofessional since that is the proprietor's name.  David White is a name of a company that has many products, but you won't find stereorealistcamera.com on the internet.  I did a quick search for Vuescan.com showing that name is available, but I'm certain having hamrick.com has not stopped anyone from reaching Hamrick's site. 

 

As far as improvement, I don't see scanning software being the bottleneck of achieving quality scans; it's the actual scanning equipment itself that is the weakest link.  The best digital captures I've seen of analogue sources has come from the use of a digital Leica camera, and the "scan" only takes a fraction of a second.  I forget where I saw the examples, it was either somewhere in the Leica forum, or elsewhere on the internet.    

[wlaidlaw]

What I really hate about Silverfast is the way that the software is locked to one scanner, even after you paid for an upgrade that you thought unlocked it. I have two versions, one locked to my Plustek Opticfilm 7400 and one to my Epson V700. I really dislike both of them and it is not helped by both of these scanners having film to sensor registers that are insufficiently accurate for 35mm film to get a truly sharp scan.

 

I now do all my scanning with an SL 601 on a Leitz BEOON, which is fast, simple and has adjustable focus. Of course I cannot use either of my versions of Silverfast to convert colour negative DNG's to positive TIFF's. I believe I can use Vuescan for this but have not fathomed this out yet. The easiest way would seem to be a plug in or action for Photoshop or Capture One. The only one I can find is Color Perfect, which is overkill, which does not just have bells and whistles but a complete timpani section and seems vastly over complicated. Pro tem I am just using colour reversal film, which works just fine but of course, the film has quite narrow exposure latitude and is not cheap for really good processing (Peak Imaging in the UK and Labo-Photon in France). 

 

Does anyone know of a simpler plug in or action for PS for converting colour negative scans to positives? What I want is one which will batch convert to 16 bit TIFF's and I can then do the fine adjustment in Photoshop. I can batch convert the DNG negative scans to 16 bit TIFF"s in C1. 

 

Wilson

[frame-it]

something like this ?

 

 

https://www.iamthejeff.com/files/Film%20Editing.atn

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wlaidlaw]

something like this ?

 

 

https://www.iamthejeff.com/files/Film%20Editing.atn

 

Many thanks. Experimenting with that, the colour temperature is coming out a bit too low but otherwise good. I am sure I can compensate for that, either with a preset for the conversion process in C1 or by setting a higher fixed colour temperature on the SL when scanning the negatives. 

 

Wilson