«

After using Silverfast on a Mac for quite some time I tried VueScan
software tonight and was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the
results. I first moved to SilverFast because of the quality of the
output when scanning negatives, typically Pan X and Tri-X.

Doing a couple of test scans I thought scanned slides were slightly
better but there seemed to be a marked improvement in B&W negs. The
main downside seemed to be a narrower range of preset film types
compared to NegaFix in Silverfast.

Are there any other differences that might be worth trialling? I was
struck by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much reliance on
displaying levels in Vuescan.
--
Cheers,

Steve

The reply-to email address is a spam trap.
Email steve 'at' shodgson 'dot' org 'dot' uk

On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:07:38 +0100, Steve Hodgson <>
wrote:

>After using Silverfast on a Mac for quite some time I tried VueScan
>software tonight and was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the
>results. I first moved to SilverFast because of the quality of the
>output when scanning negatives, typically Pan X and Tri-X.
>
>Doing a couple of test scans I thought scanned slides were slightly
>better but there seemed to be a marked improvement in B&W negs. The
>main downside seemed to be a narrower range of preset film types
>compared to NegaFix in Silverfast.
>
>Are there any other differences that might be worth trialling? I was
>struck by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much reliance on
>displaying levels in Vuescan.

Did anyone ever respond? Can anyone comment?

Father Kodak

In article <>,
says...
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 22:07:38 +0100, Steve Hodgson <>
> wrote:
>
> >After using Silverfast on a Mac for quite some time I tried VueScan
> >software tonight and was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the
> >results. I first moved to SilverFast because of the quality of the
> >output when scanning negatives, typically Pan X and Tri-X.
> >
> >Doing a couple of test scans I thought scanned slides were slightly
> >better but there seemed to be a marked improvement in B&W negs. The
> >main downside seemed to be a narrower range of preset film types
> >compared to NegaFix in Silverfast.
> >
> >Are there any other differences that might be worth trialling? I was
> >struck by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much reliance on
> >displaying levels in Vuescan.
>
> Did anyone ever respond? Can anyone comment?
>
> Father Kodak
>
I've got some general scanning tips on my web site as well as some
about both types of scanning software specifically.

The important thing is to capture all the information in the original.
This means not clipping values in either the shadows or highlights.
One then makes the adjustments in the photo editing software.
Silverfast will do this, but takes the position that doing more
adjustment in the scanner software will allow for faster batch
production and even eliminate the need to edit afterwards. This
means that one must spend more time learning the interface so that
one understands what is happening when the auto functions are used.

Either software can produce good results if one learns how to use
them properly.

If you are interested follow the tips link on my home page.
--
Robert D Feinman - Landscapes, Panoramas, Photo Tips
Web Site: http://robertdfeinman.com

In article <>,
Steve Hodgson <> wrote:

> After using Silverfast on a Mac for quite some time I tried VueScan
> software tonight and was pleasantly surprised with the quality of the
> results. I first moved to SilverFast because of the quality of the
> output when scanning negatives, typically Pan X and Tri-X.
>
> Doing a couple of test scans I thought scanned slides were slightly
> better but there seemed to be a marked improvement in B&W negs. The
> main downside seemed to be a narrower range of preset film types
> compared to NegaFix in Silverfast.
>
> Are there any other differences that might be worth trialling? I was
> struck by the fact that there doesn't seem to be much reliance on
> displaying levels in Vuescan.

I use VueScan pretty regularly (with my PrimeFilm 3650 Pro3; not the
world's greatest scanner) and really like it. For the price, I think
it's an unbelievable deal.

If you're going to get it, you might as well spring for the
higher-priced version that will do RAW/batch scanning, particularly if
you have a scanner that can do film strips in one shot (even more if you
have a slide or negative autofeeder). The pro version also gets greater
color-management capabilities, I think.

Compared to Silverfast, it does have a slightly more limited range of
film presets, but it's not too hard to make your own film channel (if
you have a calibration target), and it does have all the standard Kodak
and Fuji types, so I suspect most people really won't ever run into a
type that's not present. (Exceptions would maybe be if you have some
really cheap dime-store or generic film, but I've had good luck just
scanning it using the Fuji channel.)

The stability and compatibility of the software tends to vary pretty
widely by version. It's not uncommon to find one particular build that
works great for you, and others that have strange behaviors or are
unstable. The author (Ed Hamrick) keeps old builds available, though, so
you can try a few to find one that works. (He only supports the very
latest one though, so don't bother reporting bugs in old ones.) When you
find one that works for you, I'd stick with it until you find a
compelling feature in a new version that really makes you want to
upgrade. It's not the sort of thing you just want to upgrade for the
hell of it (at least, not without keeping a backup of your old version
and settings).

Although it has less of an initial learning curve than Silverfast, I'd
suggest taking an afternoon and getting to know the software and
establishing a workflow that works for you. (I didn't do this -- I just
dove right in -- and now I'm going back and rescanning stuff I did early
on.)

Anyway, I have no relationship to Vuescan in any way, besides as a
satisfied user; I'll never use the crap that my scanner came with again.

-Kadin.