| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Schnauzer
Joined: 09 Apr 2008
Posts: 2155
Location: Maine, USA
Expire: 2012-03-08
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:10 pm Post subject: Silverfast |
 |
|
Schnauzer wrote:
This isn't a good image but it was in the scanner so I went with it.
I downloaded the latest demo version of silverfast to try. This is auto everything including sharpening. I started to remove their logo but decided it wasn't worth it.
Although it wasn't a good picture I think the program works very well.
_________________
Ron |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 1480
Location: Bologna - Italy
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 03, 2008 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
Silverfast is so far superior to Vuescan (at least in my experience) that I wonder how the latter can still stay on the market.
I use it all the time and the results are superb, I'm eager to see the new multiexposure scanning function though.
_________________
Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1191
Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
| A G Photography wrote: |
Silverfast is so far superior to Vuescan (at least in my experience) that I wonder how the latter can still stay on the market.
I use it all the time and the results are superb, I'm eager to see the new multiexposure scanning function though. |
Alesandro, my experience is quite different.
I use Silverfast Pro, Epsonscan, Nikonscan, and Vuescan. I find that Vuescan is noticeably better than Silverfast.
Vuescan is difficult. It's not intuative, hard to learn and rough around the edges and I curse it regularly, however the quality, once viewscan is learned, exceeds Silverfast quite a bit.
I can't really comment on Nikonscan because It's on a dedicated 35mm Nikon scanner and it is outstanding in terms of image quality but I can't scan 120 film on it. It is also difficult to learn.
The Multiscan on Silverfast is dissapointing (depending on your scanner). It softens the image considerably.
I will post some scans of the same negative to illustrate what I mean this weekend.
By the way, I had an Imacon scan done of a negative and compared to a Viewscan scan of the negative, I decide that the expense of an Imacon scan wasn't worth it.
Cheers
Jules |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 1480
Location: Bologna - Italy
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
Vuescan doesn't have Digital ICE and its surrogate produces more artifact than the ones it solved.
Just this point make me choose Silverfast as I don't want to spend 4 hours in PS with the clone tool to clean all the blemishes of a medium format scan.
Also the levels/curves/exposition controls are a lot better on Silverfast with reliable previews, in Vuescan they were a "hit and miss" procedure.
Multiscan is soft also in Vuescan, in Silverfast is worse though (because they use multiple full scans that couldn't never align properly), still I didn't see that great IQ improvement with multiscans, actually it always worsen it.
_________________
Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1191
Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2008 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
| A G Photography wrote: |
Vuescan doesn't have Digital ICE and its surrogate produces more artifact than the ones it solved.
Just this point make me choose Silverfast as I don't want to spend 4 hours in PS with the clone tool to clean all the blemishes of a medium format scan.
Also the levels/curves/exposition controls are a lot better on Silverfast with reliable previews, in Vuescan they were a "hit and miss" procedure.
Multiscan is soft also in Vuescan, in Silverfast is worse though (because they use multiple full scans that couldn't never align properly), still I didn't see that great IQ improvement with multiscans, actually it always worsen it. |
Hello Alessandro,
I did some testing and found some bigger scarier issues than I anticipated, ones that I had not noticed before. I will respond when I get some headway with the results.
Cheers
Jules |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 5883
Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
I'm considering buying some better software for my Epson 4490 than came in the box, specifically Silverfast.
But their pricing and product line is pretty confusing.
SE Plus is $104 - this adds 'multi exposure' which should increase dynamic range and reduce scan noise... at the cost of the time for multiple exposures of course
Ai 6.6 - $119 - this has the fancier controls and comes customized for the 4490, while the SE versions appear to be generic.
The $15 difference between SE+ and Ai bothers me. What are the relative merits of Ai vs. multi exposure? Which would get me the better scan most of the time?
Based on what I read above, the Ai is the way to go, as 'multi exposure' doesn't give the quality advertised?
_________________
-Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007
Posts: 1191
Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
| Nesster wrote: |
I'm considering buying some better software for my Epson 4490 than came in the box, specifically Silverfast.
But their pricing and product line is pretty confusing.
SE Plus is $104 - this adds 'multi exposure' which should increase dynamic range and reduce scan noise... at the cost of the time for multiple exposures of course
Ai 6.6 - $119 - this has the fancier controls and comes customized for the 4490, while the SE versions appear to be generic.
The $15 difference between SE+ and Ai bothers me. What are the relative merits of Ai vs. multi exposure? Which would get me the better scan most of the time?
Based on what I read above, the Ai is the way to go, as 'multi exposure' doesn't give the quality advertised? |
My experience is basically that multi exposure is bogus.  I'll post a few examples this evening.
Jules |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 4809
Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
Ron, I love the seemingly "true" colors that aren't over-saturated to my eyes, on this scan output! VERY nice indeed!
I use both the Epson V700 software AND Silverfast SE (the cut-down version of Silverfast) and I've had a WONDERFUL time with both programs for various types of scans. Why? Because I LOVE the good results with automatic settings! I HATE putzing around in Photoshop or other image programs, and with the results being good enough (for me) from the "auto scans", I'm a happy camper. 
That's not to say I don't have to do that "putzing around" in Photoshop at times, but I am enamored of the percentage of good scans just from the auto settings. My time is (to me) valuable. 
Bear in mind that my scans are almost all 6x4.5, 6x6, or 6x7 scans. I find that 35mm scans are going to take a lot more tweaking if I get serious about scanning my old slides someday.
I have two 20x20s from a nice Yashica Mat image scan. One scan was with the Epson in Auto mode, the other was a ($45) drum scan from a "special offer" at Midwest Photography. Upon looking at the printed output, the drum scan was POSSIBLY a tiny bit better if I looked VERY closely. But, that is not worth the $45 (or more for regularly priced drum scans) to me. And, of course, my "pixel peeping" is purely subjective to my own eyes and brain.
If I was selling large prints, then I would probably be doing more detailed post-scanning work (I think) in order to provide the best print possible for the customer. But since I'm not in the "selling" business, and usually only show scans on the web, there's no need for me consider spending a lot of time for most cases. 
Also, I TRY to really optimize my out-of-the-camera output.
_________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nesster
Joined: 24 Apr 2008
Posts: 5883
Location: NJ, USA
Expire: 2014-02-20
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nesster wrote:
I'm playing around with the trial versions, scanning 120 size negatives. My observations so far, I'm using the Epson 4490.
1) Epson software comes out bluish, Silverfast pinkish, and VueScan somewhere in between, but VueScan is far less contrasty and saturated than the other two. Silverfast is a bit too technicolor, I'd have to figure out how to tone it down. Epson is blah with the color, on Fuji PRO160S anyway.
2) Software interface: I suppose this has to do with prior experience, as for me the Silverfast is crazy complicated and not very intuitive. It took me several tries before I figured out where to set scanning resolution, for example. I hate all those popups and wandering little menus, I'd like it better if they were all in a container.
With VueScan at least I can navigate a bit better. The preview doesn't work so well, as everyone says, and I couldn't figure out (yet) how to set curves or levels better. The scans come out a bit flat compared to the other two.
3) Epson seems to smooth out the grain even with that option turned off. It gets pretty far with the detail, but both of the others do much better.
Silverfast: the multi exposure setting does two passes at the negative, one for the highlights and one for the shadows. The result is subtle: the straight scan looks more contrasty, but the multi exposure scan retains better shadow and highlight detail. There MAY be a slight loss of detail, though I only noted it possibly in one spot, while everything else looked very much the same. I'd say this is an advantage, especially with my scanner which doesn't give a good range on its own. And this would be one major reason I'd buy Silverfast.
Honestly, I don't think I saw a difference between SE and AI in results, even if AI is 'customized' to the scanner. Maybe there is something.
VueScan: the default setting (for the fuji film) didn't work at all for me: I got a pale washed out building. After monkeying with it a while I got a much better result, still more subdued than with the other software. I feel I might get there with some more work, but that preview isn't much good. Compared to the Silverfast scan, VueScan was able to hold highlight detail much better. The Silverfast defect/dust removal really doesn't work, in the building it removed repeating pattern within the building's windows, and left dust marks alone! If I wanted to, the IR dust remover on VueScan is what I'd use.
I must note I did not RTFM nor WTFM (watch the friggin movies) for silverfast.
I didn't bother making small patches out of my other building scan, but here's three at 100% (1200dpi scan) comparing Epson and Silverfast:
Epson:
Siverfast with multi exposure:
Silverfast regular:
_________________
-Jussi
Camera photos
Print Photographica
Last edited by Nesster on Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A G Photography
Joined: 11 May 2008
Posts: 1480
Location: Bologna - Italy
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A G Photography wrote:
Next time I'll have to scan a roll I'll try to post a step-by-step guide of my workflow.
Both to share experiences, give guidance and get advices.
_________________
Alessandro
My Photography Website
My Blog about Photography and Italian Cuisine
My Photostream on Flickr
--------------------------------------------------------
DSLR: Nikon d80, Olympus e410
SLR: Chinon CX, Fujica ST605n, Nikon f601, Pentacon FM, Pentax Spotmatic SPII, Praktica FX, Praktica FX2, Voigtlander VST1, Yashica FX-3, Zeiss Contaflex
RF: Altissa Altix, Zorki Ie, Kiev 4b
Medium Format: Pentacon Six TL, Zeiss Ikonta 520/2, Mockba 4, Voigtlander Bessa I, Agfa Isolette II, Agfa Isola
Large Format: Cambo SC 4x5, Rodenstock Sinaron 150/5.6, Rodenstock Rodagon 150/5.6, Schneider Kreuznach Symmar 180/5.6
Lenses
Nikkors: 28/3.5 AIS, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/2 H, Micro 55/3.5, Micro 60/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/3.5 AI, 200/4 NAI, 18-55/3.5-5.6, 28-80/3.5-5.6, 55-200/4-5.6
CY: Distagon 28/2.8, Planar 50/1.4, Yashika 50/1.7, Sonnar 135/2.8
CZJ m42-Exakta: Flektogon 20/4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Tessar 40/4.5, Tessar 50/2.8, Pancolar 50/1.8, Pancolar 50/2, Biotar 58/2, Biotar 75/1.5, Tessar 80/2.8, Sonnar 135/3.5, Sonnar 135/4, Triotar 135/4
CZJ P6: Flektogon 50/4, Flektogon 65/2.8, Biometar 80/2.8, Biometar 120/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Meyer-Pentacon: Orestegon 29/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Lydith 30/3.5, Primagon 35/4.5, Helioplan 40/4.5, Domiplan 50/2.8, Primotar 50/3.5, Oreston 50/1.8, Primoplan 58/1.9, Orestor 100/2.8, Trioplan 100/2.8, Helioplan 135/4.5, Orestor 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, Primotar 135/3.5, Primotar 180/3.5, Telemegor 180/5.5, Orestegor 200/4, Pentacon 200/4, Orestegor 300/4, Telemegor 300/4.5, Telemegor 400/5.5
Schneider-Kreuznach: Curtagon 28/4, Curtagon 35/2.8, Xenon 50/1.9, Xenar 50/2.8, Tele Xenar 135/3.5, Tele Xenar 200/4
Russians: Arsat Zodiak 30/3.5, Mir-I 37/2.8, Volna-9 50/2.8, Industar-50 50/3.5, Industar-61 50/2.8, Helios 44 58/2, Helios 44-2 58/2, Helios 44-M-4 58/2, Volna-3 80/2.8, Helios 40 85/1.5, Jupiter 9 85/2, Jupiter 11 135/4
Others: Chinon-Tomioka 55/1.4, Helios 28/2.8, Isco Iscotar 50/2.8, Konica Hexanon 40/1.8, Ludwig Meritar 50/2.9, Schacht Travegon 35/3.5, Schacht Travenon 135/4.5, Sekor 55/1.8, Sigma MF 28/2.8, S-Takumar, 28/3.5, S-Takumar 50/1.4, S-Takumar 55/1.8, S-Takumar 55/2, Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, Steinheil Culminar 135/4.5, Vivitar 135/2.8, Voigtlander Ultron 50/1.8, Yashica Yashinon DX 50/1.4, Zuiko MC Auto-W 28/2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 4809
Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
| A G Photography wrote: |
Next time I'll have to scan a roll I'll try to post a step-by-step guide of my workflow.
Both to share experiences, give guidance and get advices. |
That would be wonderful! And thank you Nesster for your workflow details.
_________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
