Ian, is it still the case that Silverfast can't deliver high-bit scans to
Photoshop? That was the case when I bought it for my SS4000 a year or so ago,
and it was one of the things that pushed me to Vuescan.
I must be one fry short of a Happy Meal, because I still don't understand why
editing high-bit images in PS is inferior to doing it in the scanner software.
On your list below, only the scanner specific items (1 and 7) would seem to be
unattainable with PS. I understand that the items you list could result in
better *scans*, but if the goal is a better final *print*, I just don't get the
advantages of doing it in the scanner software. Can you explain a bit more, or
point me to a web link that would open my eyes?
BTW, I don't know how effective the SF USM algorithm is compared to the one
used by PS, but for me it's a non-issue as I normally use a a smart
edge-sharpening action anyway. Why would you want the scanner software to
apply the sharpening, instead of scanning raw and leaving yourself the option
of matching the sharpening to the final image size and use?
Paul Chefurka
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Lyons [mailto:ilyons@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:12 PM
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Silverfast or VueScan
> What specifically can be better in the final result then, please Ian?
1. The ability to edit the image in a preview screen that displays the image
as it will appear in Photoshop
2.The ability to make global colour/tone/hue,saturation, etc corrections
3. The ability do as item in 2 in selected colours
4. The ability to do selective "area" edits to the image
5. The ability to apply varying degrees of Lab based USM to images at scan
time. Not just the micky mouse USM that Photoshop provides. I rarely use it,
but its there!
6. The ability to adjust and fine-tune the curves associated with negative
films.
7. The ability to make multiple or selective area scans of the same frame
each with it's own set of parameters.
If you don't know how anyone one of these can better your scan then I can't
really help. To claim that many of these can be done after the fact in
Photoshop completely misses the point of high bit editing and its
limitations.
As I previously wrote I wasn't criticising VueScan. However many of the
reasons for using VuesScan in lieu of SilverFast have been eliminated in
recent times, that is except for the cost. SilverFast is by no means
perfect, but then again neither is Vuescan, NikonScan, CanoScan, etc.
Likewise it can occasions be unstable and even downright pigheaded enough
not to work, but then again Vuescan, NikonScan, CanoScan, etc.
Ian Lyons
