I scan in as tiffs then edit in Ps or Lr. I switched to silver fast recently after some extensive testing and I find that I'm getting better scans than with Epsom scan. I've scanned everything on my stream using silverfast. I do find that silverfast does have to have some learning for workarounds. But every time you change a setting, it resets the path of the file you're scanning to and the file format back to TIFF. Also with Lightroom all the edits are non-destructive or reversible. The main difference here is that with Lightroom or Photoshop you are working with the full image instead of a low resolution preview. It is best to do as much as you can in 48 bit before converting. Photoshop does not allow layers until after you convert the image to 24 bit but you can make a lot of adjustments without layers. I use Lightroom for most of this however you can also use Photoshop. You can then process that image in another program that can handle 48 bit tif files. All of these programs allow you to scan and save the image as a 48 bit tif file (similar to a RAW file from a digital camera). You don't have to use the Scanner Software (SilverFast, Epson, or VueScan) to process the image. The trick with silverfast is to find the optimum workflow for each film type. The IR channel in silverfast also works better than digital ice since it is not performed by software, but occupies a separate channel and is scanned a second time. Silverfast gives more tools to do so than Epsonscan. The more you manipulate your image in 48 bit color and 16 bit b+w, as opposed to 16 bit color and 8bit b+w the less tonal destruction you will have once imported into your image editor. The learning curve is long on Silverfast, but it does better scans. I haven't found Epson Scan a problem so far. Perhaps I should stick to Epson Scan for the time being, and see how I get on, and then try the trial version of Silverfast as Scanzzz suggested. I daresay I need to go on my own learning curve, but your tips will be useful. I don't like how it detects and takes care of dust, etc.). I wasted a whole lot of time in the beginning of my scanner learning curve trying to get silverfast to work as advertised and I never liked any of the results (i.e. MINOR adjustments) and take care of dust in post production software. I've had the best results with the software that came with the scanner (Epson Scan) with all the bells and whistles turned off (including USM), and minor adjustment of curves, histogram, and the gray-dropper for color (and it took me awhile to learn not to over do it with these things, i.e. I'm a little bit lazy so I stayed with Epson Scan in Professional Mode. But for color negative film, you should get more consistent color from SF Pro version like my friend did. The learning curve for SilverFast is quite steep at least for me, so you might want to give it a bit more time to try it out before giving up.įor color slides and B&W, I would dare say there is not a lot of reason to go for SF Pro version. You cannot depend on others to tell you if one workflow is better for your particular tastes. I am wondering if it is worth buying Silverfast, although I suspect it may depend on what I want to do.ĭownload the free trial version and test for yourself. Can anyone give me the benefit of their experience and tell me what the benefits of using Silverfast rather than Epson Scan would be, assuming there are some.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |