![]() To get it looking right, as I initially edited it, I have to assign the ProPhoto color space in PS. I'm getting an ARGB image with ProPhoto numbers. The entire color range is less saturated, including the appearance of the prescan, indicating that the 'numbers' have not changed with change of 'profile to embed' in the SilverFast CMS section. It's not just a case of the ARGB scan being less red. ![]() Perhaps this is another clue as to incorrect settings somewhere. On the issue of a scan into the ProPhoto color space looking redder than the same scan (with same adjustments) scanned into a smaller gamut color space such as Adobe RGB, this is indeed true with Silverfast and negatives, on my system. How do you really know when the colors are accurate? We can't tell by eyeballing a negative on a light-table. However, there's a major problem here, even if you do have the time. Given enough time, however bad the prescan may look, one can eventually knock it into shape. Of course, the big features of SilverFast are the numerous ways you can change color and color casts, and Negafix has added yet another range of color and hue adjustments. I've got no idea if this is another symptom of something seriously wrong, or if it's an improvement in the software to remove yet another pitfall that can confuse the amateur. Makes no difference to the over all color wherever the crop lines are. Move the crop lines inwards and the color changes. Reading Ian Lyons tutorial on Negafix, he mentions that the prescans can initially look way off because the crop lines might include the black edges surrounding the frame. The film type selections in Negafix seem to have no bearing on reality. There is clearly something seriously wrong here. The prescans are not even in the ball park, not even near the ball park in a completely different city in fact. SilverFast's behaviour with negatives is a real puzzle. Vuescan is by far the best, Dimage Scan second for an automatic scan with minimal adjustments, and SilverFast last again. I've since downloaded a more recent version of Vuescan which seems to have addressed a number of issues relating specifically to the 5400ll, and the order has now changed. My first attempts scanning negatives using my Scan Elite 5400ll, put Dimage Scan first, Vuescan second and SilverFast last with regard to ease of use and color accuracy, within a reasonable time frame, of course. The problem is that it is so broken when it comes to color that it's essentially useless to me for either color negs or trannies.Whilst this post is a continuation of some issues raised in another thread, I think it probably deserves its own topic. Quite honestly, I think Nikonscan, while not perfect, has the easiest, most intuitive UI of all, including a very nice curves implementation. I find both valuable, as I use Vuescan for color negatives, and Silverfast for color transparencies, but if you want to do most of your editing in the initial scan, Silverfast is the only choice. Sure, Vuescan is simpler to use in "just set everything for me" mode, but once you move beyond that, Vuescan can certainly frustrate as well. ![]() ![]() Once you've done that, you can install the 32-bit Vista version of Nikonscan (but tell it not to install its drivers) and/or Silverfast, and they'll work without a flaw.Īs for Silverfast vs Vuescan, certainly Vuescan is less expensive, but frankly, I don't think either has a particularly intuitive UI. The key is to install Vuescan first and exercise the option to allow it to install drivers for legacy hardware. I have Silverfast AI Studio working just fine on my Vista 64 system, as well as Nikonscan and Vuescan. "Does the Silverfast software work with Vista 64 bit operating systems, or even XP 64 bit? The last time I looked Silverfast did not." ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |