editing in scan vs. photoshop

[dlebeau]

I have a V700 and plan to do 90% photo scan and 10% film/slides. I use photoshop CS4 pretty well for my own digital captures as well as scans. is there an SF advantage in terms of final quality that is not done as well after scan? I am not talking about productivity issues as much as quality of detail, resolution, etc.

[LSI_Morales]

Dear dlebeau

There are a couple of things you gotta have in mind, if your purpose is archiving analog pictures in digital form, then the best way is to generate a RAW TIFF file, it means no editting done during scanning.
It leaves you with the question of which program has the best algorithms for my pictures? the answer can only be obtained by experimenting, in this case you should try with both programs and some representative pictures of your collection to see which delivers the best results, remember no editing or corrections are done during while digitizing but later in post-process.

If the important thing to you is the end result (e.g. a jpeg file to be printed) then you should probably consider a mixture of both programs, SilverFast has a very detail control tools and options that Photoshop does not have (e.g. infrared removal of scratches with iSRD, Multi-Sampling or Multi-Exposure) which might deliver a much higher quality file in the end, then you can continue your editing using photoshop with all other tools offered by this program which are not present in SilverFast.

If you do not have SilverFast and still want to test then you can download the demo version by clicking the next link:

http://www.silverfast.com/get_demo/en.html

Cheers

[dlebeau]

Thanks Alejandro. I think Silverfast has advanced a great deal since the last time I took a serious look at product capabilities. In fact, I have only ever used the limited function SE product and it sounds like it is time for me to look to your high end offerings.

It would be helpful to take the conversation a bit further. I never worry much about file size (storage is not much of a problem these days) so I always scan in TIFF and shoot digital photos only in RAW. I believe the V700 is pretty good hardware but I am always on the lookout for improvements in hardware or software that will give me more detail and graphic information for later photo processing work. With my somewhat limited experience, I have made the assumption that I should leave all editing for post processing where I can make a visual inspection of my choices and make appropriate adjustments based on the specific requirements of the job. Of course those can change from time to time so the maximum quality archived file seems to be the best choice for me.

It sounds like there may be certain functions that could be best performed during scanning. Scratch or dust removal could be such a case if the results are reliably good. Perhaps there are some other functions that you think could be better done during the scan process. I also believe in plug-ins or standalone products that have better algorithms for certain tasks than Adobe has implemented. Genuine Fractals for image scaling is an example of one I use 100% of the time before printing. It seems your product line has become very broad and I wonder if you can narrow down my review a little bit. Could you offer an experienced point of view of the functions that you personally would use during scan considering my stated quality/flexibility goals and which functions you think I might find superior to Photoshop or Lightroom implementation for highest quality results? In the meantime, I am pouring through the information on your extensive website to see if I can pull this kind of information from there. Thanks again.

[LSI_Morales]

Dear dlebeau,

You almost have the answer yourself, since quality is the most important thing for you and it's important to obtain the best results during the digitizing process, I would go for the option of generating 48 bit HDR TIFF files which have a more broader dynamic range, bear in mind that you will have to make the gamma gradation in post-production as well as all other things you have mentioned with third party tools.

IT8 calibration would be ideal for you to have the best color profile for your scanner and get the most out of your pictures (not present in demo versions).

Multi-Exposure is a very helpful tool for reducing "noise" in dard areas for transparency scanning.

Of course Infrared remotion of defects is a very powerful tool. This tool can be very helpful in eliminating scratches and dust in your transparencies and negatives, depending on your film emulsion and the state of the picture itself you can get some percentage of correction up to a perfectly corrected pictures.

This would be the tools I would use for generating my RAW files, the rest I would do on post-production.

I suggest you to download and test the demo version of SilverFast Ai Studio before taking any purchase decision. The main reason for that is that SilverFast SE can save 48bit HDR TIFF files but all other tools I mentioned are only present in Ai Studio. Only if you are absolutely convinced of the outcomes and improvements you can proceed to purchase the upgrade, bear in mind that IT8 calibration and Multi-Exposure are extramodules that have extra costs compared to Ai Studio alone. IT8 calibration is not present in the demo version.

Cheers

[dlebeau]

I love this forum. Hats off to LaserSoft for being so good with customer service/education. Your advice is spot on what I have been trying to learn searching all over the web. I find myself reading through many of the threads in the forum and learning a great deal that will help me produce better results with my scanning. I will begin the next phase by downloading the demo of AI Studio.

I hope this is the right forum thread to talk about hardware choices. If not, direct me elsewhere please.

I am never quite sure how much of my quality limitation is hardware vs. software when I scan photos and slides. Photos seem to be pretty high resolution in terms of "pixel count" but I sometimes wish for better detail resolution. My experience scanning slides is not as good and I use a plug in to upscale when I want to print from a slide. If I found a better hardware solution that was physically manageable in a studio/office space I would replace my V700. I have not found anything that seems to offer much more from hardware capability. Can you tell me if there are products that might provide better hardware results? Do you find that hardware at this resolution gives you all that is needed and my focus should be more on scanner software performance to reach higher quality in my scans?

[LSI_Morales]

Dear dlebeau,

Thanks for the compliments, we are just doing our job.

I am never quite sure how much of my quality limitation is hardware vs. software when I scan photos and slides

In scanning as in most things both are extremely important, you can have the best F1 car ever but if you do not have the skills then you might end up crashing yourself. If you are the best pilot ever but they give you a bike then you will be last. Same thing happens in scanning and photography in general.

Bear in mind that scanning is just one part of the whole photographic process. It's best to do things well in every stage and from the very beginning, if you fail during the shooting stage then you might be able to solve problems later (at a high time/cost investment) but you also might not.

Hardware is a very important and crucial point. You are using a flatbed scanner to make a scan of your prints and the Epson Perfection V 700 is one of the finest products you get for your bucks at that, however it might not be the right method for digitizing your pictures because, prints already mean a lost of quality and details which are still present in the film (positive or negative). The best thing to do would be to go straight to the original negative of positive films used to make those prints and create a digital negative (or raw file) from those films.

Hence if you are going to scan films, then it is better to use a dedicated film scanner, in my opinion even though the Epson Perfection V 700 does a great job scanning films, it does not match the quality of a very good dedicated film scanner, but everything comes at its price (you get what you pay for). Good quality dedicated film scanners range from 1500 dollars up to 50000, 60000 or more dollars like drum scanners. In that category you can find the Nikon CoolScan 5000 (although recently discontinued you can still find some in the market and might decide to grab one of those and put it in the fridge until you dominate your Epson), Nikon CoolScan 9000, Hasselblad Imacon, and drum scanners like Heidelberg.

There are some people to claim to obtain excelent results from an Epson Perfection V 700 photo compared to film scanners but again that is a hot topic, so it is also up to you to get the most of your scanner with practice and the right software you might obtain amazing results. If I were you I would try to dominate the tools I have and make sure they can give me no more. If you have the feeling that you have mastered your machine and it does not meet your needs then you might decide to spend some money for an upgrade.

Cheers

[ThomasMacdougall]

"In scanning as in most things both are extremely important, you can have the best F1 car ever but if you do not have the skills then you might end up crashing yourself. If you are the best pilot ever but they give you a bike then you will be last. Same thing happens in scanning and photography in general."

That's a great post Alejandro. You explained scanning perfectly in one sentence.

[LSI_Morales]

Hi Thomas,

Thanks!

Cheers

[johnorzechowski]

You almost have the answer yourself, since quality is the most important thing for you and it's important to obtain the best results during the digitizing process, I would go for the option of generating 48 bit HDR TIFF files which have a more broader dynamic range, bear in mind that you will have to make the gamma gradation in post-production as well as all other things you have mentioned with third party tools.

Dear Alejandro,

I am embarking upon a similar project to convert film negatives into "digital masters". I am a Silverfast Ai user, version 6.6.1 on a 4990. I, too, would like to scan once and achieve the best scanned results for archival purposes. I am considering one of two approaches: either Ai with adjustments/corrections during the scan vs. a 48 bit HDR TIFF and post-processing as necessary.

Given everything else equal (assuming the same Ai corrections/adjustments performed would be performed also in the HDR scan post-process--such as scratch/dust removal, curves, levels, etc), can you confirm that an HDR scan will always deliver the best possible *NATIVE* scanned result over an Ai scanned image? Would there ever be any exceptions?

[LSI_Morales]

Dear John,

Given everything else equal (assuming the same Ai corrections/adjustments performed would be performed also in the HDR scan post-process--such as scratch/dust removal, curves, levels, etc), can you confirm that an HDR scan will always deliver the best possible *NATIVE* scanned result over an Ai scanned image? Would there ever be any exceptions?

I can confirm that you will obtain the most true to your originals using HDR scans, even now with the new HDRi which contains a 16 bit channel with the infrared information. You should however bear in mind that infrared correction can be problematic with Black & white film as well as with some Kodachromes.

Cheers