LaserSoft Imaging

Hi:

After purchasing Epson 3200 and installed all the bundle software and the proper version of silverfast and made some test my opinion is that Epson Scan software, despite the fact that at a first instance doesn't fit with the proper colours and details, offers better results than silverfast software.

I've made some 35 mm colour negative film scans at 3200 dpi.

With all the adjustments sets to auto (negafix too), the resulting image had too much magenta, with lot of contrast and loss of detail at shadows.
After that I tried to made mnual adjustments and also try with no adjustments in order to make them in Photoshop. The result was that I got better results but the same problem. With that loss of detail at dark areas is impossible for me to get a good image with underexposed films.

Then I've tried with Epson Scan software and at a first sight the image was good balanced in colours but low of contrast. With no adjustments a scan the negative and adjustment in Photoshop and the low of contrast resulted in a very higer information in dark an also in bright areas, letting me to make all the desired adjustments in order to get the better image.

I couldn't believe that so a took a colour and gray test chart and made some scans with Silverfast and Epson Scan in order to compare results.

In both cases a made black, white and half tone adjustments with drop tool. The results were better with silverfast. But when I made drop adjustments in photoshop the image scanned with Epson Scan was better. Gray scale were simmilar in both images but colours were better in the image scanned with Epson Scan with more saturation.

I'll post the images and make more tests but at a first sight I'll use Epson Scan software.

If somebody has another opinion or has made test, please reply to this message.

My system is a G4 single 450 Mhz with 1024 Mb Ram, Mac Os X 10.2.6, Photoshop 7, Silverfast 6.10r7 and Epson 3200.

vjyoyo,

Silverfast is a very powerful tool, and as you may have noticed, there are many other functions than the dropper. I assure you that you will get much better results using Silverfast than Epson, but be patient. To learn how to use all of these great tools, check out Ian Lyon's tutorials, which are well-written and up-to-date:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/sf5_contents.htm

Search the forum, too, there's lots of great info here.

-Ian A.

Hi ianders1:

Of course I know other tools, but what really it's necessary for me is to achieve good results at the end. What I told before: I assume everybody is using this scanner to get good images from their films using photoshop or whatever else, so what you really need is a scanned image in which you can then adjust whatever to get your result, so the image has to be enough flexible, this mean that has to have enough information in dark and lights in order to adjust levels properly, in photoshop. If the scanner give us a good image with high contrast and too much saturation we will not be able to adjust levels in the way we want.

Here are examples.

The cat was half of 35 mm (shot whit a Fujica Half) negative. First I tried to scan with silverfast, negative, auto-tune, manual colour correction, without nega-fix, and so on, but all the results were more or lees contrasty and magenta. The image shown was scanned without nega-fix and without tone correction. As you can see in the details the excess of contrast produces a lack of information in dark and lights. I tried to correct levels in photoshop, but no way.
The other image was scanned with epson scan software. Despite the fact the image looks bad it has more information and all the procedures after, in photoshop, let's us to get the result we want.

After that I took a colour and gray scale test chart and made the same. I scanned them with the drop tool, telling the software which one was black, white and medium gray, in silverfast and in epson scan software.
Then I re-adjust levels in photoshop with the same tool and the image scanned with silverfast was a little milky, no good saturation. The other one, scanned with epson scan soft were better.

You can see the images in http://perso.wanadoo.es/vjyoyo/test.html

vjyoyo,

Thanks for showing me what problems you are having. I think what's happening is that when Silverfast applies its automatic settings, it is applying too much contrast. In the case of this image, I would (in SF) first adjust the levels in the histogram by using the sliders, making sure you're not losing the highlights, I would then use the color cast feature to try to reduce the magenta cast. Then, I would go to the next tab and use the contrast, black point, and white point sliders to get the contrast correct.

The best way to learn SF is to open up an image and play with all of the sliders and tools to see what they do to an image. I assure you that once you get the hang of how to use the tools, you will get incredible results. You just need to be patient while you learn. I quickly got frustrated with SF when I first used it, and didn't try it again for many months. Once you get a handle on the power of SF, you will see little need to make further adjustments in Photoshop. The more you do in SF, the better, because it's non-destructive.

I'll try to help you as much as you can, so please feel free to post again.

Cute kitten, by the way!

-Ian A.

I'll practice more with silverfast. At a first moment I got frustated because the first scan I made, trying not to make adjustments, was very bad. I made some scans yesterday with the same picture and I got better results (I'll post them).

I thought adjustments in Silverfast were destructive, that's why I din't want to make adjustments. I think this is a very important thing I didn't know. So, the scanner calibrates itself with adjustments and you are not adding artifacts???? Very nice, I'll work in that way.

With manual adjustments the result is very nice and improvements can be made easily in photoshop (the resulting image yesterday it's a perfect example-I'll post it!!!). And if you compare the result with silverfast and with the image digitized with an agfa minilab (a very much expensive system with-it's supposed- better lenses) they are not very differents. But, anyway, in my opinion there is also excess of magenta.

Another thing to tell you is that image was shot with a half 35 mm camera, and was very underexposed (late in the afternoon). It's a Fuji Superia 400 ASA. Finally I untab negafix because it produces an image with more magenta than the one without it. (I'll test negafix with other films but actually I prefer not to use it)

Another thing why I got frustrated it's because I bought this scanner to make my 35 mm and 6x6 archive. As you can imagine I've got lots of films and I'd like to digitize them quickly with very few adjustments (you know how slow and boring is to digitize hundreds of films...it'll take me months!!!), but I supposed it will be better to made adjustments one by one...(noooo!!)

Thanks ianders1.

I'm happy to hear that you're getting better results

Silverfast is non-destructive in that all the adjustments you make to the image are applied at the time of the scan, ensuring the best possible image. The closer you can get the screen preview to what you want the final image to look like, the better. As you get better with SF, you'll find that you can spend 2-3 mins. in Silverfast, and the image will look better than if you had spent 20 mins. in Photoshop making destructive changes on a raw scan, especially in regards to color correction.

As for Negafix, it's an interesting tool, but don't be concerned that you're not getting good results with it. Some of the profiles are great and require minimal adjustments, but others look terrible without major tweaking. I've often found that the profiles for the specific film don't look right, but if you scroll through the other profiles by the same manufacturer (Fuji, in your case), I will find one that works better. Of course they have really improved it over the last few years, so it works well 90% of the time, now.

For more help on Negafix try this link:

http://www.silverfast.com/show/negafix/en.html

There are several links in the upper-right hand corner of the page.

Good luck,
Ian A.