Best scanning manager program?

[T. Wise]

I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).

Any recommendations?

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per T. Wise:

I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).

Any recommendations?

Duno from "great", but after taking a strong dislike to Nikon's freebie I
settled on VueScan.

Currently driving a CoolScan 4000 (film) and a CanoScan LIDE-SomethingOrOther
(flatbed).

The price was right and I have no complaints.

 

[Noons]

I have an HP 7410 all-in-one, running under XP Pro. The scan manager
program that comes with the HP isn't very good, so I'm wondering if there's
a great scanning manager program (for documents and photographs).

Any recommendations?

Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
but I've been using Vuescan. It has totally transformed
my Epson 4990 into a superb scanning machine.

Some claim it is not user-friendly. I guess that is contingent
on one's degree of familiarization, I find it quite friendly. Once
I worked out the twists of its interface, it turned into a mean
piece of software!

www.hamrick.com
is the place to go to for further info.

Others swear by Scanfast. I've tried their SE product,
came with my scanner. It's friendly, but the interface
got in the way once I became more proficient in its use.

Try it out as well. Google the name and you'll find the site.

Go to www.scantips.com for more than you ever wanted to
know about flat-bed image scanners!

 

[Noons]

Others swear by Scanfast. I've tried their SE product,

Profuse apologies: that should have read Silverfast,
not Scanfast!

 

[Don]

Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),
but I've been using Vuescan.

Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable. Check the archives for a
constant stream of user complaints and bug reports, some duped users
even screaming for their money back. No refunds, though.

However, if you don't care for quality and just want a quick a dirty
web scan it just may do the trick. The only challenge is to locate a
version that "works" (and that's a real challenge!). If you do, resist
the urge to upgrade, or at least keep the old version just in case!

Others swear by Scanfast.

That's SilverFast.

I've tried their SE product,
came with my scanner. It's friendly, but the interface
got in the way once I became more proficient in its use.

Try it out as well. Google the name and you'll find the site.

http://www.silverfast.com

Do note that you need to download a scanner specific version! Most
people consider it very good but it comes at a price. One notable
point I would make is that it's for people who favor "auto
everything".

In the interest of full disclosure, I don't use either of them,
although I've tested them both.

Don.

 

[Don]

Per Noons:

That always mystified me.

And I'm mystified that you're mystified! ;o)

Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
standards.

Ah, well, that explains it, then! Your knowledge of UI design is
apparently nonexistent... And that's being as diplomatic as I can
given the context. ;o)

Vuescan doesn't adhere to *any* UI standards! Doesn't even come close!

Vuescan is an ergonomic nightmare! Ever heard of "muscle memory"? Not
to mention hidden settings or, arcane interaction of unrelated
settings or, settings on different tabs influencing each other or,
missing user feedback or, secretly rolling back settings after the
user sets them... etc... etc... etc...

Vuescan is so bad I wouldn't even use it as an example of how *not* to
design a UI - as that risks vaguely implying Vuescan has a UI! ;o)

Mostly if something can be broken or misunderstood, I'm the one what will do it.

The corollary of that is:

If something is broken and confusing you'll be the one who's happy
with it! ;o)

Your above assertion seems to confirm it.

Don.

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

And I'm mystified that you're mystified! ;o)


Ah, well, that explains it, then! Your knowledge of UI design is
apparently nonexistent... And that's being as diplomatic as I can
given the context. ;o)

Vuescan doesn't adhere to *any* UI standards! Doesn't even come close!

Vuescan is an ergonomic nightmare! Ever heard of "muscle memory"? Not
to mention hidden settings or, arcane interaction of unrelated
settings or, settings on different tabs influencing each other or,
missing user feedback or, secretly rolling back settings after the
user sets them... etc... etc... etc...

Vuescan is so bad I wouldn't even use it as an example of how *not* to
design a UI - as that risks vaguely implying Vuescan has a UI! ;o)


The corollary of that is:

If something is broken and confusing you'll be the one who's happy
with it! ;o)

Your above assertion seems to confirm it.

Don.

Don, you're certainly a good spokesperson "against" Vuescan. However,
as a user for the past several years, I've not found anything that
even comes close to it's ease of use (I guess I'm one of those who've
become accustomed to it's "awful" interface, and so don't understand
that is's really bad and hard to use) and quality of scans. But then,
I also haven't looked at anything else other than Nikon Scan that came
with a scanner.

So I'd like to ask what you'd recommend.

Also, I'd like to know if there are others out there who really
believe Vuescan is awful, and if so, what they are using.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Noons:

Some claim it is not user-friendly.

That always mystified me. Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
standards.

Mostly if something can be broken or misunderstood, I'm the one what will do it.
OTOH, I found VueScan to be easily usable without even reading the instructions.

 

[HvdV]

Remember that Vuescan is cross-platform (Mac OSX, Linux, Windows), no small
feat. Unless such a product is completely differentiated between all
platforms, for which at this price the market is probably too small, it is
bound to have a lowest common denominator GUI in terms of 'slickness'. In
terms of use for the experienced user such a package can be quite good, but
you have to get past that first bump in the learning curve.

Don, you're certainly a good spokesperson "against" Vuescan. However,
as a user for the past several years, I've not found anything that
even comes close to it's ease of use (I guess I'm one of those who've
become accustomed to it's "awful" interface, and so don't understand
that is's really bad and hard to use) and quality of scans. But then,
I also haven't looked at anything else other than Nikon Scan that came
with a scanner.

I looked at Silverfast too, liked its focussing tools more. It is also not
very stable, at least on OSX 10.4.

-- Hans

 

[Mike]

Dunno if your scanner is supported (most are),

but I've been using Vuescan. It has totally transformed
my Epson 4990 into a superb scanning machine.

Which edition of Vuescan, Standard or Professional?

 

[Noons]

That always mystified me. Compared to NikonScan (whose UI seems tb have
designed by somebody's 13-year-old kid trying incorporate every oddball control
he could find...) I find VueScan to be a model of adherence to the Windows UI
standards.

Akshally, I beg to differ. The UI is not Windows standard at all.
What it is is *portable*. Ie, it is written using a portable library
mechanism that lets it "look and feel" exactly the same regardless
of where you are running the program: Mac, Windows and Linux.

That is, IMHO and given that no one else seems to bother with that
all important aspect, one of the most amazing things about Vuescan.

It is terminally easy nowadays to develop something that looks
"windows-like" or "mac-like" or whatever-like. But to write something
as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
in all three environements is a major achievement.

Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?

OTOH, I found VueScan to be easily usable without even reading the instructions.

Same here. It was quite refreshing in fact to not have to contend
with cryptic icons and ad-hoc graphics all over the place.

 

[Noons]

Which edition of Vuescan, Standard or Professional?

I've been using Pro because I want to keep the RAW scans
and reprocess them with all sorts of image filters in GIMP.

These "raw" files, by the way, are not camera RAW files but
raw data *inside* a vanilla TIFF file. That makes them quite
easy to manage with standard OS thumbnails. And better yet:
I can read them with GIMP and process them myself if I'm not
happy with what Vuescan is doing. Can't get any better than that,
IMHO!

 

[HvdV]

It is terminally easy nowadays to develop something that looks
"windows-like" or "mac-like" or whatever-like. But to write something
as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
in all three environements is a major achievement.

Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?

Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another. The
result is more stable software. That is in part also due to the fact that
writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
than say a windows-only package.

-- Hans

 

[Don]

Don, you're certainly a good spokesperson "against" Vuescan.

That's *the* basic mistake some people constantly make.

I am not a spokesperson against Vuescan. I merely state the facts. The
same way I state NikonScan facts, for example. And yet nobody has ever
accused me of being a spokesperson against NikonScan!?

However,
as a user for the past several years, I've not found anything that
even comes close to it's ease of use (I guess I'm one of those who've
become accustomed to it's "awful" interface, and so don't understand
that is's really bad and hard to use) and quality of scans. But then,
I also haven't looked at anything else other than Nikon Scan that came
with a scanner.

More power to you!

As I keep repeating (!), but it gets overlooked because people make
unsubstantiated tangential assumption based on the initial
misapprehension:

If you're happy with Vuescan, to that I say: Great!!! Enjoy!!!

However, if someone would then try to translate this personal
*feeling* by stating that Vuescan has a good UI we enter the domain of
*fact*. And facts have nothing to do with any one person's feelings.

You (the generic "you" not you personally) may *subjectively feel*
good about Vuescan but that doesn't change the *objective fact* that
Vuescan is absolutely atrocious in every way.

So I'd like to ask what you'd recommend.

It depends on your requirements. Essentially, whatever you're happy
with. The choice is well known (and fairly limited) so it's really up
to each person to decide based on their needs and tolerances.

In my particular case, once I turned everything of in NikonScan (and
that's not easy!!!) it did what I wanted. Except, due to Kodachromes
and my twin-scanning, absolute exposure range was insufficient in this
mode. So I ended up writing my own software...

But I doubt many (if any?) people would consider that an option
because most people don't have the same requirements as I do.
Therefore, my personal choice is really irrelevant.

Also, I'd like to know if there are others out there who really
believe Vuescan is awful, and if so, what they are using.

Quality and fact are not a popularity contest!

Germans have a saying about this which, I believe, translates into
something like:

Excrement must taste good because 1 billion flies can't be wrong! ;o)

Don.

 

[Don]

Remember that Vuescan is cross-platform (Mac OSX, Linux, Windows)

Indeed! And if you go back into archives far enough you'll see my post
where I acknowledge that.

However, and it's a massive "however", Vuescan UI mess has nothing to
do with that.

Vuecan brakes most elementary UI guidelines common to *ALL* operating
systems! *That's* the problem!

There are many cross platform programs - usually originating from
Linux - that make the transition gracefully and flawlessly because
they don't go against the elementary, common sense design guidelines.

Unless such a product is completely differentiated between all
platforms, for which at this price the market is probably too small, it is
bound to have a lowest common denominator GUI in terms of 'slickness'.

I am *not* talking about *cosmetics* here! It's about going against
virtually every usability and design *principles* out there.

Don.

 

[Don]

But to write something
as complex as Vuescan and make it look the same and operate the same
in all three environements is a major achievement.

Please forgive me, but that's just nonsense.

Vuescan is not complex. It's mind-numbingly simple, assuming a
competent software engineer. Cross-platform development has been going
on for decades and has absolutely nothing to do with Vuescan problems.

The trouble with Vuescan is that it appears to have been casually
written by an amateur weekend programmer. Then as the features
proliferated (so-called "featuritis") he never did what any competent
programmer does: Re-evaluate the initial design. Instead, he
apparently committed the rookie mistake of "falling in love with his
original design".

To combat this some methodologies actually require programmers (after
an initial design phase) to literally throw away *all* notes and start
from scratch. The idea is you can start fresh with the new knowledge
but without the burden of an existing design.

In case of Vuescan, however, in order to fit the round peg of new
features into the square peg of vastly inadequate initial design, the
author just got into ever more trouble. A classic symptom of this is
when bugs proliferate and never go away and perennial unreliability.
Sounds familiar?

NOTE: Simply sticking a new "major" number after a program name does
*not* imply a serious redesign.

Having said that, I do not diminish that it has some user interface
quirks. But for the price, I can't complain: have you checked how
many bugs exists in much more expensive software nowadays?

Not at the same rate and persistence as Vuescan's!

How do you explain the most pedestrian bugs like "broken cropping" or
"0-byte file scan", etc appearing in major version *8*? That's
inexcusable! It indicates massive incompetence and total absence of
any semblance of quality control.

I know some Vuescan fans will emotionally overreact but it's a simple
statement of fact when I say that I have never seen a program so buggy
and unreliable as Vuescan in my 25+ years in the business.

Don.

 

[Don]

Actually, there is also an advantage in doing cross-platform: a bug which is
at some stage harmless on one platform will show up early on another.

The corollary is that a bug originating on one platform will
proliferate to others.

The result is more stable software.

In case of Vuescan it's exactly the opposite, confirming the above
corollary.

That is in part also due to the fact that
writing a cross platform application like VueScan (and to a lesser degree
Silverfast) simply requires a higher level of software engineering skills
than say a windows-only package.

Not really, if the basic design is done right. The modules are still
the same regardless. It's the "umbrella" design that binds them which
needs more thought. In case of Vuescan the inadequacy on this level
only exposes massive incompetence.

Don.

 

[HvdV]

There are many cross platform programs - usually originating from
Linux - that make the transition gracefully and flawlessly because
they don't go against the elementary, common sense design guidelines.

Sure, and I've seen worse than Vuescan with still a faithful flock of fans.
But still one point for Vuescan: how many cross platform packages do you know
which control as many hardware devices as Vuescan *and* is in the <$100 price
range?

I am *not* talking about *cosmetics* here! It's about going against
virtually every usability and design *principles* out there.

That's a pretty strong statement. Personally I felt I could get used to it,
but simply liked Silverfast better among others because of the focusing
control. BTW, slickness for a Mac product is *very* important.

-- Hans

 

[HvdV]

The corollary is that a bug originating on one platform will
proliferate to others.

I'm not talking about things like divide by zero bugs here, but of bugs
caused for example by invalid programmer assumptions. Such bugs can remain
undetected or worse undiagnosed for years. In a multi platform environment
such bugs have a larger chance of getting detected on one of the platforms
and then fixed for all. This assumes one is using different compilers.

Not really, if the basic design is done right. The modules are still
the same regardless. It's the "umbrella" design that binds them which
needs more thought. In case of Vuescan the inadequacy on this level
only exposes massive incompetence.

IMO you can only make such harsh judgements if you've seen the actual Vuescan
code.
Stated differently my point was that you can't keep a cross platform package
afloat if the code is a mess and you are an incompetent programmer as well.


-- Hans

 

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

Per Don:

I'm going to retreat from my "Windows UI" statement bc I can't find the standard
that I was going on about.

But, standards aside, has anybody tried to use both Nikon Scan and VueScan?

I'm no rocket scientist, but I've used a *lot* of applications and Nikon Scan
just plain boggled me. I got it to run eventually, but it was an effort. OTOH,
I just fired up VueScan, picked some menu choices, and it worked.

Well, I did try to run both for a time, but eventually gave up and
even stopped updating NikonScan.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/