Evaluating VueScan with HP 3300c?

[Don]

I have been producing professional photography, writing, and/or graphic
design work for over 30 years. That work appears in magazine ads,
brochures, books, flyers, posters, press kits, Web sites, and whatever
you can imagine. One color, two color, PMS, four color, five color,
varnish coats, die cuts and folds.

Today I picked up samples of two different four-color projects in which
my work recently appeared. The ad agency and printer should be commended
on the exceptional reproduction. Clean color, a full range of tones, nice.

Besides those credentials, I have personally used Vuescan to scan images
for all sorts of projects. It has performed well. I have also used
scanning software from various manufacturers and third-party suppliers.

Which is all very nice but says *absolutely nothing* about Vuescan's
"quality"! Nor do heavily Photoshopped "pretty pictures". I repeat:

Can you provide objective (!) *independently verifiable* (!) data?

Not some irrelevant second-hand and third-hand subjective feelings.

And, of course, what about all those Vuescan *bugs* which often make
it impossible to test because it just plain can't even produce a scan?

If a fraction of the time spent whining about Vuescan were spent doing
something positive for humanity, this world would be a better place.

Two answers to that:

1. Huh!? What does "doing something positive for humanity" have
anything to do with the subject matter, i.e. Vuescan's many bugs?

I've seen many feeble attempts by Vuescan "fans" at changing the
subject (after they embarrass themselves) but that particular
platitude is probably the flimsiest.

2. If Vuescan weren't so buggy and unreliable the exasperated Vuescan
users would not be "whining" so incessantly.

The fact that you, a self-professed "professional", didn't even notice
these major bugs or weren't aware of them also raises a few questions.

So, now that your vacuous praise backfired, you're trying to blame the
users. The blame lies squarely with Vuescan for being so buggy *not*
with duped Vuescan *victims* who have every right to complain.

Don.

 

[Don]

Well, I'd shrug about that, too. And not archive such posts. ;-)

Damned if I do, damned if I don't, eh? ;o)

Seriously, the "Vuescan Taliban" has attacked me for that too! First
they wanted specifics, and then when I produced a list, they tried to
change the subject and attacked me for producing a list! :-/

Having read how I install software, what'd you guess I do with old
versions? Or old beta versions, for that matter? ;-)

LOL.

I'm obsessive about backups. It's for "hysterical" (historical)
reasons. Long story...

When I got into computers I worked in a mainframe shop. And they do
backups automatically. The whole thing: daily, weekly, monthly...
Nothing is ever thrown away. But it's all done by operators
"downstairs" and one never even thinks about it. If you want a backup
you simply call them, they mount the tape and there it is!

So when I got my first PC (Commodore 64, if anyone wants to know) I
never bothered with backups except only occasionally. Until one day,
that is, when I deleted something by mistake. And then I stood there
as the awful realization started to dawn that the file was not in my
occasional backups and there was no "downstairs" to call. Ever since
I've been obsessive about backups!

Don.

 

[Don]

But I'm not ready for digital - getting a camara with (by now)
equivalent resolution would be a huge investment, quite apart from the
fact that I'd need the film scanner and new computer anyway.

And I'm not quite convinced a high-resolution digital camera would by
itself be sufficient for (say) a 9-week trip across Asia. And that would
mean extra hardware to store the pics externally - and extra weight to
carry.

My Canon Eos 5 with one (Tamron) "travel lens" is doing just nicely for
me now. (And I have my little 2M camera phone as a backup, no need to
carry a spare camera any more, that saves some weight.)

For me it's just a hobby so my requirements are fairly modest.

Although, before I switched I built up my analog gear to reach the
high end of the semi-pro or lower end of the pro market (Canon A1 with
a motor drive, bunch of lenses, etc).

In addition to other advantages of digital I also find the smaller
format and cheaper hardware a big plus. I mean, I would not carry my
analog gear on my bike trips as casually as I do my little digicam.

But, in absolute term, the quality does suffer.

Even here, where the Nikon scanner with "European" warranty is cheaper
than one with the Dutch warranty, I worry about that. I've also looked
at ordering in Germany where such hardware and electronics in general is
a lot cheaper than here (and that's not just the difference in VAT
percentage) - but one problem and just shipping costs for repair could
eat up the price difference.

I hear that Germany is about to increase their VAT (MwSt) to 19%.

BTW, what's BTW in the Netherlands these days? ;o)
(That's an inside joke only Dutch people get.)
It was around 20% if I remember correctly.

I tend to think it may be better to accept a little higher price and
order from my local (pro) photostore. Official dealer and all, and
always excellent and personal service from the store. (And I could try
to haggle a bit. ;-))

And you get to pay that "environmental tax"! ;o)

You know, the 25 guilders (or whatever it was) to dispose of the
electronic gear after it's thrown away. As an environmentalist I don't
mind that on principle but it's unfair that other countries don't do
it too.

I also liked Dutch money because of "weird" denominations 1, *2.5*, 5.
etc. That 2.5 guider coin (rijksdaalder?) or the 25 guilder note were
really neat! Of course, with the introduction of the Euro all that's
gone.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Don ([email protected]) wrote in

I hear that Germany is about to increase their VAT (MwSt) to 19%.

Well, that would make price comparisons a lot easier. ;-)

BTW, what's BTW in the Netherlands these days? ;o)
(That's an inside joke only Dutch people get.)
It was around 20% if I remember correctly.

<chuckle/> It's 19%.

And you get to pay that "environmental tax"! ;o)

You know, the 25 guilders (or whatever it was) to dispose of the
electronic gear after it's thrown away. As an environmentalist I don't
mind that on principle but it's unfair that other countries don't do
it too.

Well, I support that, really (though technically it's not a tax). I
think it would be great if at least all EU countries would do that.

But instead of throwing things away (that are not completely broken but
merely outdated or "obsolete") it would be better to get it into the 2nd
hand circuit, either by selling, or simply by having it picked up by an
organization that handles such things.

 

[Don]

Well, I support that, really (though technically it's not a tax). I
think it would be great if at least all EU countries would do that.

Yes, that's what I mean! EU is very advanced in this area with active
recycling (collection points at every corner) as well as restrictions
on genetically modified food, etc. There are still problems (acid rain
damaging German forests, for example) but at least EU is trying.

But instead of throwing things away (that are not completely broken but
merely outdated or "obsolete") it would be better to get it into the 2nd
hand circuit, either by selling, or simply by having it picked up by an
organization that handles such things.

Yup! Although, I don't like eBay because it's so hostile to sellers.
It's bad enough they charge anything at all, but eBay gets you coming
and going.

That reminds me, can anyone recommend a serious alternative to eBay?

Don.

 

[Philip Tobias]

Don wrote:
Can you provide objective (!) *independently verifiable* (!) data?

Not some irrelevant second-hand and third-hand subjective feelings.

And, of course, what about all those Vuescan *bugs* which often make
it impossible to test because it just plain can't even produce a scan?

The "verifiable data" is personally using Vuescan for a wide variety of
successful, real-world publishing jobs. This means working with
negatives, transparencies, flatwork. Black & white, line art, and color.
For Web and print. Real jobs, real world.

It's based on using Vuescan with a variety of scanners, both film and
flatbed models. In some cases, Vuescan produced better results than the
manufacturers' software; this was especially true with negatives. In
some cases, Vuescan worked with scanners that were orphaned by the
manufacturers' software. If it weren't for Vuescan, we couldn't produce
any scans at all.

Is it perfect? Of course, not. No software is. Having worked in and
around the software industry for much of the past decade, I've got lots
of first-hand experience with software development. Though much of my
work in the software industry has been in documentation (such as with
Quark) and graphics, I've spent a fair amount of time doing development.
I've lead the development team for an award-winning series of multimedia
software, done some routine coding, done some QA, done some usability
testing, done lots of interface design, and provided technical support.
Have I missed anything relevant?

Based on all that real-world experience, I find it petty and obnoxious,
perhaps even shameful, to see a decent, constantly-evolving program like
Vuescan constantly trashed by a small-minded, loud-mouthed minority.
"Taliban," indeed. If people don't like the program, fine; use something
else. But why do these few people waste so much of their lives moaning
and groaning? Or *is* moaning and groaning their entire life? Sheesh.

Time to move on, folks. ...pt

 

[Roger S.]

Don't waste your time, Philip.

 

[Don]

The "verifiable data" is personally using Vuescan for a wide variety of
successful, real-world publishing jobs. This means working with
negatives, transparencies, flatwork. Black & white, line art, and color.
For Web and print. Real jobs, real world.

Real *feelings*. People who want your business flatter you? What a
surprise! What does that have to do with *objective* evaluation? Look:

The assertion "personally using Vuescan" is a meaningless subjective
("personal") feeling which means different things to different people
and where nothing is defined.

By contrast, "one of the effects the Vuescan D-max bug will cause" is
an objective fact which means the same thing to everyone, and
everybody can test it.

What you seem to misunderstand is that I'm not questioning your use of
Vuescan. If you're happy with it, by all means, more power to you.

But there's a huge jump from that to making *unsubstantiated* claims
about its alleged "quality" based merely on these subjective feelings
without providing any objective and independently verifiable data.

And then, if that weren't bad enough, you attack Vuescan users for
daring to voice their dissatisfaction based on *documented* and
*verifiable* bugs? Shooting the messenger, indeed!

Is it perfect? Of course, not. No software is.

That's a platitude incompetent (so-called) programmers always bring up
as a feeble attempt to excuse their own failings. It never works.

As that *partial* (!) list clearly illustrates, in case of Vuescan, we
are *not* talking about some minor bug here and there. It's a whole
new level of unreliability when e.g. a program in major version *8*
(that's EIGHT!) suddenly stops working completely!

As hard as you try to minimize all that, you can't talk your way
around such massive incompetence and total absence of quality control.

The only thing that does is bring into question your self-professed
"professionalism" if you're so blissfully oblivious to such massive
bugs. We can excuse that in a hobbyist but not in a "professional".

Having worked in and
around the software industry for much of the past decade, I've got lots
of first-hand experience with software development. Though much of my
work in the software industry has been in documentation (such as with
Quark) and graphics, I've spent a fair amount of time doing development.
I've lead the development team for an award-winning series of multimedia
software, done some routine coding, done some QA, done some usability
testing, done lots of interface design, and provided technical support.
Have I missed anything relevant?

Yes, the only thing that actually counts: Programming! Writing
documentation and scripting multimedia presentations has absolutely
nothing to do with software development. Your focus on subjective
feelings and apparent inability to grasp how they have nothing to do
with objective evaluation shows a total lack of software development.

Based on all that real-world experience, I find it petty and obnoxious,
perhaps even shameful, to see a decent, constantly-evolving program like
Vuescan constantly trashed by a small-minded, loud-mouthed minority.
"Taliban," indeed. If people don't like the program, fine; use something
else. But why do these few people waste so much of their lives moaning
and groaning? Or *is* moaning and groaning their entire life? Sheesh.

Blame the customer, eh? You *are* Ed! ;o)

Trying to change the subject by shooting the messenger is a despicable
tactic only showing desperation of embarrassed people who painted
themselves in a corner. No sensible person falls for such a feeble and
transparent attempt at diversion. The subject is and remains: Vuescan
is notoriously buggy and unreliable, as objective facts clearly show.

Vuescan victims have every right to complain. The only one who is
"trashing" Vuescan is the author by his demonstrated incompetence to
fix those endless bugs, only managing to add ever more. Instead, he
appears to spend all his time sending "you've been blacklisted" emails
to paid-up users for daring to complain. Now, *that's* pathetic!

Again, if you're happy with Vuescan, fine! Enjoy! But don't try to
translate that personal feeling into objective fact. As the *partial*
(!) bug lists has clearly shown, Vuescan is not a serious program.

Does that mean people can't use it for a tiny, highly-compressed, Web
JPG? No, of course they can. And I myself have recommended it for that
very purpose (with caveats!).

But to vaguely claim that Vuescan is "good" only makes your
self-professed "professionalism" very suspect. It's no different to a
self-professed "professional photographer" describing without
qualifications a fixed-focus, plastic lens, disposable camera as good.

Don.

 

[Roger S.]

"Vuescan victims have every right to complain."
And we do. Why you think you need to represent Vuescan users is beyond
me.

"Again, if you're happy with Vuescan, fine! Enjoy! But don't try to
translate that personal feeling into objective fact. As the *partial*
(!) bug lists has clearly shown, Vuescan is not a serious program. "

This was a good line: "don't try to translate that personal feeling
into objective fact."
Same goes for you with your equal, opposite, and less informed opinion.

Back at the objective truths from the heavens nonsense? Philip and I
are both Ed in your manichean world.

 

[hpowen]

Marjolein,

FWIW, (and to Don, our resident VS bug enumerator and keeper of the
flame, it won't be worth much). I've used VS and NS (NikonScan) both
with good results. I've scanned negs and positives for printed work and
for photographic exhibitions; I have won awards in the latter category.
I use the tool that fits the job, and most often this is NS. However, I
would no more uninstall VS than I would throw out a seldom used tool
from my toolbox. The moment I did, a job calling for that tool would
arise.

One word of caution about NS: its color management can yield unexpected
results, to the point of making your scans unusable. When my LS4000 was
still new, I scanned in about 40 portraits (of the Annual Report
variety) to prepare for publishing. The shadow detail in most of the
photos was so blocked up and/or posterized that the images could not be
saved. I used VS to scan the same film and came away with stellar
scans. I have since adopted a CMS "off" workflow with NS, although
others have found ways to use it (by using ScannerRGB, for example).
I've not taken the time to test alternate methods and so I cannot
comment on their usefulness.

Since VS is available as a demo, you should be able to determine if it
is in any way suitable for your purposes. As always, your mileage may
vary.

 

[Djon]

Vuescan is far better than Nikonscan with B&W negs. Much less noise,
much less popcorn grain.

Nikonscan has a handsome, simplistic front end.

As well, Nikonscan reads frame lines accurately, unlike Vuescan...good
for color negs and unmounted chromes. It's no good at all for
B&W...noisy and it exaggerates popcorn grain. Vuescan doesn't
exaggerate grain, isn't nearly as noisy as NIkonscan, and it doesn't
exaggerate popcorn grain.

In general, alibis in favor of Nikonscan are based on lack of
familiarity with Vuescan.

Vuescan's free test doesn't usually serve much purpose IMO. One needs
to buy the Pro version and use it. If one has not done that, one does
not know what one is talking about, to put it plainly.

If one cannot risk $89 on Vuescan, one should be looking for a better
job.

 

[David Blanchard]

One word of caution about NS: its color management can yield unexpected
results, to the point of making your scans unusable. When my LS4000 was
still new, I scanned in about 40 portraits (of the Annual Report
variety) to prepare for publishing. The shadow detail in most of the
photos was so blocked up and/or posterized that the images could not be
saved. I used VS to scan the same film and came away with stellar
scans. I have since adopted a CMS "off" workflow with NS, although
others have found ways to use it (by using ScannerRGB, for example).
I've not taken the time to test alternate methods and so I cannot
comment on their usefulness.

I've run into this comment before about NikonScan and its color
management system. I've scanned slides with CMS on and with CMS off
and consistently get better results with it turned on. When I brought
this up before in this newsgroup I asked if folks were using NikonScan
with Windows vs. Macintosh and if that might account for the difference.

There weren't enough replies to get any meaningful or statistically
robust results. Still, I wonder if NikonScan with CMS on works better
with a Macintosh since Macs have had historically better integration
of color software at the OS level.

Comments, anyone?

-db-

 

[Don]

"Vuescan victims have every right to complain."
And we do. Why you think you need to represent Vuescan users is beyond
me.

.... etc ...

Huh?

In addition to being inconsistent (which, by now, we expect) you're
also becoming totally incoherent again, Roger.

First you advise "Don't waste your time, Philip" but then you can't
stop obsessing yourself!?

Compared to this confused outburst your inability to differentiate
between subjective feeling and objective fact seems relatively minor,
all of a sudden. And your perennial obsession with off-the-wall
religious references is becoming a little weird, to say the least!?

I know all those bugs drive Vuescan victims beside themselves ;o) but
you really need to calm down and gather your thoughts first, Roger.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Djon ([email protected]) wrote in @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Vuescan's free test doesn't usually serve much purpose IMO. One needs
to buy the Pro version and use it. If one has not done that, one does
not know what one is talking about, to put it plainly.

Why not? As far as I can tell the evaluation version has all the
functionality of the pro version.

Otherwise, thanks for your balanced view.

(looking not for a "better" job but a job)

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

([email protected]) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

I use the tool that fits the job, and most often this is NS. However,
I would no more uninstall VS than I would throw out a seldom used tool
from my toolbox. The moment I did, a job calling for that tool would
arise.

I'm a toolbox person, too. Still, the tools are generally carefully
selected (even free ones) - which is why I was looking to evaluate
VueScan. Well, I now know I'll have to wait until I've bought a film
scanner (and new computer) but I'll be sure to exercise it a lot.

One word of caution about NS: its color management can yield
unexpected results, to the point of making your scans unusable. When
my LS4000 was still new, I scanned in about 40 portraits (of the
Annual Report variety) to prepare for publishing. The shadow detail in
most of the photos was so blocked up and/or posterized that the images
could not be saved. I used VS to scan the same film and came away with
stellar scans. I have since adopted a CMS "off" workflow with NS,
although others have found ways to use it (by using ScannerRGB, for
example). I've not taken the time to test alternate methods and so I
cannot comment on their usefulness.

Interesting. Negatives or positives, or both? Anything specific about
those images?

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

David Blanchard ([email protected]) wrote in @boulder.noaa.gov:

I've run into this comment before about NikonScan and its color
management system. I've scanned slides with CMS on and with CMS off
and consistently get better results with it turned on.

That's why I wondered about what objects (negatives or positives)
could/would trigger the bad results. It's possible bad results occur
only in certain circumstances and if you never hit those you'd always
get good results...

Still, I wonder if NikonScan with CMS on works better with a Macintosh
since Macs have had historically better integration of color software
at the OS level.

That would be one possible variable - but there are more possibilities,
of course.


Still, it's something to watch out for.

 

[hpowen]

The film was Portra NC 160. Being fairly new to the LS4000 and
Nikonscan, the fault may well have been my own. I've always meant to
run a series of tests to document the effects of a Nikon CMS workflow
versus non-CMS, but... all I need is the time and desire to do it.
Seems both are in short supply.

 

[Djon]

Marjolein, yes, the evaluation version may indeed have all
functionality of the pro version. I've not compared the two in a year
or so and never did look closely.

I didn't mean to comment on the comparitive functionality...I should
have said that decisions seem to be made on the basis of trusted
advice, more than the evaluation copy: I made my own decision to buy
because several fine photographers who rely upon Vuescan recommended
it, without advocating the evaluation copy. They, like I, probably
downloaded it but they were pre-sold by testimonials and actual photos
by genuinely good photographers.

IMO the very best way to evaluate any photographic tool, Vuescan for
example, is to harshly judge the photos of people who use it. Judge
aesthetically, subjectively, and technically. Don't believe what people
say if you don't like their photos.

For example, if those photos are mostly scenics, human interest, or
sunsets in which sharpness, color, and contrast may not be critical,
why would one believe their opinions about technology ? It'd be better
to evaluate the work of people who make technically demanding shots,
shots with sharp edges, skin tones, difficult color...and who make
photos we like. What tools do they use?

I use Vuescan because it's better with my B&W film than is Nikonscan.
If I only shot color I might use Nikonscan. I don't want to use two
applications, so Vuescan wins.

Nikonscan users often praise Noise Ninja and similar, Vuescan users
rarely comment on it...this may suggest something about relative noise,
Nikonscan Vs Vuescan.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

Djon ([email protected]) wrote in @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

IMO the very best way to evaluate any photographic tool, Vuescan for
example, is to harshly judge the photos of people who use it. Judge
aesthetically, subjectively, and technically. Don't believe what
people say if you don't like their photos.

For example, if those photos are mostly scenics, human interest, or
sunsets in which sharpness, color, and contrast may not be critical,
why would one believe their opinions about technology ? It'd be
better to evaluate the work of people who make technically demanding
shots, shots with sharp edges, skin tones, difficult color...and who
make photos we like. What tools do they use?

Excellent point. Of course evaluating the software itself (not just its
results but also its user "interference" as Don calls it) is important.
(To me, anyway.) But looking at "photos we like" (things we might have
done or have wanted to do) makes a lot of sense to me.

What I do do is mostly travel photography, with a rather wide range of
themes, ranging from landscape, to "abstracts", to people and street
scenes; but I have some favorite themes as well (like doors and walls).
But due to the nature of traveling (not traveling to take pictures but
traveling to learn from other countries and cultures, and take pictures
when possible) shots may often be difficult, or necessarily hasty (the
bus is waiting! we have to be back before dark!). Sometimes I have to
make do with the "picture in my head". There are always compromises -
but travelling is like that anyway. On my last trip there were some
situations where the light was very difficult (extremely high contrasts,
or very, very dark). Can't come back tomorrow when the light will be
better, if I'll be somewhere else tomorrow (and may in fact never be
back in my life). I know some shots will be easy to scan, and some will
be very hard (if the negative is usable at all).

I have some very old black and white negatives, and a few boxes of
framed slides I inherited that I would like to digitize, but the bulk is
color negatives, and the bulk of that is travel photography.

I use Vuescan because it's better with my B&W film than is Nikonscan.
If I only shot color I might use Nikonscan. I don't want to use two
applications, so Vuescan wins.

I don't mind using five apps, if that's what it takes. I figure I'll
just have to spend time to learn to pick the right software for a
particular shot (or series) without wasting time trying them all all the
time. I guess that's possible with some experience.

Nikonscan users often praise Noise Ninja and similar, Vuescan users
rarely comment on it...this may suggest something about relative
noise, Nikonscan Vs Vuescan.

And the material or shots they're using their software for.

But I like your point about looking at others' work. But no good for me
looking at (say) a fantastic studio picture of a pink rose against a
white background - however much I may "like" it - I don't do those so it
doesn't help me to know what software they used. Just to give an
example. But I already look at photographs that really appeal to me and
often wonder "how did she do that?" So I should add: "and what software
did they use (if any)?"

 

[Roger S.]

Hi Marjolein,
I only wanted to comment that I use Vuescan with the Canon FS4000US
scanner and recommend Noise Ninja for dealing with scanner noise and
film grain. I used Neat Image for a while but found it took too long
to get good results that weren't over-smoothed and plasticky, and that
it did leave some strange noise reduction artifacts in places. I enjoy
using Noise Ninja as a PS plug-in, as I can give it its own layer and
really make it part of my workflow. Give it a try and I recommend
settings that are on the weak side- set reduction amount to only 7 or 5
and smoothness to 3 or so to keep detail while getting rid of the most
obtrusive noise.
Good luck!