Evaluating VueScan with HP 3300c?

[Roger S.]

Hi Marjolein and Djon,
Also, Noise Ninja works fine for a variety of subject matter, but it's
up to you to set the best settings for any given subject (leave more
noise in a gritty shot, be careful to preserve detail in a landscape,
etc) I've also used this program to good effect with a Canon compact
digital camera and it works just as well as with scans.

I don't think there are significant noise issues between scanner
software packages (or at least there shouldn't be- shoudn't "noise" be
either from the scanner hardware or the original media?). I have also
not found significant differents in resolution or sharpness between VS
and other sotware, though I only have experience with one scanner.
However, the scanner bakeoff results where a couple of people uploaded
samples using the same scanner with different software bear this out.

As far as judging color goes- Don has pointed out a number of times
that you need to start your editing from a scan which captures as much
good information as possible. Pretty much nobody is scanning without
doing any post-processing, so I don't think you should be judging
scanner programs based on final pictures. Skin tones, sharpness, color
balance, etc are all in the province of Photoshop.

As long as no VS bug is affecting the quality of your scan (at times a
big if), VS can yield quite reliable color. I highly recommend setting
the color balance manually for each negative film type by shooting a
neutral object under 5500K daylight, and using a Wolf Faust IT8 target
for slides. With my current workflow I rarely have to do more than
increase the image contrast and maybe tweak the color balance of my
negative files in Photoshop because the original VS scans are
consistent and essentially what the film saw. Ditto for slides except
instead of setting white and black point, I generally just need to
lighten the shadows while removing scanner noise.

 

[Philip Tobias]

Don't waste your time, Philip.

I know, Roger. <grin> I've monitored this newsgroup for a number of
years. Like many formerly-useful newsgroups, it generally got taken over
by a few who desperately need a platform for their rants, egos, or whatever.

This minority doesn't care anything for real-world experience. That just
gets in the way of their opinions. Like someone said, "Don't confuse me
with the facts."

But sometimes the rest of us need to speak up and set things straight.
Of course, like you remind me, it's not worth wasting time on too often.

Best regards. ...pt

 

[Philip Tobias]

It's no different to a self-professed "professional photographer"
describing without qualifications a fixed-focus, plastic lens, disposable
camera as good.

This "self-professed" professional photographer owned and operated a
Denver studio for 22 years before selling it in 1995. Ten years later,
in 2005, I am still providing professional photography (and other
publishing) services to select clients.

So having carefully examined, and sold, professional images for that
great length of time, I am especially well qualified to comment on
images and imaging software. Because of that, I think that Vuescan is
generally a good program.

If one is in the market for a versatile scanning program, Vuescan is
definitely worth a close look.

....pt

 

[Don]

This "self-professed" professional photographer owned and operated a
Denver studio for 22 years before selling it in 1995. Ten years later,
in 2005, I am still providing professional photography (and other
publishing) services to select clients.

And yet it's notable that someone with such self-professed long track
record has immense problems coming up with a single objective fact!?

You can wiggle all you want but you can't escape the fundamental
questions posed at the very beginning:

What objective tests/measurements have you performed?
Can you provide objective, independently verifiable data? Etc.

As long as you fail to do this most basic prerequisite all of your
loudly proclaimed "experiences" are not only meaningless but very
suspect and contradict your own self-professed "professionalism".

So having carefully examined, and sold, professional images for that
great length of time, I am especially well qualified to comment on
images and imaging software.

Which is all esthetics. Totally meaningless in this context. Again,
you can try to avoid or change the subject but it all comes down to:

What objective tests/measurements have you performed?
Can you provide objective, independently verifiable data? Etc.

The only thing you've come up so far is a vague, unquantifiable and
meaningless subjective feeling of "good" which, at best, sounds like
avoidance and, at worst, makes your using every opportunity to tell us
how "experienced" you are sound like empty boasting, I'm sorry to say.

If one is in the market for a versatile scanning program, Vuescan is
definitely worth a close look.

And I have recommended it myself provided essential caveats are
enumerated:
- the data Vuescan produces is severely corrupted
- Vuescan is notoriously buggy and unreliable
- etc. etc.

All those are supported by fact, not (only) by me, but by Vuescan
users themselves! Do you want the partial Vuescan bug list again?

Therefore, if one doesn't care for quality (e.g. one only wants a
quick-and-dirty highly compressed web JPG) even Vuescan can provide
that (when it works, that is, and doesn't produce 0-byte files...).

=> Given that, any self-professed "professional" who advocates Vuescan
only exposes their incompetence and ignorance, I'm sorry to say.

When, on top of that, they continue to be evasive and fail to produce
any facts whatsoever but, instead, continue to boast about their
alleged "professionalism" and "experiences" all that does is only
expose a total lack of any credibility whatsoever.

Don.

 

[Marjolein Katsma]

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

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.

Thanks. I'll have a look at both (if they have trial versions!)

I don't use Photoshop but I have Paint Shop Pro X; most PS plugins work
with PSP as well though I'm not sure I can apply a filter to a separate
layer (I haven't installed version X yet, still working with version 7).
Even if that's not possible there are workarounds available (e.g,
duplicate a layer and apply the filter to that).

 

[Roger S.]

"Even if that's not possible there are workarounds available (e.g,
duplicate a layer and apply the filter to that). "

That's how you do it in Photoshop, too. Both have trial versions
available. Luminous Landscape has a good review of Noise Ninja.