SilverFast SE vs. "Epson Scan"

[Silence Seeker]

My new "EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO" scanner came with two supporting
programs:

1. EPSON Scan
2. SilverFast SE

I initially installed EPSON Scan and was able to use it for scanning
35mm negatives in no time: The color seems OK and it *automatically*
identifies and scans 12 images in one session.

After resloving a few issues regarding desired scan resolution (you
may remember me from an earlier post), I felt I was ready for the big
job: Archiving all my family 35mm negatives.

This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.

Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.

So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.

Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)

I am confused. Wasn't SilverFast SE supposed to better "guess" the
colors? Am I supposed to enter color correction by hand?

Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?

Could it be that for batch scanning the best tool after all is EPSON
Scan?

Thanks,
Sam

 

[CSM1]

My new "EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO" scanner came with two supporting
programs:

1. EPSON Scan
2. SilverFast SE

I initially installed EPSON Scan and was able to use it for scanning
35mm negatives in no time: The color seems OK and it *automatically*
identifies and scans 12 images in one session.

After resloving a few issues regarding desired scan resolution (you
may remember me from an earlier post), I felt I was ready for the big
job: Archiving all my family 35mm negatives.

This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.

Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.

So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.

Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)

I am confused. Wasn't SilverFast SE supposed to better "guess" the
colors? Am I supposed to enter color correction by hand?

Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?

Could it be that for batch scanning the best tool after all is EPSON
Scan?

Thanks,
Sam

I would say, the best tool, is the one that works the best for you.

 

[false_dmitrii]

(e-mail address removed) (Silence Seeker) wrote in message
[snipped throughout]

This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.

If you want the most flexibility, look into Vuescan and Silverfast Ai.
I'm still doing so myself and can't recommend one over the other yet.
You'll spend more but likely get the best possible initial output.

Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.

Using Epson Scan with the 4870, it's possible to scan the entire
transparency adapter into the preview window and crop each image
manually. Can the 3200 do this too? Check your "preview" button for
a drop-down arrow.

So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.

Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)

The 4870 came with SE version 6.1 (Windows). I didn't see a bluish
cast when I tested it with a Fuji consumer-grade 400 negative. Have
you tried it with and without the "auto" film type detection? Have
you tried other film type settings? Also, everything I've read
indicates that negatives will turn redder with age. Maybe the bluish
cast you're seeing is the result of such aging and goes beyond what
Silverfast will automatically remove for your film type. In that
case, you'll need to remove it separately. Epson's auto-exposure
probably corrected this for you.

Silverfast has auto-exposure options too. Try them after selecting
the film type.

Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?

I'm barely an amateur but would not call Silverfast SE "professional".
It's roughly equivalent to Epson Scan. Both have decent auto
functions with good basic refinement tools--much better than
dumbed-down full automation, but far from offering total control over
the scan.

Could it be that for batch scanning the best tool after all is EPSON
Scan?

Experiment some more with Silverfast's full range of settings. If
you're auto-exposing in Epson, do it in Silverfast too. Then go with
whichever makes you happy.

Also, once you have the color adjusted for the first frame, try saving
it as a preset for the rest of the film roll. You'd still be doing
the equivalent in higher-end software.

false_dmitrii

 

[Silence Seeker]

(e-mail address removed) (false_dmitrii) wrote in message
Dmitrii, thanks for your detailed answer. Here are my thoughts on
this:

If you want the most flexibility, look into Vuescan and Silverfast Ai.
I'm still doing so myself and can't recommend one over the other yet.
You'll spend more but likely get the best possible initial output.

After some thinking, I arrived to the conclusion that if I truly
wanted the absolute best quality, I would have bought a dedicated film
scanner. Since I made a conscious decision to compromise on
*reasonable* quality, I purchased the EPSON 3200. If my budget was
higher, I would have spent it on hardware.

Using Epson Scan with the 4870, it's possible to scan the entire
transparency adapter into the preview window and crop each image
manually. Can the 3200 do this too? Check your "preview" button for
a drop-down arrow.

Yes, it can. However, since I am going to scan ~100 films, I have no
desire to crop each image manaully. Again, I will have to compromise
and take whatever EPSON scan offers in its automated cropping mode.

The 4870 came with SE version 6.1 (Windows). I didn't see a bluish
cast when I tested it with a Fuji consumer-grade 400 negative. Have
you tried it with and without the "auto" film type detection? Have
you tried other film type settings? Also, everything I've read

No, I haven't had the time to experiment with it much. It is very
difficult and thus time consuming to learn. I think I know to which
direction I am heading.

indicates that negatives will turn redder with age. Maybe the bluish
cast you're seeing is the result of such aging and goes beyond what
Silverfast will automatically remove for your film type. In that
case, you'll need to remove it separately. Epson's auto-exposure
probably corrected this for you.

I think that you are right on the money here. This negative is 13
years old, so it seems that Epson's auto-exposure worked better than
the SilverFast's film-type recognition in this case.

Silverfast has auto-exposure options too. Try them after selecting
the film type.

I would have done so, but I think it's not worth the effort for me. I
am going to stick with EPSON Scan. I am also going to stunn some
people here by disclosing that I am going to archive the scan results
in HIGH QUALITY JPEG, not TIFF. The main reason is that if I save them
in TIFF, I won't be able fit an entire film on a CD. With high quality
JPEG (the software offers "Compression Level" of 1-100, I use the "1")
I can fit at least one film without any PERCEIVED difference. Yes, I
know the computer can tell the difference, but I am saving those
photos for my family, not for the computer. ;-)

Regards,
Sam

 

[David R]

I have the 3200 and went through the same question about software. I
already had Vuescan that I was using with my HP 7450. My conclusion
was that Vuescan produced the best color and was the most flexible. I
also concluded that the Epson software produced the next best color,
was not quite as flexible as Vuescan, but was twice as fast as
Vuescan. As for Silverfast, it's been unimpressive.

I use the Epson software because that is what I like. It's very fast
and has a nice balance of options vs. quality output.

One very nice feature of Vuescan is that you can save in multiple
formats in one scan.

 

[Ronald Bruck]

My new "EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO" scanner came with two supporting
programs:

1. EPSON Scan
2. SilverFast SE

I initially installed EPSON Scan and was able to use it for scanning
35mm negatives in no time: The color seems OK and it *automatically*
identifies and scans 12 images in one session.

After resloving a few issues regarding desired scan resolution (you
may remember me from an earlier post), I felt I was ready for the big
job: Archiving all my family 35mm negatives.

This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.

Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.

So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.

Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)

I am confused. Wasn't SilverFast SE supposed to better "guess" the
colors? Am I supposed to enter color correction by hand?

Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?

You don't say how old the film is. As negatives age they can lose a
LOT of color information. I've tried Vuescan, Epson Scan, and
Silverfast Ai (full version) and frankly, none of them work very well
with such film. It's Photoshop and (mostly) its Levels command which
works for me.

I've always thought SilverFast is overrated. You're right, its color
isn't much better, and its interface (as a Photoshop plugin--there's no
other way to get it to work on a Macintosh) is klutzy as hell. You're
much better off using Vuescan, if you're not willing to do the
color-correction work in Photoshop.

I just wish Epson scan had the ability to archive 64-bit scans, the way
Vuescan can. Oh well. BTW, I would recommend scanning everything as
16-bit if you're going to be doing much editing in Photoshop.

--Ron Bruck

 

[false_dmitrii]

(e-mail address removed) (false_dmitrii) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snipped throughout]

After some thinking, I arrived to the conclusion that if I truly
wanted the absolute best quality, I would have bought a dedicated film
scanner. Since I made a conscious decision to compromise on
*reasonable* quality, I purchased the EPSON 3200. If my budget was
higher, I would have spent it on hardware.

No argument here. The only thing to consider is that Vuescan and,
possibly (at the right price), Silverfast Ai, might wring better
results from your current hardware without breaking your budget. In
particular, Vuescan can be had for $60 and will likely benefit your
future scanners as well as the 3200. It can improve your individual
scans of prints, too. But as others have said, if you're happy with
what you're getting now, why change? Also, if you find Silverfast SE
too cumbersome, you'll probably be even less happy with Vuescan's
layout and workflow.

Yes, it can. However, since I am going to scan ~100 films, I have no
desire to crop each image manaully. Again, I will have to compromise
and take whatever EPSON scan offers in its automated cropping mode.

I made the same decision, largely because the full preview is too
small for proper cropping and must be "re-previewed" for each zoom.
And prior to setting exposure, it's awfully hard to pick out the
borders. A real chore, only worth it for the times the auto-frame
recognition fails. Also, Epson warns that their auto-exposure will
suffer if the surrounding area enters the frame, so if you're going
that route, some cropping is needed anyway.

No, I haven't had the time to experiment with it much. It is very
difficult and thus time consuming to learn. I think I know to which
direction I am heading.

There's not much else you can do with the film options--brand, speed,
and autodetect on/off.

I would have done so, but I think it's not worth the effort for me. I
am going to stick with EPSON Scan. I am also going to stunn some

The auto-exposure procedure is the same as Epson's. Click a single
button.

Silverfast SE doesn't work much differently than Epson Scan...it's
just a different layout. They offer a "pilot" to walk you
through--use "prefs" to add all the controls, then click each one as
it "lights up". Or skip everything after "auto expose" and click
"scan".

Once you're fully comfortable with Epson's features, try SE again to
be sure you're comparing the best results from each. As elsewhere,
first impressions of software can be misleading. And sometimes they
aren't.

One other thought if you're not satisfied with your color, and haven't
done so already: try a different color space. In Epson Scan, it's
under the color tab of the "configuration..." window. Pick ICM, then
chose source as Epson and experiment with the different available RGB
targets. On its own, it's a bit of a kludge, but you might see an
improvement for your purposes. Also consider doing a few tests with
your relatives to see what effect a given target has on photos viewed
on their systems. Choosing the wrong color space has the potential to
produce weird output on other machines and your printer--but it won't
cause any other harm, so go ahead and experiment. sRGB is Epson's
default recommendation. Silverfast SE should have similar options,
but I won't waste our time on it.

people here by disclosing that I am going to archive the scan results
in HIGH QUALITY JPEG, not TIFF. The main reason is that if I save them
in TIFF, I won't be able fit an entire film on a CD. With high quality
JPEG (the software offers "Compression Level" of 1-100, I use the "1")
I can fit at least one film without any PERCEIVED difference. Yes, I
know the computer can tell the difference, but I am saving those
photos for my family, not for the computer. ;-)

There are thousands of people like you. If you don't know already,
be aware that a JPEG will be further degraded every time you edit and
save it, so protect your originals and save your temporary work in a
lossless format.

What resolution are you using to scan? A 1200ppi original negative
scan can fill at least half a printed page with no loss of quality and
requires around 5MB as a 24bit color TIFF. You could store at least
150 of those on 1 CD. You can even scan at 3200 and resample it to
something smaller in your image editor for the best final
quality...assuming you weren't previously aware.

Regards,
false_dmitrii