![silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan](https://actressalbum.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/actressalbum.com_anuskha15-594x1024.jpg)
Your old software will not and does not work with the new scanner.
![silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/413NJWR967L._AC_SS450_.jpg)
You buy a Super Coolscan 4000 or 5000, or an Epson V750. Say you had a Nikon LS 2000 Super Coolscan, that you were never happy with. SilverFast's "cross-grade" pricing when trying to move from an older scanner to a much better modern scanner is an overpriced joke as well. Once you have your RAW scan procedure in place, it's semi-fast and lets me do the image correction in a program that's much better suited for it. Each scan has a limited amount of fiddling about with what can be an overwhelming VS interface. I have reincorporated c-41 film into my workflow and have garnered excellent results going the Vuescan RAW scan input and ColorPerfect route.
![silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan](http://www.simplefilter.de/farbmanagement/images/ns_monitorprofil.gif)
Even making a flat and boring scan in Silverfast doesn't match one from Vuescan for being boring, yet they are the best sort. This is because of the simplicity of use, when you get used to it, and the output does look better after it has been post processed. I use the manufacturers software for general scanning and Vuescan for the serious stuff even though the output I want from Vuescan is simpler in terms of scanning manipulations (and the output does initially look horrible). The 'flat and boring' approach behaves more like a RAW image does (not to be confused as saving the files as RAW) because you can keep going back to this master file and render it many different ways. But it more or less locks those tones into the image and if you change your mind you have to scan it again. add and reduce contrast, all sorts of things. You can easily adjust histograms or Curves etc. Where Silverfast and Epson Scan work best are for those times when you just want an image to pop out of the scanner fully formed (or for quick general scanning). So set the White Point to 0% and the Black Point to 0% and everything in between is pure tone ready to be manipulated in Lightroom etc. In this respect Vuescan just does what you tell it to do, and apart from a few initial settings doesn't really need adjusting from scan to scan. It tries to work too hard at making a good image straight out of the scanner when the best image for post processing B&W is a flat and boring scan. Some software constantly battles against you in getting a scan suitable for importing to Lightroom/Photoshop etc. I hope this gives you a reasonable impression of the reasons. VueScan, IMO, is a superior scanning software that gives good control over the captured file and maximizes the data to work with later in PS or similar. (Not relevant for C1 or Aperture as they are RAW processors). Regarding PS or Lightroom, it is always desirable to work with the best possible file for adjustments. Mostly I don't know which one's until I have viewed them, so ALL have to be potentially be up to that standard. OTOH, some of my images, both digital and analog, get enlarged to extreme dimensions. How much does it matter that your camera sensor is excellent if you are only prepping for internet use? Very little IMO. Steve, I think it is best explained by comparing it to the sensor in your digital camera. the other.How much does the software matter if you are going to load the scan into capture one or aperture or photoshop or Lightroom or whatever? Not trying to be controversial here I really want to understand what difference there is. I'm curious how those of you that regularly use both pieces of software determine under which circumstances you use one vs.
#Silverfast vs viewscan vs nikon scan plus
However, using Silverfast to create 64 or 48 bit positive images with dust and scratch correction works great plus I really like the results I get with Negafix as well. It looks like you need the Silverast HDR product to make this happen which costs another multiple hundred bucks to purchase so I'm not gonna do that. With Silverfast the 64 HDRi raw option doesn't seem to work for dust/scratch elimination when I run the image through Colorperfect and Photoshop CC. When I use Vuescan I always create raw files and include the infrared channel for dust and scratch correction and then run the resultant negative image through Colorperfect before doing my main post-processing in Photoshop CC. Both pieces of software seem to work just fine for me and I can't honestly tell the difference between images created with one vs the other. I've done a bunch of on-line research and found an article a week or so ago stating that Silverfast can eek out a bit more detail than Vuescan with this scanner. I've been spending a lot of time playing around with it and comparing the quality of the scans I can get from it using both Vuescan and Silverfast Ai Studio 8. I've recently purchased an Epson V850 flatbed scanner. Very glad to have stumbled across this forum! I've read most of the posts about film scanning and I have a question about how you folks use scanning software, particularly Vuescan and Silverfast AI Studio 8.