Any reason to get the other two if NikonScan is working well?
This is my Nikon. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
#1. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 0Thu 18-Oct-07 07:19 PM
Not if it's working well for you. I like Vuescan for scanning negatives as its film profiles do a better job than the generic approach used with Nikon Scan, but with slides I prefer Nikon Scan. I've worked with Silverfast a little, but didn't care much for the interface. The scan quality was good and perhaps slightly better than Nikon Scan, but the extraordinarily high price of the software kept me away. The price is worse for me as I have both a Nikon 4000 and 9000. Silverfast's licensing scheme requires completely separate copies for each scanner and given both were quite expensive, I was looking at a huge bill. I decided that the free Nikon Scan and the cheap Vuescan were enough for my needs when used together.
#2. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 1Yachtsman Registered since 10th Jun 2006Fri 19-Oct-07 06:27 PM
I'm very interested in your response. I only use slide film (Fuji Velvia) and scan with a V ED when not shooting digital. Why do you prefer NikonScan to Vuescan for slides?
#4. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 2Mon 22-Oct-07 09:53 PM
I prefer the user interface of Nikon Scan (simple and direct), and the image quality looks nice. I don't like the user interface of Vuescan quite as well, but it does a good job on scans of print film.
#9. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 1PDVESELY Registered since 28th Feb 2007Wed 31-Oct-07 02:58 PM
>Not if it's working well for you. I like Vuescan for
>scanning negatives as its film profiles do a better job than
>the generic approach used with Nikon Scan, but with slides I
>prefer Nikon Scan. I've worked with Silverfast a little,
>but didn't care much for the interface. The scan quality
>was good and perhaps slightly better than Nikon Scan, but
>the extraordinarily high price of the software kept me away.
> The price is worse for me as I have both a Nikon 4000 and
>9000. Silverfast's licensing scheme requires completely
>separate copies for each scanner and given both were quite
>expensive, I was looking at a huge bill. I decided that the
>free Nikon Scan and the cheap Vuescan were enough for my
>needs when used together.
Sounds as though you have considerable experience with Nikon Scanners. I have acculated 30 years worth of positive and negative film that I would like to digitize .
Considering the amount of work and time available to do it I thought the Coolscan 5000 ED made sense.
Among these images there are some which are very good and a lot that are not. I plan to scan the better ones at the highest possible scan resolution possible and save as pdf or Tiff image. The balance in med to high res PJG.
May need to use multiple scans on same film if detail is difficult to capture on first pass. I am concerned about losing clarity if the film moves or the scanning mechanism isn't precise enought to accomplish this. Any thoughts or recommendations ?
Reviewed VueScan a little and read about Silverfast . Didn't see any compelling reasons for not using Nikon Scan software. Based on what I am trying to accomplish is there a reason to buy either Vuescan or Silverfast ?
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#3. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 0
I just got done scanning 300+ '70s vintage Kodachrome slides. I have the Coolscan V ED with NikonScan software (version 4.0.2). I also have VueScan (version 8.4.31). After comparing the two, I found I was able to get an acceptable scan (and in some cases, an excellent scan that compared very well with the original) more quickly than with VueScan. I also seemed to have an easier time of tweaking the "controls" in NikonScan. They are very similar to the editing controls in other picture editing software packages, i.e. Curves, LCH, Channels etc. The latest versions of VueScan have dropped use of the normal histogram that appeared to be in previous versions; I found this to be a handicap - at least for me. Having said this, many like VueScan very much. Be sure to take advantage of Digital ICE, if you can, as it is really magic. Good luck.
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass. It's about learning to dance in the rain.
#5. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 0
To add a slightly contrarian view:
I tried both NikonScan and Vuescan. Bought Vuescan because NikonScan wouldn't work at all with my Intel Mac.
Using Vuescan, I discovered what to me is a HUGE advantage: Vuescan scans to its own form of RAW file and then lets you try a million different settings, such as ICE, GEM, white balance, film formulation, all without rescanning. This is a tremendous time saver!
I looked at Silverfast, but the cost and interface sent me back to Vuescan.
-- ICE works perfectly on Kodachrome. The lowest level is generally more than enough, even with my slides which have been in the tropics for thirty years. Ice is sometimes better than physically cleaning the film.
-- While Vuescan is very simple and logical, its instructions are a bit obtuse as it will drive almost any scanner under the sun and different scanners have different features. (I have found that Vuescan often drives scanners, like old HP All-in-Ones that it claims NOT to drive.)
-- Pay little attention to the film formulation settings - or try them all. Slides shift a lot with age and sometimes a mismatch gives great results. This is where the ability to shift settings without physically rescanning can save hours. (This is also true of the various color and white balance settings.)
-- Finally, I recommend that you go for a very neutral scan, and do your final touchups in the program of your choice, Photoshop or similar. You are likely to get better results.
As always, YMMV!
Visit my gallery.
#6. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 5b2martin_a Registered since 10th Jan 2007Mon 29-Oct-07 07:31 PM
NikonScan also allows you to save a RAW (NEF) file that can be opened with NikonScan and processed again without rescanning the image. This is not the same type of RAW file as you have for a camera even though it has the same extension. I have not used this feature, but it is available.
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
#7. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 6Tue 30-Oct-07 02:17 AM
I'd think hard about using raw formats specific to scanning, unless you also store tiff, jpeg or psd versions. Scanner raw files are a lot less likely to be supported in the future than raw files from cameras, so there's a high likelihood you may not be able to open them at some point.
#8. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 7DiploStrat Registered since 06th Dec 2006Wed 31-Oct-07 05:14 AM
Let me hasten to clarify, Vuescan puts the data in an INTERNAL file until it is output. The advantage is that you need only scan once, can try as many or as few of the ICE/GEM/White Balance options as you BEFORE you output to a TIFF or JPEG. Nikonscan requires that you physically rescan (at a minimum of 45 seconds per scan) if you adjust ICE, etc.
Vuescan out puts to JPEG, TIFF, DNG (but not a format that Aperture can read) and, I think, .psd.
Vuescan also supports multiple scanning at different exposures to widen the dynamic range. (There is a name for this technique, but I have forgotten.) This requires that your scanner have good physical alignment, but my Coolscan V-ED seems to manage it with no problems. Result is better shadow detail without blown highlights. (Silverfast will to this as well, but you may have to pay extra for it.)
Visit my gallery.
#10. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 0
As I comprehend the various comments, it does appear the consensus is to forget Silverfast as being no better on the output than Nikon Scan ver. 4 or VueScan and the later two applications do not cost an arm and leg. Do I read the comments correctly????
#11. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 10Thu 25-Jul-13 02:34 PM
Keep in mind that the comments in this thread are about six years old. I wouldn't give the same answer today, especially since Nikon Scan doesn't even run on my Mac Pro now. Silverfast produces very good results now (better than what Nikon Scan used to produce), but is expensive. Vuescan isn't quite as good, but quite a bit less expensive. I use Silverfast these days when I need to do film scans (which isn't nearly as often).
#13. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 11robsb Nikonian since 23rd Aug 2006Fri 26-Jul-13 05:08 PM
I use the Silverfast 8 archive suite and can't praise it enough. As for price, I originally got a free version of Silverfast SE with my Epson Perfection V700 scanner. I called Silverfast's marketing department in Florida and they were very helpful in providing me discounted prices on my upgrades before version 8 and also when I updated to Version 8 Suite. You get 2 programs with the Suite, What thy call HDR which is actually 3 16 bit layers RGB and 1 16 bit IR layer used to handle dust an scratches. you can batch scan a bunch of files and then have corrections applied automatically. That saved file is your archive which you can then further process in the Silverfast 8 SW. I have posted a number of examples here in this forum before including detailed tests of my scanner. The Silverfast SW also does a multi scan of the film or slide and produces a much better result as it enhances the tonal range of the file. As far as I am concerned I is worth every penny I paid for it.
My Nikonians Gallery
"Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the
Retirement is a gift of time - Don't waste it!
Old age is a special gift that very few receive. Be thankful if you get it.
#12. "RE: NikonScan vs VueScan vs Silverfast" | In response to Reply # 0
I use Nikonscan exclusively because I prefer to do all my editing in Camera Raw and Photoshop. The other programs might offer more extensive, and perhaps superior, editing options. I cannot address that since I have not used them. However, if one is able to use Camera Raw and Photoshop I do not think there is any advantage to using programs other than Nikonscan. That is probably also true for editing done in Lightroom.