Anyone use SilverFast HDR?

[TJPope]

Hi all, just got my Epson V850 yesterday and have been doing a bunch of testing.

I tried VueScan as I've seen a lot of love for it, but the colors were always just wrong. The included version of SilverFast is great, but I'm kind of let down by only being able to select 48->24bit color and get 8bpc images.

I see I can do a 64bit HDRi RAW, but would need to upgrade to HDR to process it. And I'm not sure if the processing will then let you output at 48bit (16bpc) or will still max out at 8bpc. And heck, I'm not sure if those extra bits will really make a difference!

So just looking for thoughts on if the separate editing program and potentially higher bpc output is worth the upgrade cost.

Thanks for taking a look,
-T.J.

 

[jtk]

What does "just wrong" mean?

Are you viewing with a good monitor (as opposed to laptop)?

Are you viewing in a relatively controlled environment (i.e. walls not colorful, minimal sunlight etc)?

Are you comparing to camera files that you do find "right?" Are you comparing to professional (as opposed to minilab) scans?

Can you describe the files you're getting in terms of color compensation units and density?

 

[TJPope]

What does "just wrong" mean?

Are you viewing with a good monitor (as opposed to laptop)?

Are you viewing in a relatively controlled environment (i.e. walls not colorful, minimal sunlight etc)?

Are you comparing to camera files that you do find "right?" Are you comparing to professional (as opposed to minilab) scans?

Can you describe the files you're getting in terms of color compensation units and density?

Yes, I have a proper monitor that is properly color calibrated. Editing isn't something new, scanning certainly is though.

As for just wrong, the colors simply are not what they are supposed to be. SilverFast has the colors correct, they are the colors of what I was shooting.

In VueScan a more purple flower in an image went very blue, brown branches in a background went green. Those are the more extreme examples. Most of it was the color just a bit off from what the object was or the sky was an off shade of blue, correctable in post if I really wanted to.

However I did not run into any color issues in SilverFast.

 

[jtk]

Are you viewing RAW ?

 

[TJPope]

I did not have RAW checked as the output was more off. Output was 48bit .tiff files. I went through pretty much every setting and check box attempting to figure out what combination would get the best results. Portra 400 was close (But would more adjustment in PS) with one of the profiles from what I scanned, but the 35mm scans I did with the Gold and Ultramax were especially off.

The more I play with the SilverFast I have, the less I'm worries about getting 48bit output as the 24bit is in fact quite good from what I'm seeing. From what I did with VueScan, I think that the negative inversions just aren't quite as good as SilverFast. For the most popular stocks like Portra they are pretty good. But I'm thinking that I can spend no money, stick with the SilverFast version that came with the scanner and get results that I find extremely good. I'm sure going to 48bit would yield a somewhat better result, but the 24bit result is rather good.

I'll probably play around with VueScan a bit more later or tomorrow and see if I can make more headway. But I have the feeling the major difference is the inversion profiles, VueScan doesn't even have one for the current version of Portra as far as I can tell.

 

[grat]

Don't forget there's a low-cost upgrade option for SilverFast for Epson owners. I think the AI 8 package is $99 USD as an upgrade (It's usually $299, if I recall).

I don't know if there's a trial of AI 8 or not.