SilverFast NegaFix profiles black market / swap?

ITKI · Nov 26, 2017

I guess most users of SilverFast are very familiar with the problem that there are no profiles available for a lot of emulsions.
Like, emulsions of major pro films like the new Portras, or Acros for example.
LaserSoft imaging just doesn't seem to care and tells people to just create their own, or enter settings they "like".
I see most people leave SilverFast for other software like VueScan, and I would do the same, alas my scanner is not supported.

I figure there's quite a lot of people facing the same problem so I was wondering if there isn't some sort of "black market" for SilverFast / Negafix profiles

To be honest I don't have the time / patience and maybe neither the skills to make my own, it's really quite tedious I think.

Down Under · Nov 26, 2017

Sympatico... I've been fighting on and off with Silverfast since about 2008, and long ago decided it was designed by a team of neurotic Germans to make other neurotic Germans (the users) even more neurotic. (Disclaimer: Offence not intended here to non-neurotic Germans, of which there are many.) The 'situation' you describe is one of my major complaints with the software - it just doesn't seem able to cope with 21st century films, and while it does the little that it can do, reasonably well, it isn't really good enough to want to put up with all its varied ideosyncracies. My Plustek scanner (the software came with it) still functions well, but it is almost a decade old and I shudder at the thought of having to buy new software when it eventually passes away or my old laptop curls up its toes - you can be bloody sure it won't be Silverfast!

Yes, there are quite a few of us facing the same problem you described. My way of dealing with it so far has been to scan a negative of average contrast whenever I try out a new film, and play with the different settings until I find one that most closely suits the 'look' of the final image I want. Often as not it won't be a setting for the particular brand of film (Kodak, Fuji etc) you are using, so you'll have to chop/change until you hit pay dirt.

Everyone I know who originally went with Software, is now using ViewScan which, I believe, will support your scanner. Have you emailed them about this with a query? According to all my contacts, they are usually very responsive.

Many thanks, ITKI, for posting this. I hope others will chip in with useful information on this thread,and I will be following with interest.

ITKI · Nov 26, 2017

ozmoose said:
Everyone I know who originally went with Software, is now using ViewScan which, I believe, will support your scanner.

Thank you for your message.
I believe you're thinking of "VueScan"? Unfortunately, my Scanner (a "QUATO Intelli Scan 5000" dedicated 35mm thing) is not supportet by it, also there's no native software from QUATO - it just got shipped with Silverfast 6 Ai and that's it.

Larry Cloetta · Nov 26, 2017

Great idea, though having looked at Silverfast forums in years past, where others have voiced similar ideas, nothing ever seems to come of it. ACROS is perhaps the most glaring omission. Yes, it is possible to "make your own", (lots of tedious hit and miss activities are possible) I guess that is eventually what I will do. In the meantime for Acros I start with Ilford Pan 50+, of all things, or another of the Fuji presets, and futz with it. And it does give me a look I "like".
Not going to engage in a Silverfast vs. Vuescan argument (again), only to mention that having used both extensively, I would never go back to Vuescan, at least for the Nikon 9000 ED, even with all the Silverfast GUI oddities. The end results keep me in Silverfast.

Alan9940 · Nov 26, 2017

Having been a Silverfast user since 2000 (currently use Ai Studio 8) and faced all the frustrations of dealing with the Negafix profiles, I offer the following solution: ColorPerfect plugin! Scan a linear file with Silverfast, and then convert to your gamma encoded space with the plugin. I should mention that I scan mostly B&W film, with the occasional transparency. Never looked back, since starting with the plugin. Oh, and Vuescan can also create a linear scan for anybody who may be using or want to use that software with this plugin.

Hope this helps someone.

ITKI · Nov 26, 2017

Alan9940 said:
I offer the following solution: ColorPerfect plugin! Scan a linear file with Silverfast, and then convert to your gamma encoded space with the plugin.

..could you please elaborate (or maybe point me in a direction where II can learn about these things)?
I remeber playing around with the demo-version of ColorPerfect (or ColorNeg back then) years ago, until I realised I'd need to invest a lot more time to get a grip on all this.
Would be willing and able to put in the work / time now though
: ]

ITKI · Nov 26, 2017

Larry Cloetta said:
ACROS is perhaps the most glaring omission

Yea, or Portra!

: D

Les Sarile · Nov 26, 2017

Out of curiosity, how has having a film profile helped you?

Do you have any examples of the same frame of film scanned with and without the profiles applied that shows the benefit?

Poisson Du Jour · Nov 26, 2017

ITKI said:
To be honest I don't have the time / patience and maybe neither the skills to make my own, it's really quite tedious I think.

And more to the point, it is completely superfluous and unnecessary.
Profiling is very rarely (if at all) done at the scan-step; by default, the scanner assumes the profile that is available, if it is not explicitly selected, and once taken to post, the profiling is often swapped out by the software's default, again unless something has been explicitly selected. Profiling is carried out in post (after and only after all other adjustments are completed), with the objective of matching the input to the output e.g. printer profiles. Images viewed on the web (profiles as sRGB, AdobeRGB or ColorMatch or the plain ghastly ProPhoto) can be grossly distorted colour-wise because so many, many profiles are on millions of uncalibrated/old monitors. For B&W films, no profiling is necessary at all, as it assumed the native gamut (1.2 or 2.2 or customised adjustments for print output). In Post, profiling at a professional (lab) level is highly customised to the destination (printer(s) ) and is a worked-up specific combination of several profiles combined e.g. baseline sRGB + ColorMatch + whatever else, combined and recalibrated for the destination device. Or, the profile assigned is that provided by the device manufacturer (and applied also at the screen).

peter k. · Nov 26, 2017

Les Sarile said:
Out of curiosity, how has having a film profile helped you?

Although you could, by selecting 'OTHER' , for not having any profile, we have never done it.
But can noticed the difference in scans, when trying to find a profile that works best for the film we may be scanning that does not have a profile.
As with Arista 400.. we use Ilford HP5+ or Delta...
AND YES, SF ... is very GERMAN!!! But have found nothing else that has ever come close to it for my use!
Although its frustrating, my belief is why SF does not do any modern profiles, is that its very subjective to how you personally scan. The look and result you want, the exposure and development method you use, is not consistent from one user to another. In fact, in the past, we have used a different Negafix profile for a particular film we shot, and not the one they have listed for that film. Its a matter of taste, and as stated above the monitor that your viewing with. All very subjective!
SF is not easy, but a very good program. The more you use it, the more of the intricacies you will find, and will begin to learn tricks for your personal look you like.
Much like how one has there own method of printing their analog negatives,

Les Sarile · Nov 26, 2017

peter k. said:
Although you could, by selecting 'OTHER' , for not having any profile, we have never done it.

Who is we?
I take it that a profile may help, but in an arbitrary manner and more to suit the taste then "accuracy".

peter k. · Nov 27, 2017

Les Sarile said:
I take it that a profile may help, but in an arbitrary manner and more to suit the taste then "accuracy".

Accuracy is only in the eye of the beholder, and their arbitrary manner, as in who is we?
So a profile may help. Your call! Try it and you may like it, and be surprised!

bernard_L · Nov 27, 2017

Poisson Du Jour said:
Profiling is carried out in post (after and only after all other adjustments are completed), with the objective of matching the input to the output e.g. printer profiles.

Profiling can also be used on the input side to ensure that the in-computer colors (the numbers in the file and the associated PCS) match the original scene. I do this regularly using a Wolf Faust target and Argyll. I obtain (what I see as) natural colors without any guesswork or adjustment.

There is room for "interpretive" adjustments. But IMHO it is a bad idea to mix that with correcting the imperfections of the capture chain. How do you "intuitively" correct cross-contamination between primaries?

Alan9940 · Nov 27, 2017

ITKI said:
..could you please elaborate (or maybe point me in a direction where II can learn about these things)?
I remeber playing around with the demo-version of ColorPerfect (or ColorNeg back then) years ago, until I realised I'd need to invest a lot more time to get a grip on all this.
Would be willing and able to put in the work / time now though
: ]

See this page for the ColorPerfect plug-in:

http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html

And, this page provides lots of useful info about creating linear scans:

http://www.colorperfect.com/scanning-slides-and-negatives/creating-linear-scans/

Pick your software in the blue box (upper right) and they tell you exact settings, etc, for generating a linear scan.

Good luck!

ITKI · Nov 28, 2017

Thank you @Alan9940 - I appreciate your reply.

Kodachromeguy · Dec 10, 2019

2019 update: I wrote to technical support at Silverfast to ask about an Acros profile. The response:

"Dear Dr. *****,

Since this film is a normal B&W without any orange mask you can use the generic greyscale curve or even linear conversion for this film.

Best regards,
Arne Ketelhohn
- LSI Support and Test Expert -"

Well, that did not amount to much. I have encountered similar poor tech support from them in the past. Oh, well.....

Larry Cloetta · Dec 10, 2019

Kodachromeguy said:
2019 update: I wrote to technical support at Silverfast to ask about an Acros profile. The response:

"Dear Dr. *****,

Since this film is a normal B&W without any orange mask you can use the generic greyscale curve or even linear conversion for this film.

Best regards,
Arne Ketelhohn
- LSI Support and Test Expert -"

Well, that did not amount to much. I have encountered similar poor tech support from them in the past. Oh, well.....

One wonders why they pretend to have Negafix profiles for Tri-x, PanF, HP5, etc, all of which are markedly different, if that’s their attitude. None of those films have an orange mask, so who do they think they are fooling?
If anything, Acros is the film which isn’t “a normal B&W”, given the response curve.

I use and like Silverfast, and use a great deal of Acros, so their attitude about at least making an effort to profile it, the same effort they extended for many lesser used films, has always irked me. I don’t know why they just won’t admit they are too lazy to profile Acros, inspite of all the many requests they have received to do just that.
They cannot even make up a believable excuse. If your are going to lie about your product, at least make an effort to lie more convincingly.

I know I can do their work for them, but at $800 or whatever it was for the complete Archive Suite, it’s reasonable to perhaps expect an Acros profile as a starting point. And expect real tech support.

PhilBurton · Dec 11, 2019

Larry Cloetta said:
Not going to engage in a Silverfast vs. Vuescan argument (again), only to mention that having used both extensively, I would never go back to Vuescan, at least for the Nikon 9000 ED, even with all the Silverfast GUI oddities. The end results keep me in Silverfast.

I know I'm replying to a post from 2017, but I'm very, very late with my scanning project and your comment above caught my eye. (Long story. Life "happens.") I have a Nikon 5000 ED with the SF-210 batch feeder, if that matters. Do you remember what specific reasons why the results were better with Silverfast. Right now I'm recuperating from surgery, so I'm hoping that within a month or so I will begin my comparison of Nikonscan vs. Silverfast vs. Vuescan. I have about 20 K slides to scan, mostly Kodachrome, some Ektachromes, as well as Plus-X and Tri-X B&W. It's impossible to find a Kodachrome IT-8 target these days for less than a king's ransom, so a "Kodachrome mode" is very important for me. Like others, I really don't want to have to create my own profile, in this case Kodachome.

PhilBurton · Dec 11, 2019

[QUOTE="peter k., post: 2016737, member: 54210"
SF is not easy, but a very good program. The more you use it, the more of the intricacies you will find, and will begin to learn tricks for your personal look you like.
Much like how one has there own method of printing their analog negatives,[/QUOTE]

Peter,
Please see my immediate previous post, #17.

Thanks,

Phil

jtk · Dec 11, 2019

There has been no such thing as "Kodachrome" since forever There were at least a half dozen different variants before most "Kodachrome" shooters were ever aware of scanning. Different Kodachrome emulsions, different chems, different Kodak labs and their processing iterations. This was well known to high level slide duplication/graphics labs.

peter k. · Dec 11, 2019

PhilBurton said:
Peter,
Please see my immediate previous post, #17.

Ok.. Back in 2016 something or maybe earlier, did a mess of scans from old 35mm slides for a local artist who wanted to print a biography of his life as an oil painter, using Sliverfast. Think it would have been impossible in any other program, and had tried a few. Oh my, all the different films, different developing Technics, fade, change of color with age ect. There was only one image of a painting that we couldn't 'save' using Silverfast.
It was done one slide at a time. Never got a Kodachrome IT-8 target, but learned, the scan process of how to do Kodachrome via the Kodachrome setting on Silverfast, through trail and error. Of all the slides he had, the Kodachrome ones where the best, and these where of the later Kodachrome emulsion..

So why this reply.? Silverfast can be a PIA, but is a very good program. Remember your in analog, so when your felling better do your tests, and see which one you like the best, but remember, analog is not instant gratification.

PhilBurton · Dec 11, 2019

peter k. said:
Ok.. Back in 2016 something or maybe earlier, did a mess of scans from old 35mm slides for a local artist who wanted to print a biography of his life as an oil painter, using Sliverfast. Think it would have been impossible in any other program, and had tried a few. Oh my, all the different films, different developing Technics, fade, change of color with age ect. There was only one image of a painting that we couldn't 'save' using Silverfast.
It was done one slide at a time. Never got a Kodachrome IT-8 target, but learned, the scan process of how to do Kodachrome via the Kodachrome setting on Silverfast, through trail and error. Of all the slides he had, the Kodachrome ones where the best, and these where of the later Kodachrome emulsion..

So why this reply.? Silverfast can be a PIA, but is a very good program. Remember your in analog, so when your felling better do your tests, and see which one you like the best, but remember, analog is not instant gratification.

I am quite aware that Silverfast can be a PIA, and that if I do go with Silverfast, I should shell out for the third-party guidebook. I'm going to guess here that the attitude inside Silverfast is that you should "work hard" to learn the program. My career was in software product management and occasionally I would work with software developers who had that attitude.\

How much did you need to tweak the default Kodachrome settings to get the results you liked? I know that analog is not instant gratification. Developing a roll of film, start to finish, was about a half-hour, if I remember correctly. And making good prints, much longer. I've been shooting digital for about 10 years now, and I am still thrilled that I don't need to reload every 36 shots, or wait a week or longer to get the processed film back from the Kodak lab.

I should add that I am not thrilled at the price of Silverfast, compared with Vuescan, but I can spread that cost over about 30 K total slides and negatives.

Kodachromeguy · Dec 11, 2019

jtk said:
There has been no such thing as "Kodachrome" since forever There were at least a half dozen different variants before most "Kodachrome" shooters were ever aware of scanning. Different Kodachrome emulsions, different chems, different Kodak labs and their processing iterations. This was well known to high level slide duplication/graphics labs.

Mr. jtk is right. What is the "right" Kodachrome? For that matter, what is the "right" color for a scene that you might have photographed a long time ago? I think it is a matter of taste. Suppose you scan a Kodachrome slide in a way that perfectly mirrors the tones and colors in the emulsion. Is that what the scene looked like? Do you really remember months or years later? Was the sky really that color? Are the flesh tones a bit too tan-looking? It is pretty subtle. I think if you like the way the slide looks on your monitor or on your printer, that is all that counts.

Here is an example of one of my dad's 1944 Kodachromes. Is the Charles River in Boston ever that blue? Usually no, but once in awhile, it is. The scan looks a lot like the slide. But is this a "realistic" color? Who knows? Who cares? Does it really matter?

(In 75 years, I will check my digital Fuji RAW files of the Charles River and admire their color "accuracy".)

Silverfast hint: they may offer a minor Christmas discount. Also, if you have an older license, they may grant a minor upgrade discount, as well.

peter k. · Dec 11, 2019

PhilBurton said:
How much did you need to tweak the default Kodachrome settings to get the results you liked?

Boy, don't remember exactly what we did, but as we recall, there were about three step settings we changed consistently.
Please realize these scans were of oil paintings, not normal landscape shots. We would scan them and then each day go over to the artist house after he finished painting for the day, and review what we had as a print out. He would look at them and make corrections.. on tonal quality, sharpness ect.

Jimbo Rollbo · May 6, 2020

Sorry to change directions from Kodachrome - but I am using Silverfast 8.8 SE Plus ... and I don’t have the Tri-x profile.

Does anyone know: do I need to update to AI to get it?

SilverFast NegaFix profiles black market / swap?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency