Silverfast Software Question

[RattyMouse]

One thing I have not learned yet is a basic question regarding scanning. What variables simply MUST be captured during the scan? For example, in the software, I have to set the resultion of the scan. That cannot be done later in software such as photoshop. Something like that is obvious of course, so I'm looking for other software settings that need to be done in SilverFast. There are many dozens of variables in that software and I'm getting the feeling that most of that is better done in Photoshop after the scan.

When I scan, I hardly use Silverfast and I'm wondering if I am leaving a lot of good quality on the table simply because I dont understand what needs to be done during the scan.

Thank you very much.

 

[Trail Images]

What release of Silverfast are you using and what scanner? To be quite honest you can flat scan an image without adjustments. However, to minimize lose as you point out I always make adjustments. I have both Silverfast 8 & 6. I prefer the 6 as I've used it for so many years now. I will say I never use any of the film presets that maybe available I always just scan Velvia 50 stuff on the fly. As a very baseline for image size I use is 2400ppi for 6x7cm and 1800ppi for 4x5 inch using a Microtek i900. Keeps the files reasonable enough for my PC to handle them. Once I start applying layers in PS those files can start to creep up fast.
Hopefully others can come along and help you out as I'm just a few hours away from heading out the door for a weeks trek into Utah for photo stuff. Good luck.

 

[Alan9940]

Are you scanning B&W, transparency, or color neg? For B&W, I scan in 16-bit HDR raw format and convert in PS with the ColorPerfect plugin; there aren't many variables with scanning raw format. For transparencies, I typically scan 48-bit and try to capture as much data as possible while avoiding clipping; that is, I don't try to make the image look good in Silverfast, rather I just want all the data I can get and will work up the image later in PS. I rarely scan color neg, but the profiles are handy here to remove the orange color cast, etc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "I have to set the resolution of the scan." I set resolution to the max optical resolution that my scanner will allow and reset later in PS. I always scan at the highest resolution because this file then becomes my master scan. I can always re-purpose later in PS as needs dictate.

 

[Trail Images]

I typically scan 48-bit and try to capture as much data as possible while avoiding clipping; that is, I don't try to make the image look good in Silverfast, rather I just want all the data I can get and will work up the image later in PS.

Exactly, Alan. Definitely set 48bit for transparency. All I ever scan is Velvia 50 so I have forgotten what settings might pertain to various other types of images such as B&W & Color Negative. Being so transparency oriented I forgot to even ask what the OP is even working with for thoughts on settings......

 

[shutterfinger]

The object of a scan is to capture the most information from the negative or chrome. The object of post processing is to make that scan look its best.
The things that must be set in scan software are bit depth and scan resolution. Corrections in exposure and color make post easier or more difficult, setting the Negafix to the correct film type helps significantly.
Setting the software for maximum bit depth and scanner maximum optical resolution gives a large file that gives more information to work with when editing and very nice results when downsized for other uses.
I always scan at maximum bit depth and optical resolution, remove dust and scratches, (clone tool, healing brush) in PS and overall exposure with levels and curves then save that file as my master from which I duplicate and enhance as desired.

Not being familiar with scanning, set the bit depth to 16 bit per channel, scan resolution to 600 dpi or 1200 dpi. Pick a correctly exposed negative, chrome, and B&W negative. Start with the color negative or chrome, set the film type in the scan software and make a scan with all other settings at their neutral/default positions. This is your reference scan for that type of film. Now change one correction variable 5% and rescan the negative without changing the bit depth, resolution, or film type. Compare to the base scan. Change the same variable another 5% in the same direction and rescan and compare. Continue with this variable until you get undesirable results in the scan then repeat the sequence with that variable in the opposite direction if possible. Continue this procedure for each additional variable in the software then start combining two variables at a time in 2.5% incriments then 3 variables at a time. Next apply what you have learned from the negative scan to a chrome then a B&W negative. This will take 18 to 36 hours depending on the software and computer but when finished you can pick up any piece of film, make a preview at base settings then make the needed adjustments and make the final scan much faster than you do now.
When testing do not rely on the preview as the final scan may look different than the preview at the settings made especially when nearing the limit of an adjustment, visual not physical of the control.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I typically scan 48-bit and try to capture as much data as possible while avoiding clipping; that is, I don't try to make the image look good in Silverfast, rather I just want all the data I can get and will work up the image later in PS.

Exactly, Alan. Definitely set 48bit for transparency. All I ever scan is Velvia 50 so I have forgotten what settings might pertain to various other types of images such as B&W & Color Negative. Being so transparency oriented I forgot to even ask what the OP is even working with for thoughts on settings......

The vast majority of printers, RA-4 and those employed in the giclée print process, do not recognise 48-bit colour and will default to 16 bit, even though they will still be unnecessarily hobbled with often large files. Printers that fall into this category are the Kodak Pegasus LED / Lambda RA-4 printer and Epson roll printers.

Nothing more than basic input scan and image assessment needs to be done in SilverFast, VueScan (or any software attached to the scanner). Leave post work to Lightroom (preferred over Photoshop, which still uses ancient TIFF algorithms). Input scans are typically around 4800dpi (mine, 6x6, 6x7, 6x4.5 with clean-up taking place at x1 or x2 resolution (e.g. removal/clone-out out of streaks/scratches, dust (very especially, and this can take hours and hours!!) and USM scan-step compensation (a tiny amount of sharpening replaced that normally is lost during scanning), chemical residues, hairs, static marks etcetera). In the end, the image must be re-sampled to the destination printer's output, which is often 300dpi, and saved as an unlayered, uncompressed .tif file, with the colour profile embedded (if no colour profile is embedded, the printer will apply its own; a better method is to ensure both scan and printer have the same embedded profiles). This been my working methodology since at least 1994 — what doesn't need changing never has been changed! If the scan is only destined to be viewed on the web, resolution need be no more than 100dpi (I do still find it amusing that people are posting 600dpi scans to the web...). Certainly avoid the faux-HDR look that is so prevalent among the digisnappers.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Lightroom (preferred over Photoshop, which still uses ancient TIFF algorithms).

What is your problem with TIF files? It's an 'open' format that doesn't rely on any Adobe 'magic' that may not work in 5 years.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

What is your problem with TIF files? It's an 'open' format that doesn't rely on any Adobe 'magic' that may not work in 5 years.

I never alluded to any Adobe 'magic'.
Go through Adobe's own archives for information about this (Photoshop and Lightroom tifs). We stopped using Photoshop years ago ... 2008?

 

[RattyMouse]

Are you scanning B&W, transparency, or color neg?

All of the above.

F , I don't try to make the image look good in Silverfast, rather I just want all the data I can get and will work up the image later in PS.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say in my OP, but you did it better. I want to make the best scan possible and am unsure where the line is in the software between that and working up the image post scan.

 

[RattyMouse]

What release of Silverfast are you using and what scanner? To be quite honest you can flat scan an image without adjustments. However, to minimize lose as you point out I always make adjustments. I have both Silverfast 8 & 6. I prefer the 6 as I've used it for so many years now. I will say I never use any of the film presets that maybe available I always just scan Velvia 50 stuff on the fly. As a very baseline for image size I use is 2400ppi for 6x7cm and 1800ppi for 4x5 inch using a Microtek i900. Keeps the files reasonable enough for my PC to handle them. Once I start applying layers in PS those files can start to creep up fast.
Hopefully others can come along and help you out as I'm just a few hours away from heading out the door for a weeks trek into Utah for photo stuff. Good luck.

I'm using SilverFast AI Studio, version 8.X with a Plustek OpticFilm 120.

 

[Alan9940]

All of the above.



Yes, this is what I was trying to say in my OP, but you did it better. I want to make the best scan possible and am unsure where the line is in the software between that and working up the image post scan.

Great! To my mind and the way I work is to contain as much data as possible in the scan. It isn't always possible to avoid clipping, etc, regardless of settings because the film original is beyond the dynamic range of the scanner and/or for many other reasons. You do the best you can. I don't think it's really possible for anyone to quote settings because nearly every frame will be different.

FWIW, I was never able to obtain (for me) successful B&W scans; Silverfast seems to generate an inherently contrasty scan, regardless of settings. It was only after I discovered the ColorPerfect plugin and started doing raw scans that I was happy with my B&W scans. YMMV of course.

Btw, I'm using Silverfast Ai Studio 8.x too.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I never alluded to any Adobe 'magic'.
Go through Adobe's own archives for information about this (Photoshop and Lightroom tifs). We stopped using Photoshop years ago ... 2008?

A TIF file is basically just image data. There is no compression, unless you choose to use LZW which is lossless, run length encoding. Since it doesn't use any fancy 'bells and whistles" it is a relatively straight forward thing to write a TIF reading application. It's widely supported and is the only format I have any confidence in being capable of opening in the indefinite future. It's not the best format for use when you are still working on an image file, but after all the work is done, it's my archiving choice.

 

[RattyMouse]

Great! To my mind and the way I work is to contain as much data as possible in the scan. It isn't always possible to avoid clipping, etc, regardless of settings because the film original is beyond the dynamic range of the scanner and/or for many other reasons. You do the best you can. I don't think it's really possible for anyone to quote settings because nearly every frame will be different.

I'm not looking for settings to use in SilveFast. What I'm looking for are the places within the software that I need to make a decision in order to capture the full extent of the scan. All I do now is set the resolution and then scan. Are there other areas in the software that need to be considered in order to get a better scan? Or can all the rest be done in Photoshop?

 

[Wallendo]

The vast majority of printers, RA-4 and those employed in the giclée print process, do not recognise 48-bit colour and will default to 16 bit, even though they will still be unnecessarily hobbled with often large files. Printers that fall into this category are the Kodak Pegasus LED / Lambda RA-4 printer and Epson roll printers.

Nothing more than basic input scan and image assessment needs to be done in SilverFast, VueScan (or any software attached to the scanner). Leave post work to Lightroom (preferred over Photoshop, which still uses ancient TIFF algorithms). Input scans are typically around 4800dpi (mine, 6x6, 6x7, 6x4.5 with clean-up taking place at x1 or x2 resolution (e.g. removal/clone-out out of streaks/scratches, dust (very especially, and this can take hours and hours!!) and USM scan-step compensation (a tiny amount of sharpening replaced that normally is lost during scanning), chemical residues, hairs, static marks etcetera). In the end, the image must be re-sampled to the destination printer's output, which is often 300dpi, and saved as an unlayered, uncompressed .tif file, with the colour profile embedded (if no colour profile is embedded, the printer will apply its own; a better method is to ensure both scan and printer have the same embedded profiles). This been my working methodology since at least 1994 — what doesn't need changing never has been changed! If the scan is only destined to be viewed on the web, resolution need be no more than 100dpi (I do still find it amusing that people are posting 600dpi scans to the web...). Certainly avoid the faux-HDR look that is so prevalent among the digisnappers.

Aren't 48-bit and 16-bit two different ways of expressing the same color image (16 bits/channel x 3 channels == 48 bits)? Did you intend to say 24-bit color?
I generally scan in 48 bit mode, adjust the white and black points in the curves window, and then down-convert to 24-bit color.

 

[Alan9940]

I'm not looking for settings to use in SilveFast. What I'm looking for are the places within the software that I need to make a decision in order to capture the full extent of the scan. All I do now is set the resolution and then scan. Are there other areas in the software that need to be considered in order to get a better scan? Or can all the rest be done in Photoshop?

Depending on what I'm scanning, I set bit depth to 48-bit, resolution to the max optical resolution of my scanner (1600 in my case; it's an old scanner), name the file, then check the histogram to see if I'm clipping whites or blacks. If I see clipping, I try to adjust the curve to avoid it. So, other than looking at and/or adjusting the histogram I'm not doing a whole lot more than you. I don't use ME, GANE, the color wheel, color cast correction, USM, etc, etc. All I'm looking for is a clean scan with as much data as possible captured. Therefore, simple is good for me! As I said in an earlier post, if scanning B&W negs I scan for a raw file; therefore, adjustments aren't even possible.

 

[RattyMouse]

Depending on what I'm scanning, I set bit depth to 48-bit, resolution to the max optical resolution of my scanner (1600 in my case; it's an old scanner), name the file, then check the histogram to see if I'm clipping whites or blacks. If I see clipping, I try to adjust the curve to avoid it. So, other than looking at and/or adjusting the histogram I'm not doing a whole lot more than you. I don't use ME, GANE, the color wheel, color cast correction, USM, etc, etc. All I'm looking for is a clean scan with as much data as possible captured. Therefore, simple is good for me! As I said in an earlier post, if scanning B&W negs I scan for a raw file; therefore, adjustments aren't even possible.

Thank you. Very helpful. From what I read, the ME function gives a better scan with greater dynamic range. Do you not see this with your scans? I'm always on the fence if I should use this since it makes scans much longer.

 

[Alan9940]

Thank you. Very helpful. From what I read, the ME function gives a better scan with greater dynamic range. Do you not see this with your scans? I'm always on the fence if I should use this since it makes scans much longer.

Yeah, I'm aware of the "marketing hype" that claims more dynamic range, but I haven't noticed any appreciable increase in dynamic range in my scans. Don't get me wrong, there is some increase in the shadow areas, but not enough (for me) to warrant the extra time required for the scan. However, this could simply come down to my particular scanner and/or the film I scan. Also, I haven't tested ME in many years so it may haven't gotten better. I would suggest testing on your own with your scanner and film and see if it satisfies your needs.

 

[Doug Fisher]

For the original poster, go to www.scantips.com and work through the tutorials. It is very basic but until you understand the basics of scanning and the important settings you will just be hit and miss with your scans.

Doug