Mounted slides often exhibit too much curvature for good focus throughout, and the mask is considerably smaller than the image area on the film. If your primary intent is to scan film, positive or negative, for printing, then it is best to leave the film in strips or rolls. I get good results with either program, but find it convenient to use Silverfast as a common user interface for various scanners. Nikonscan can produce excellent results, but generally requires fine tuning on each frame to do so. In aggregate, Silverfast produces better scans with fewer adjustments than Nikonscan, for both positive and negative color film. However, Silverfast include profiles for many negative films under "Negafix" which are very helpful. However, Silverfast will support profiles for negatives too (e.g., via Eye One Photo or InCamera). Profiles normally apply only to positive scans. What Silverfast offers is a color-managed work flow, in which you can apply profiles generated by Silverfast (IT8) or another source (e.g., Eye One Photo). I prefer my spaghetti "al dente", not pulverized in a blender -) If you don't like grain, choose a slower film, make smaller enlargements or use a larger format. It is hardly a feature on which to base one's decision. Grain reduction in Nikonscan or Silverfast is a lossy operation, and not really necessary in my experience. If too high, it will appear in red, and revert to the maximum optical resolution AT THE OUTPUT SIZE when you click elsewhere. With Nikonscan, set the resolution to 4000 ppi. To limit resolution to the optical maximum, press the ALT key when setting the resolution. Unlike Nikonscan, Silverfast will resample to achieve higher resolution at the output size. Silverfast makes no claims to higher resolution - that is fixed by the scanner itself. Ive also had a lot of trouble scanning Kodak Ektar through Vuescan. I like Nikon Scans colour correction more than Vuescans, but thats all subjective. Thank you in advance for your contributions. The general takeaway is that Nikon Scans infrared cleaning is better (it uses Digital ICE instead of Vuescans proprietary method), and the colour correction is different. My goals are to get the finest resolutionĪnd minimal grain/noise from my scans.
I primarily scan KodakĪnd Fuji negatives of various ISOs.
Software on top of the Nikon OEM, which I already own. Please give me your opinions, but forĪnother $400 to $500, I do not see a great advantage in purchasing another In using Silverfast AI demo, I tried Gane,
Nikon settings include 4000 ppi, Digitial ICE 4, Digital Gem +2, 1x multi As my photo lab owner once said, simply get the exposure, sharpness andĬolor correct in the scanner software and do everything else in PS. For color corrections and other fine tuning suchĪs, sharpening and further noise reduction, I am using Photoshop CS2 and Noise If needed, I wouldīe happy to post my results. Structure, dust and scratch removal, and overall appearance. After many scans of color negativesĪnd comparisons of the output, I could not see any appreciable differenceīetween the two software programs in terms of resolution, improved grain I downloaded the latest Silverfast AI demo to compare against my current Nikon