Silverfast SE vs. Full ...and again the Epson 4990

[Ellis Vener]

The annual PMA (Photo Marketer's Association) trade show is coming up in a few weeks. this is the big show for manufacturers and dealers. I don't know if any new scanners will be announced but unless you need a scanner right now I'd consider waiting to see if anything new is announced there.

If you do need a scanner right now the 4990 Pro is a great choice for the price.

[David Honey]

Thanks for the heads-up, Ellis.
From what I've read on this forum, the consensus is that we're unlikely to see a significant improvement in mid-price scanners for awhile, given their relatively small consumer base. But we can always hope.

[Marko]

Thanks, Kirk.

It was me asking the question and I do appreciate your answer. There's nothing like first-hand advice.

Regards,

[Raymond Bleesz]

To you all: I too, just recently asked the same question---silverfast SE or Epson's Pro version & then into PS. I directed my question to a commercial photographer on note in California.

His response really did not clarify the issue for me, however, he mentioned that the Sivlerfast Se can be IT-8 calibrated. I do not know if my Epson Pro 4870 at t his time has this option, but what does he mean by "IT-8* calibration? Just to throw out another element to this discussion.

[Kirk Gittings]

Raymond. If you did not buy the pro model 4870 your only option is to by the IT8 upgrade option of SF SE I believe.

[Kirk Gittings]

If you shoot transparencies, IT8 calibration is well worth the money, but it does nothing for color negatives or b&w.

[marty]

In my experience with epson scan and silverfast, the epson scan was sharper when compared to the silverfast scans. I have been scanning B and W negs using 48bit color/ black and white neg in the epson scan. My test included the same neg using various dpi scans and 2400 dpi seems sharpest when compared to other resolutions. As others have mentioned, why do all that fancy stuff with silverfast when you can do it in photoshop. I have also experienced a softer scan when I used the dust removal option. I attempt to clean the neg as best as I can and then use the rubber stamp tool in PS to clean my negs. If I had to do it all over again, I would buy the cheaper version of the Epson 4990 without silverfast. Overall I think it is an excellent scanner option for scanning negs over 4x5. I previously used the epson 1680 with transparency adapter. The 4990 is slightly better.

However... I have yet to successfully scan 8X10 negs using the enclosed adapter. It's useless as static electricity tends to lift the negative off the glass. I am looking at buying a sheet of anti newton glass that will cover the 8X10 neg with a sufficient border to allow a border of black tape that will add space so the neg is not compressed while sandwiched on the scanner glass. Any suggestions....
Marty

[Emre Yildirim]

Marty,

Do you use sharpen unmask in Epson Scan, or do you scan it without anything and then sharpen in Photoshop?

[Kirk Gittings]

"the epson scan was sharper when compared to the silverfast scans"
There is no true setting in ES that has absolutely no sharpening. This is a marketing trick to make the scanner look like it is better than it is.

"why do all that fancy stuff with silverfast when you can do it in photoshop."
Because a properly staged workflow can save you problems down the road. Making major approximate adjustments in color, density and curve at the scanning stage solves problems with stretching tonalities, noise generation and color latitude later on.

"If I had to do it all over again, I would buy the cheaper version of the Epson 4990 without silverfast."
I have heard this many times and said it myself when I was new into scanning. Now, I personally don't know of a serious and experienced scanner who does not prefer SF over EpsonScan. When I started out I thought ES was all I would ever need. After a 100 or so scans I found it totally inadequate. After close to 1000 scans, I won't buy a scanner that isn't supported by SF. It is a professional level tool that is essential to professional level results.

[Ellis Vener]

a properly staged workflow can save you problems down the road. Making major approximate adjustments in color, density and curve at the scanning stage solves problems with stretching tonalities, noise generation and color latitude later on...

I personally don't know of a serious and experienced scanner who does not prefer SF over EpsonScan. When I started out I thought ES was all I would ever need. After a 100 or so scans I found it totally inadequate. After close to 1000 scans, I won't buy a scanner that isn't supported by SF. It is a professional level tool that is essential to professional level results.

I agree with Kirk 100% on this. Like any professional tool SilverFast Ai6 is relatively complex and needs to be learned but the reuslts are totally worth it in my experience. People have different standards. If you believe that Epson Scan is adequate for you, well maybe it is, but objectively Epson Scan is a lesser capable tool than SilverFast Ai6 and the results aren't quite as good. Epson Scan is far from terrible --it is quite good --but SilverFast Ai6 produces higher quality results.

Neither Kirk or I are advocating use of SF Ai6 because we love complexity or techo-masturbation. If there were an easier and simpler way to get the desired results or a shorter path to high quality scans I'd be on it like a duck on a junebug and I suspect Kirk would be too.