Which scanning program with the Epson 4870?

[Yaakov Asher Sinclair]

My 4870 comes with several scanning programs. Which is the best one to use?
Up till now I have been using Silverfast Espson SE which comes bundled with the machine. I select "48-> 24 bit color" but my scans always open as 8-bit. Is there a way I can scan them so they come out as 16-bit? Would this significantly improve the scan?
Many thanks to everyone who makes this such a wonderful information resource!

[Marco Frigerio]

The only way is to upgrade your SE version to the AI version of Silverfast, sadly SE is only in 8 bit mode...

Ciao

Marco

[paulr]

there's a comprhensive review at
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm (http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%204870/page_1.htm)

the reviewer doesn't see any advantage to using silverfast se over epson scan.

another option is vuescan, which i've just started experimenting with.
there are others here with a lot of experience using it ... maybe they can chime in.

[Harley Goldman]

Will the 16 bit scan make much of a difference in the quality of the scan? Is it worth the $100 to upgrade from Silverfast SE to AI?

[Kirk Gittings]

I recently upgraded to Silverfast AI for my 4870 and to be honest it has alot of bells and wistles but I sincerely believe that the scan is no better than what I get with Epson scan and for some reason with the AI it takes alot longer (like twice as long with Ice on in both).

Also the batch scanning interface which I need for my commercial work is clunky and not as good.

I own it and am not using it. Am I missing something? Maybe someone with more experience could explain the differences and potentials of AI. I know many experienced people who swear by it, but I don't get it.

[Eric Z. Beard]

I have a 4870 and I use AI Silverfast. It took me a while to get used to, but it's definitely worth it for the control you get.

For 4x5 don't use DICE, you lose a ton of detail and the dust grains are really small anyway, so they're not so annoying. The opposite is true for 35mm, without ICE the scans are almost unusable. For 6x9 I'm still undecided. I can do a lot with healing brush in the time it takes for a 48 bit scan with ICE on.

And yes, there is a tremendous difference between 48, 16 and 8 bit scans. If you're scanning 4x5 a 200MB or larger file should be routine.

My biggest complaint with the 4870 is the horrid shadow globbiness in color scans. Anything close to black looks like someone dabbed it with a mud covered sponge.

EZB

[Brian Ellis]

I've used Vuescan for quite a while. It will scan at 16 /48bit. I have mixed feelings about the program, it does seem to produce good scans but it isn't very user friendly IMHO. Partly for that reason I do very little editing in it except to set the black and white points.

The advantage of scanning in 16/48 bit is that you'll maintain better quality when editing in Photoshop or whatever other editing program you use. While I've seen some heated arguments otherwise, I believe most people agree that the print itself doesn't look better when done from an 8 bit file as opposed to a 16 bit file. So the usual suggestion is to scan in 16/48 bit, keep the file that way as long as possible when editing (if you have any version of Photoshop before CS you probably won't be able to do all your editing in 16 bit, you'll have to switch to 8 bit to use some of the tools), then convert to 8 bit for printing and saving.

[Hollis]

I will add to what Brian has said. It is better to START with a 48/16 bit image instead of a 24/8 bit image. The ammount of information as far as tonal range goes is not just doubled, its exponentially larger. What this allows you to do is work with your scan in photoshop to a higher degree. If you are going to be performing a lot of global (entire image) editing such as color, contrast, saturation etc. etc. you will start to see some nasty digital artifacting, banding, and blocking show up realy quick with an 8 bit image. You will have much more in the way of editing and 'tweaking' the image in 16 bit but be forewarned, those same unwanted elements will still show up. For myself, and many of the people I know, we like to start with a slightly flat scan/image. Anytime you have an extended contrast range in an image weather it be a scan or native digital capture, you will potentially run into more problems down the road.

When it comes time to make a digital print (either a light jet, ink jet or whatever) of your scanned image, you want to save your master, 16 bit file with all the corrections and editing as well, your master file. Once that is done, flatten your image (the layers not the contrast). Next, size the file to your target output size (remember, you will lose quality if you up-res the image), and then convert it to an 8 bit file. You will notice a drastic change in file size thus leading to faster print times.

[paulr]

What Brian said.

I'll add that I like vuescan quite a bit for b+w work, but find its clunkiness to be more intrusive when doing color. I still use it for color, but would be interested in trying one of the flavors of silverfast for comparison.

[Ted Harris]

Please note that the allbut the last two posts in this thread are 2.5+ years old .... in the world of software development this is an eternity.

I think VueScan is an ok program that gets you there but the most current versions of both the Epson and Microtek software are as good or better. The most recent version of Silverfast Ai is far superior to any of the avbove IF you need a lot of control. As always, if you have a perfectly exposd and developed negative your work in the darkroom ....be it traditional or digital ..... will be minimal.