PDA

View Full Version : Silverfast SE vs. Full ...and again the Epson 4990



David Honey
28-Jan-2006, 18:43
I'm getting closer to buying my scanner now, and went to CompUSA to see if they stocked the so-called 'Pro' version of the 4990.

It was previously my understanding that the 'pro' 4990 came with Silverfast software, and that the regular 4990 didn't.

However, it seems that the regular version does come with Silverfast (SE).

Is Silverfast SE sufficient for basic 4x5 scans? What are the limitations, vs the Full version?

Another point: my only reason for buying locally (versus mail order) is the relative ease of returning a faulty machine if necessary. This idea, however, looks like turning a '~$400 scanner' into a $600 expenditure (if I go for the 'pro' version + sales tax), etc. etc. Where's the best/cheapest place (in US) to buy a 4990, with decent return options?

Thanks!

Michael Graves
28-Jan-2006, 18:49
Newegg.Com (http://www.newegg.com) is about the best place I know to buy computer stuff. They have a great return policy, fast shipping and good prices.

Brian Ellis
28-Jan-2006, 21:53
I returned a printer bought at New Egg a few years ago. They were very good about it and returning it to them wasn't significantly more difficult than returning it to a local store would have been. Either way it had to be repackaged and placed in my car. The only difference was whether I drove to the post office or the local store. The only time I've had a major problem returning a defective product that was purchased by mail order was with a scanner bought from B&H, which is why I no longer deal with B&H.

David Honey
29-Jan-2006, 01:14
Yes, but you forgot one thing, Brian - if you take a faulty unit back to a brick & mortar store, you can go straight back home with a replacement, not have to wait another 1-2 weeks!

Not that product return is something you want to have to figure into a purchase,but with the reputedly poor QC on these things it's something I might well consider.

How realistic is it to hope your first 4990 will be OK? Normally I wouldn't have worried, but after reading about Kirk's Epson 4990 experiences here, I'm not so sure.

Emre Yildirim
29-Jan-2006, 03:29
I have the regular version of the 4990. Althought it comes with Silverfast SE, I just use Epson Scan (in professional mode). I don't even know why everyone likes Silverfast so much. The only adjustments I really do is brightness - and I can do this with Epson Scan just as well. Any sharpening etc. is done in Photoshop.

Both Silverfast and Epson Scan work very well for 4x5 chrome and B&W scans. Here's a scan I did yesterday:

http://www.yildirimphotography.com/ladybug.html

Did a little sharpening and levels adjustment in photoshop. I'd say it works well.

Henry Ambrose
29-Jan-2006, 06:09
David,

I think Kirk's experience is not typical. If Epson was shipping products that were that bad they'd be out of business. The last three Epson scanners I've bought have been fine, first try.

I also find the standard Epson scan driver to work very well - I see no advantage to Silverfast. I'm not saying its bad either -- its just that if cost is an issue then why pay more for something that you don't need?

The software bundles that ship with various scanners, cameras and printers are largely marketing tools to provide price points and an attempt to differentiate one product from another. Not to say the add-ons never have value but rather that unless you can prove to yourself that there is a very real benefit to you, don't spend the extra money.

Lets say that you do not own Photoshop and a particular device you are considering comes with full Photoshop in a bundle - you would consider this package. Although you won't see this often since Adobe does not have to give away full PS to get folks to try it and the manufacturer of your device would have to pay too much to "up-feature" the bundle package.

James Walker
29-Jan-2006, 07:22
I have been using the 4990 photo (i.e. not 'pro') for 120 & 4x5 scans, and have been pleased by the results (though many posts here & on photo.net conclude drum scans should yield better quality). Fine for what I want though (i.e. not masive prints!), and pretty good value for money. I just use Epson scan in professional mode, further fine tuning done in PS. One thing to watch out for: if you use the `hardware ICE' feature, it is very slow, and a memory hog on the host PC; my 2.4GHz p4 with 1 GB ram takes over an hour do to 5x4 @ 2400 dpi with ICE selected...

Good luck...

James

Michael Graves
29-Jan-2006, 07:37
I think Kirk had an unusual problem as well. I purchased a 4990 for myself right after we received 50 of them where I work. none of the 51 have given a single problem.

Yet.

Allen Quinn
29-Jan-2006, 09:38
If you live in a big city and your retailer is across town, NewEgg is much more convenient. Their shipping is measured in days not weeks. Some of the large NYC photo warehouses should take customer service lessons from them.

Ed Richards
29-Jan-2006, 10:18
NewEgg keep much 8x10 film in stock? While I would like better customer service from BH and the like, when you think about the stuff they keep in inventory, I think they do a terrific job.

John Hennessy
29-Jan-2006, 11:24
David,

Does the Silverfast SE version allow making a profile of the scanner? Does the native Epson driver? Do either allow for the Silverfast multisampling option?

I think the answer is no for all three questions. You will need to profile the scanner and may need to use multisampling to control noise (although that is even more money -- $50 or so I think).

David Honey
29-Jan-2006, 11:46
Thanks everyone for your feedback.

John, as far as know, SE doesn't come with a profiler, nor is there one in the 'non-pro' 4990 bundle. I'm not sure about multisampling.

Another question: Is the bundled profiler for the purpose of profiling the scanner, or your monitor?

A darkroom's looking better and better..!

Kirk Gittings
29-Jan-2006, 13:37
My experience is not a typical if you cruise forums on scanning. The problems we encounter are not unusual in the slightest. The difference is that we do far more scanning than most people and wear out scanners faster or detect flaws sooner than most people. Plus since we are doing scanning for high-end national magazines and my museum exhibits we are allot pickier about results than most posters here.

When I first started scanning with an Epson 32oo and 4870 I used the Epson Scan software and thought it worked great. Silverfast was allot more difficult to figure out. As my business became more and more scanning dependent and I had a few hundred scans under my belt, my standards became higher, and I came to find the Epson scan software very limiting. When I started working on the scans for my last retrospective exhibit my standards got even higher. We now run 4 scanners, two Epson 4990's, one Nikon 8000 and a Microtek 1800f (+ I have access to an Imacon 949). I have also tested extensively Canon 9950f's Imacon 646s and 848s and Vuescan software. For me there is no substitute for the full version of Silverfast and I prefer it for all scanners (I wish it was avaialble for the Imacons). There are two little tricks with single pass multisampling and downresing tiff files that Vuescan does that is really cool but the rest of the program is downright primitive. SF is the only real professional software out there for the flatbeds. One small example Digital Ice in Sf is more effectice than in any other software, because they run a different algorithm to drive it. And SF is cheap if you buy it in a package deal. This is a totally uncompensated endorsement. You may find Epson Scan "adequate" for your needs. I do not.

Notes:

1)The profiling software that comes in the package is just for the scanner. It works quite well but is only for color transparencies. Otherwise you have to use their packaged profiles.

2) Silverfast SE does have the muti-sampling multi-pass alignment feature in it.

David Honey
29-Jan-2006, 14:42
Thanks for your feedback Kirk, especially the additional notes.

At $519 with free shipping, the 'pro' version 4990 from NewEgg looks like a winner.

Assuming we've pretty much counted out the MicroTek i800 in comparison to the 4990...

Brian Ellis
29-Jan-2006, 15:04
"Yes, but you forgot one thing, Brian - if you take a faulty unit back to a brick & mortar store, you can go straight back home with a replacement, not have to wait another 1-2 weeks! "

So the local stores you deal with have everything in stock all the time? You must live in a different area of the country than I do.

Marko
29-Jan-2006, 15:48
Assuming we've pretty much counted out the MicroTek i800 in comparison to the 4990...

Just curious - did anybody test Microtek i900 and how does it compare to Epson? Kirk, you tested a lot of scanners, it is fairly obvious that you like 4990 and 1800f, but I don't think you ever mentioned this one... I think it'd be an interesting comparison because it seems to be in the same category as Epson 4990, both price wise and feature wise (on paper).

To be honest, this is a bit more than just idle curiosity, as I am also contemplating a decent flatbed, and nothing beats first-hand experience if anybody can offer it.

Thanks in advance,

David Honey
29-Jan-2006, 16:16
Brian, I guess I'm lucky as far as my location in the SF bay area, but I get your drift - the CompUSA near me currently has only the 'non-pro' 4990 in stock (at $449 plus tax), and would have to special order the 'pro' at $599 + tax (Right there is the deal breaker.)

I daresay that if I looked around I could find a retailer with the 'pro' version, and I'd hope more than one of them in stock...

But, after further positive feedback here on the scanner, and your tip about NewEgg.com, I'm ready to go mail order.

Thanks all.

John Berry ( Roadkill )
29-Jan-2006, 19:29
There is one other added item in the pro version, and that's monaco color management. If you don't have color management already, it's the only way to go. I already had monaco on my system, but I did consider the upgrade to full SF, even at $90.00 to be worth it. If I had it to do over again I would have gotten the pro and let my friend have the color management on the cheap.

Kirk Gittings
29-Jan-2006, 22:58
Brian no I have not. My current set up works well and I don't test for the hell of it but to solve problems or upgrade. There have not been rave reviews that I have seen anyway. So unless there is some hint that it is better than what I have I won't bother.

Kirk Gittings
29-Jan-2006, 23:07
And for some reason SF for the i900 does not support Digital Ice which is important to us for commercial scans.

Ellis Vener
30-Jan-2006, 12:24
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
30-Jan-2006, 13:20
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
30-Jan-2006, 14:32
Thanks, Kirk.

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

Regards,

Raymond Bleesz
1-Feb-2006, 07:22
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
1-Feb-2006, 09:27
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
1-Feb-2006, 09:54
If you shoot transparencies, IT8 calibration is well worth the money, but it does nothing for color negatives or b&w.

marty
20-Feb-2006, 15:51
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
20-Feb-2006, 16:50
Marty,

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

Kirk Gittings
20-Feb-2006, 21:43
"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
21-Feb-2006, 07:08
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.

Ted Harris
21-Feb-2006, 09:53
Wht Kirk and Ellis are saying with an addition or two. First, you can't correct everything in Photoshop. You have to make sure you capture all the information you want in your scan and SF AI will be a great asset in making sure you do that. Second, while you sometimes need all the AI bells and whistles, you don't always. I have found time after time when workingwith well exposed transparencies that AI's auto settings often give me better results than much manualk manipulation using other scanning software .... I am not advocating stoping with the auto settings or even using them most of the time but I dowant to alert you to the fact that they can often produce quite acceptable results.