Scanning Software, Fact or Fictitious?

[ljsegil]

OK, here comes the dummy question. Do the fully featured scanning programs like Silverfast or Vuescan add anything to the actual scanning process? Do they alter the actual data captured by the scanner? Are all the adjustments they make actually affecting what the scanner does, or are they software adjustments made to the captured image after the scan is completed? In other words, does it make sense to invest in one of these programs (very expensive, at least for Silverfast, complex and tedious to master) to improve the quality of the capture of one's scans, or can the same thing be accomplished by using the scanner manufacturer's software and making your adjustments to the scan in Photoshop, since the actual data produced by the scanner is not altered by the software driving it? It seems to me that the latter is the case, with the only exception that I have found convincing being the ability of Vuescan to produce a DNG file. Or am I completely missing the boat (this wouldn't be the first time I've done that)?
Sage advice, wisdom, and derision all appreciated.
LJS

[Bruce Watson]

Much depends on the scanner. There seems to be little interaction between the scanner software and the scanner hardware with consumer flatbeds. Drum scanners on the other hand usually allow the software to do things like set the analog limits (top and bottom) for the log amp circuits. This lets the scanner match it's full digital range exactly to the density range of the film for each channel (depending on operator skill of course) for example. Professional flatbeds are probably somewhere in between in general.

That said, some of the software for currently produced professional flatbeds appears to be using FFT algorithms. This is signal processing technology applied to imaging and can be quite effective in pulling detail out of film that otherwise might be obscured. That is, it can extend the range of what the hardware can do on its own.

So, the answer to your question is, it depends. But you knew that was coming didn't you? Sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that.

[Ash]

I do wonder just how much information is lost as a result of software limitation, however my scanned negs are for reference and online uses, so it doesn't affect me to the extreme.

For my Epson V700 I use the basic software on fully manual, and I uninstalled the Silverfast because I couldn't be bothered to work out why it was worth wasting extra time for 'quick and dirty' scans.

[Don Hutton]

I've owned and used a pretty decent variety of scanners over the past 5-7 years - dedicated film scanners and a bunch of Epson flatbeds from the 2450 onwards. I've used Silverfast with them (the full and SE versions), Vuescan and the proprietary packages. I honestly don't believe any of them are "limiting" in terms of what they produce. They all have quirks and some may suit your way of working better than others. Personally, I've probably found the proprietary software to be about the friendliest in use, but that's for the way I personally work. If you're scanning color negs and are short on experience, I think the "Negafix" drop in of Silverfast may be of some benefit in getting your scans to look the way you want them to look.

[Ken Lee]

Good scanning software is important - and here's why:

Every tonal adjustment introduces an element of distortion. Distortions add up. If you can get a scan which is already quite close to the final image, it will be to your advantage. That is, if you like images with lovely tonality.

Scanning, capturing, and performing all subsequent adjustments in a high-fidelity color space, helps mitigate the distortions, and keeps your image from looking artificial.

For a some compelling illustration, see The Benefits of 48-Bit Scanning (http://www.inkjetart.com/4990/48bit/page4.html)

You might also find these articles helpful:


16-Bits-per-Channel: Goodbye "Banding", Hello Smooth Tones (http://www.kenleegallery.com/bronze.html#16-bit)


Scanning wth the Epson 4990 (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/scanning.html)

[Peter De Smidt]

I've used quite a few scanning programs. My favorite so far is Color Genius EX, which is proprietary to Screen's scanners. Most programs have way too many unnecessary elements, and what is necessary is poorly implemented. First, it should be clear what causes hardware adjustments in the scanner and what causes software adjustments, and it should be easy to make the hardware adjustments. Second, setting black and white points should be easy. Third, the software should make using profiles easy. Well, that's about it. Color Genius comes closer doing this than Vuescan or Silverfast, but it still has lot's of room for improvement, which I doubt will happen.

[walter23]

I do wonder just how much information is lost as a result of software limitation, however my scanned negs are for reference and online uses, so it doesn't affect me to the extreme.

For my Epson V700 I use the basic software on fully manual, and I uninstalled the Silverfast because I couldn't be bothered to work out why it was worth wasting extra time for 'quick and dirty' scans.

I'm not sure Silverfast is giving me anything extra over the epson software either. I actually find Epson gives a better scan of B&W negatives than Silverfast - it seems to have smarter auto adjustments for contrast & brightness. Maybe I just have to learn more of Silverfast's features, but for most things I find the epson software works perfectly well. I have used Silverfast to try to get better colour matching to transparencies etc, but I haven't really gotten to the point that it gives me much of an advantage over trying to do it in photoshop.

I've never bothered with multipass scanning, etc, either.

[ljsegil]

Thanks to all for your comments, but as usual I remain confused. It still is not clear to me whether the adjustments made in the heavily featured scanning software are working at the level of the scanner itself to affect the actual scan obtained by the unit (hardware adjustments, in other words) or are acting on the image after it is obtained by the scanner (software adjustments, as occurs in Photoshop) without affecting the actual actions by the scanner to produce the original scan. In the former case, making adjustments acts on the scanner itself to change the scan initially obtained by the scanner compared to what the scanner would produce without adjustments, thus producing an actual change in the scan itself, or in the latter case the initial scan produced by the scanner is the same with or without adjustments, and the adjustments act as software adjustments on the scan after it finished being produced by the scanner; i.e. software adjustments without any affect on the performance of the scanner itself.

If some adjustments affect the scanner itself, which ones do so (I have read that the Analogue Scan adjustment in Nikon Scan does, I have read differing opinions on setting scanner white and black points), and if the adjustments are working on the finished scan without affecting the actual scanning process, is there any advantage to making adjustments in scanning software over Photoshop (more familiar to this user, obviously YMMV). This is sort of a question back to your response Ken; I can produce a scan result that is closer to my final print using scanning software before importing to Photoshop, but why, if Silverfast is still just making software rather than hardware changes, does it matter if that is done on a 48 bit RGB file in Silverfast or if the 48 bit file from the scanner is taken directly into Photoshop and adjusted there?

Hoping for more light to scan over my dimness (good luck with these shadow details).

Thanks,
LJS

[Tyler Boley]

This is another "it depends" reply.
First, most consumer level scanners have no adjustments available to the software to manipulate, so that's the first thing to verify.
Secondly, third party software like Silverfast may or many not be accessing those adjustments, though the original software may. The Nikon you mention, the provided software gives access to the analogue gain, I don't know if Silverfast does or not. In the case of my Howtek, for example, full aperture control is available in Silverfast, but proprietary issues prevent them from accessing further hardware manipulation like lin/log amp control or uploading curves into the hardware. That's the second thing to look into, if your scanner has some control at that level, can your 3rd party software access it?
Lastly, if you are scanning in high bit, and there are no controls over the manner in which the data comes into the software, then there is no technical resulting difference between adjustments in the scanner software, or Photoshop, assuming identical edits are compared if possible. The difference for me is that Photoshop is a far superior imaging editor than most scanner software.
The exception is for color negs, I find editing a raw color neg scan in PS into something reasonable very arduous, and if your scanning software has good built in color neg editing things go much faster.
Hope some of this helps.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I didn't bother trying to figure out the scaled down version of Silverfast that came with my 4990. The Epson software works fine and is much easier to use than Silverfast.

[ljsegil]

I'm all for simple, and a simple rephrasing of my original questions would be: Am I losing anything in ultimate scan quality (Epson V750, Nikon Coolscan 9000ED) simply using the proprietary software versus using the sophisticated software at the scanning stage? Is there really a bang for the bucks ponied up for the big boys of scanning software, or can it be done as well in Photoshop after a simpler scan acquisition process? Or, to rephrase once more, at the level of sophistication and control offered by these (very much non-drum) scanners, is there much art to be learned to scan well at the acquisition phase, or is it all software manipulations after the acquisition and the software used for those manipulations is probably best selected based upon the user's skill with any particular program, with the actual program used not much mattering?
As far as I can tell from all my efforts to date, how I mount the film on the particular scanner seems to have a much greater effect on scan quality than any software package tweaking that I attempt to do.
But it all may be because I am just a simpleton, unable to properly use the sophisticated scanning programs to their fullest capabilities, and manipulating in Photoshop to cover my deficiencies as a scanner driver.
Wish I knew the answer, as I began this latest rant I do like simple, so I'm hoping the answer is proprietary software (maybe Vuescan to obtain DNG files) followed by Photoshop, and no need to invest further in sophisticated scanning software which does/does not have an actual impact on the actual scan data coming out of the scanner.
Hoping for clarity,
LJS
Of course, if it were really clearly an easily answerable question I don't suppose this thread would have continued as long as it has, nor would it be following on the heels of similar threads posted in the past.
Scanningly yours,
LJS

[bob carnie]

I am not sure if most agree with the following but we have been using four different scanners here and for all devices we find that setting good detail in highlight and shadow is critical, we do not sharpen at the scanning stage but rather in PS.
For highlight detail depending upon end media we will use LAB numbers between 92 and 96 or RGB between 245,245, 245 and 251 ,251,251.
for shadow detail depending upon end media we will use LAB numbers between 4 and 8, or RGB between 5-10 .
Each material is capable of different end points and practice will be your guide, I like the shadow with detail and highlight with detail to be present and the above numbers will give that result.

Regarding sharpening once again different medias will allow more or less, and I like to do this on the L channel or the K channel. Therefore we do not try to make a final image at the scanning stage but rather give as much detail as possible at both ends so we can work further down the line, currently we are scanning at 16bit to allow more moves in the editing stage .

When scanning we will immediately open in PS to check numbers to see if we like the scan..
hope this helps.

[Gordon Moat]

Some scanning software can offer a RAW data scan, after which you can adjust in PhotoShop. There is sometimes an advantage with this, depending upon the scanner, though it does add time to post processing each scan. The advantages of good scanning software are the accurate preview, and the ability to get a near ready to print file; these save time in post processing. However, if the preview in the scanning software is way off, or if the adjustments in the scanning software are crude or limited, then the results could require heavy work in post processing. Good scanning software saves you time.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Ken Lee]

1) Does a given scanner "expose" its controls so that an external driver can change the way the scanner actually captures the information ? Or does the scanner perform a capture, the same way every time, and merely adjust the results down-stream, in the drivers ?

Who would know ? The scanner manufacturer. Each scanner (or family of scanners) is different in this regard.

2) Does the given scanner manufacturer *publish* the proprietary APIs (Application Programmer Interfaces) that allow software drivers to control the scanner ? Or do the APIs only allow down-stream manipulation, after the capture stage is over ?

Who would know ? The scanner manufacturer, and software engineers who provide scanning software, like VueScan and others.

3) Do the controls provided by 3rd-party software actually let you get *better* images ?

It all depends on what you mean by better: The ability to rescue images that are poorly exposed ? Better image fidelity at the expense of slower scan times ? Faster scans at the expense of image fidelity ?

Your best bet, is to contact someone in Technical Support, for each scanner in which you're interested.

That being said, I repeat the assertion that each "adjustment" introduces a distortion, and that the fewer adjustments we make, the more natural will be the image.

Hence, getting it right at the scanning stage, is better than trying to rescue it in Photoshop.

[Bruce Watson]

...getting it right at the scanning stage, is better than trying to rescue it in Photoshop.

GIGO still applies. Yes indeed.

[Peter De Smidt]

[B]1)
That being said, I repeat the assertion that each "adjustment" introduces a distortion, and that the fewer adjustments we make, the more natural will be the image.

Hence, getting it right at the scanning stage, is better than trying to rescue it in Photoshop.

If by "getting it right at the scanning stage", Ken means that some are advocating doing a low quality scan and fixing it in Photoshop, then that's a strawman argument, as no one here is advocating that. On the other hand, if Ken means using the software editing tools in a scanning program on a good capture is somehow better than doing the editing in Photoshop, then the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise, in other words even if we should minimize adjustments, it doesn't follow that these software adjustments are better performed in the scanning software. If manipulation in the scanning software isn't optimizing the hardware elements of the scan, then it's hard to see how doing purely software adjustments in the scanning software is any better than doing it in Photoshop. Yes, as others as pointed out, sometimes there's a time-saving element of working in scanning software, especially if the software has a good system for dealing with color negatives; and in the early days Photoshop didn't deal that well with high resolution files, e.g. apply a filter to a hi res file and you might have time to go to lunch before it finished, and so getting the file as close to what was needed for a specific output in the scan was desirous. Today, though, Photoshop deals well with hi-res files, and the preview functions alone are much better than in any scanning software that I've used.

Finally, If Ken means that tonal adjustments entail "distortions," and "distortions" are inherent bad, then that's just not plausible. A while ago, I spent considerable time digitalizing and Photoshoping my father's slides from the 1950's. Many were badly faded, which often included color shifts. These scans required considerable editing, both in the scanning software and in Photoshop, to look natural.

[Kirk Gittings]

If manipulation in the scanning software isn't optimizing the hardware elements of the scan, then it's hard to see how doing purely software adjustments in the scanning software is any better than doing it in Photoshop

This is the crux of the issue isn't it? A couple of years ago I tried, without success, to get a straight answer from Silverfast on this issue related to the consumer flatbeds. In one vague public statement they had implied that their software controlled the inner workings of the hardware as has been described by Tyler above, but thier unwillingness to deal with this question in depth made me wonder.

[Kuzano]

Having worked with both hardware and software for many years, I believe that some of the most successful software over the years has been a mix of barely adequate software design and implementation, combined with creative and ongoing marketing, and the amazing accidents that take place in the industry.

Case in point. When IBM was seeking an operating system for their new Personal Computer project, there was DOS, as we all know, but there was also a lesser known and quite superior system called CP/M. DOS, in fact, was an unauthorized (and poorly modified) clone of CP/M. IBM was leaning toward the better system....CP/M. The unfortunate event in this story is that Gary Kildall, who owned CP/M, missed the meeting with IBM when they came to town to work on the deal. Mr. Kildall was attending another meeting. As a result of that major mistake, CP/M and Kildall lost the deal. To shorten this story, here is a link to "How Bill Gates outmaneuvered Gary Kildall".

http://arnosoftwaredev.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-bill-gates-outmaneuvered-gary.html

Kildall later went on, with associates, to create a shell program that improved MS-DOS, called DR-DOS and recaptured much of the lost money from the IBM/MS-DOS union.

Why am I telling this story?

Well, it occurs to me that the software industry has been rampant with success stories wrapped around software that is really not that good, but is heavily marketed, thereby creating it's success.

Is Silverfast really a much better interface and controller of the scanner than the OEM software... Who knows.

But it seems to me that this discussion is much the same as making the choice in camera to run the software in the camera and create jpegs, OR to shoot RAW and avoid as much camera software processing. Likewise, it makes more sense to use the scanner to emulate a RAW image, instead of imposing yet another level of software.

I'm contending that it makes more sense to bypass as many levels of software as possible and learn to use just one piece of software very well.

As it stands now, from Adobe alone we have an array of choices, starting with the Elements, full Photoshop changing annually, Bridge, and Light Room. If we throw in the "supposed" control at the level of scanning, and if we are manipulating the images in the camera shooting JPEGs, how do we ever get to a finished image.

Does anyone ever get a final usable, no more post processing, image from Silverfast?

This is not a specific blast at Silverfast. I simply use them to make the point on overprocessing images from capture to "final image". Sorry if that's unfair.

When I think about all the discussions in this and other posts, my mind snaps back to the CPM/MS-DOS analogy.

It's been almost 30 years and still the most widely used software programs are often the result of massive marketing and unfortunate accidents in the marketplace.

[Ken Lee]

Peter, you are certainly right. I'm not talking about the corrections we would make to rescue a faded or poorly exposed image. I should have said so. I'm thinking about how to get the most faithful scan of an already lovely "fine art" image. Hopefully, most of our shots are in that category. ;)

If we start out with a fine specimen (the Mona Lisa for example), then in a general sense, it's downhill from there, each time we perform an adjustment. The same would be true if we were to make a series of internegatives, or copy negatives. Even with the best lenses and process, every step is a "destructive" or lossy step, however slight, compared to the original: We lose some of the original data, and introduce some noise that wasn't originally there.

That's why, for the most lifelike images, it's generally best to make the best exposure, and develop as correctly as possible. If the next step is a scan, then it's best to get that scan as close as possible to the final result. If further adjustments are required, then it's best that those should be done as sparingly as possible.

[Scott Schroeder]

I thought I'd throw out a comment here. I'm by no means proficient in the whole scanning process. I could even say it was part of the reason I left Large Format years ago and went all digital. Well now I'm back but instead of scanning film, I'm scanning plates. I haven't made prints from those scans but just scans for the web. I was using Silverfast on my epson 3200 and the shadows were horrible. No matter what settings I used or adjustments it just couldn't pull out the subtle details.

Realize that this is for scanning a plate so it's more like scanning a print than a negative. On the wet plate forum Kerik suggested I try the epson twain driver. Well it beat the crap out of silverfast! I'm not sure why, but I'm sure it has to do with how both packages handle reflective materials.

[Tyler Boley]

the concept of a pristine and perfect original, and a device that then captures that flawlessly, escapes me. Some massaging and color management will occur in every circumstance I have encountered, usually a lot. Again, whether that occurs in viable scanner software or Photoshop, given the preconditions of this thread, still should have no impact on issues like loss, assuming the scanner software has no hardware manipulation available.
The exceptions are- if you make moves in the scanner software, and then some opposite moves in Photoshop, this is the lossiest scenario. Same is true if all in Photoshop. Watch those adjustment layers and edits, try to keep them moving in the same direction. Don't add a big contrast curve squishing the ends, then go in and dodge some of those shadows, you just threw away a lot of levels.
Second exception which we have discussed here many times- if you are not doing hi bit scans. Then, since the scanner software works on the higher native bit depth info, and simply exports in lower bit on the fly, clearly there is an advantage over doing big moves later in PS 8 (24) bit.
Hope that makes sense.
Tyler

[Bruce Watson]

the concept of a pristine and perfect original, and a device that then captures that flawlessly, escapes me. Some massaging and color management will occur in every circumstance I have encountered, usually a lot. Again, whether that occurs in viable scanner software or Photoshop, given the preconditions of this thread, still should have no impact on issues like loss, assuming the scanner software has no hardware manipulation available.
The exceptions are- if you make moves in the scanner software, and then some opposite moves in Photoshop, this is the lossiest scenario. Same is true if all in Photoshop. Watch those adjustment layers and edits, try to keep them moving in the same direction. Don't add a big contrast curve squishing the ends, then go in and dodge some of those shadows, you just threw away a lot of levels.
Second exception which we have discussed here many times- if you are not doing hi bit scans. Then, since the scanner software works on the higher native bit depth info, and simply exports in lower bit on the fly, clearly there is an advantage over doing big moves later in PS 8 (24) bit.
Hope that makes sense.
Tyler

I'm going to be presumptuous as hell here. I'm going to presume to clarify what Tyler wrote here lest it get taken the wrong way. If I'm wrong I'm sure that Tyler will beat me for it, as he should.

I'm just worried that someone with less experience (that's about 99% of us) will read it as saying that any old scan will do. I do not believe he is saying that. He's not advocating a slap dash approach to scanning. He's not saying that you should scan it any old way and fix up problems large and small in Photoshop.

My interpretation is that he's saying we should try to get as close as we reasonably can with our scanning setups and then do fine tuning in Photoshop. But to not obsess about it because it's very difficult to hit a scan right on the money so that no corrections are needed in Photoshop. The vast majority of scans, tranny and negative alike, will have to be manipulated and corrected to some degree.

I hope I interpreted that correctly.

In any case, that's what I try to do. Get as close as I can with the scan and use Photoshop to fine tune and make little tweaks. Even then, with negative scans (B&W and color both) it's really highly advisable to make 16 bit scans if possible. Removing color casts, correcting colors, making both overall and local contrast changes, all these things can cost you more than you'd think in terms of available levels.

[Ken Lee]

Perfecto, Maestro !

[Tyler Boley]

what, you want me to make sense?!?!
I guess I was initially reacting to the Mona Lisa idea that given perfect original, there was some scan method that would perfectly digitize that with no adjustment, therefore no loss, at all.
Getting as close as possible as early in the workflow as possible is naturally good habit. On the other hand, your software probably allows you that, where as mine is less than optimal for negs, and after a lot of testing (measuring remaining levels at the end etc.) I actually found it best to do it all in Photoshop. But that's for me, my scanner, and my software...
Tyler

[ljsegil]

Or that I should recognize sense when I see it?
I still am left with the impression that even after everyone's helpful, thoughtful, and generous responses to my questions that no one seems quite sure if scanning software does influence the physical scanning process as performed by less than professional level flatbed or drum scanners (in my case the Epson V750 and the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED), but that scanning software, being more specialized for use with scanners and their imaging quirks than a program like Photoshop, may do a better job of creating a good quality file, albeit via post-scanning software manipulation, and therefore can produce a better final image. Perhaps what I am gleaning is that scanning software may work in ways more suitable to the quirks of scanners and therefore do a better job than later post processing, even if they do not directly influence the physical scan acquisition. In other words, dedicated scanning software is simply more specialized and therefore potentially superior at its designated task than a program not specifically designed with that purpose in mind, though it may be doing its work on a scanned file without having any influence on the acquisition of that file, and therefore no effect on the initial content of that file.
So am I still as far off base as usual, yet again caught trying to steal second?
Thanks and best,
LJS

[Ken Lee]

It is not a question of scanning software or post-scanning software being... better. You need them both.

First you scan (controlled by software to one degree or another), and then you can edit the resulting file further. Actually, first you capture an image on film. Then you scan it. Then you manipulate it further. Then you print it. Then you frame it. Finally, you view it under certain lighting conditions.

Each step is a transformation which affects the next step, for better or worse.

Thus the earliest steps in the sequence, are the most important, because you can't manipulate, what you didn't capture.

[bob carnie]

Much like in days of old, you expose and process the transparancy, then make an interneg , then make a print on enlarger with extra controls.
The goal of the interneg, much like the goal of a scan is to keep as much information as possible without major crosscurves that if left in the interneg would make printing almost impossible.
Where I worked , making that good clean interneg was one of the most important stages* much like scanning today* but after this good step was done , we still had to make a good print with proper density , colour balance , dodge and burn.
All the labs that I worked at the printer controlled the interneg stage, and was not divided up by two people.
Today I control the scan and make the print, so I only have myself to blame for shitty workmanship if things go wrong.
I also take the praise if things all connect.




It is not a question of scanning software or post-scanning software being... better. You need them both.

First you scan (controlled by software to one degree or another), and then you can edit the resulting file further. Actually, first you capture an image on film. Then you scan it. Then you manipulate it further. Then you print it. Then you frame it. Finally, you view it under certain lighting conditions.

Each step is a transformation which affects the next step, for better or worse.

Thus the earliest steps in the sequence, are the most important, because you can't manipulate, what you didn't capture.

[Tyler Boley]

OK, I'll be very specific. Either I'm not being clear or the relevance of my info is low... fair enough...


...no one seems quite sure if scanning software does influence the physical scanning process as performed by less than professional level flatbed or drum scanners (in my case the Epson V750 and the Nikon Coolscan 9000 ED),...


not my contention. I'm saying whether or not the software has any control over scanner functions beyond post raw data edits depends on the particular scanner, and the particular software, and you are going to have to press for info from the providers of both.


...but that scanning software, being more specialized for use with scanners and their imaging quirks than a program like Photoshop, may do a better job of creating a good quality file, albeit via post-scanning software manipulation, and therefore can produce a better final image...


I certainly do not agree with that at all. In my experience scanner providers know their hardware and tend to make cludgey software, certainly no where near the sophistication of Photoshop. Without question Photoshop is the premiere image editing tool, at least that I know of. I'm no Adobe fan, but that's reality. I've seen truly awful scanner software. Nikon software has been awful, Epson software has too, perhaps they are better now. I was just helping a friend whose Epson scans came into Photoshop looking totally unlike her previews. Well, to color manage that software, you had to look for pref settings in the manual only under "special projects", then "accurate color". Apparently only special projects may occassionally require accurate color, the rest of the time it's a frikkin' free for all I guess.
Someone like Bruce has a great scanner with great software, so he can do more work with it before coming into Photoshop.


Perhaps what I am gleaning is that scanning software may work in ways more suitable to the quirks of scanners and therefore do a better job than later post processing, even if they do not directly influence the physical scan acquisition...

Not in my experience, for what it's worth.


In other words, dedicated scanning software is simply more specialized and therefore potentially superior at its designated task than a program not specifically designed with that purpose in mind, though it may be doing its work on a scanned file without having any influence on the acquisition of that file, and therefore no effect on the initial content of that file.
So am I still as far off base as usual, yet again caught trying to steal second?
Thanks and best,
LJS

Just not my experience at all, with a lot of caveats. Color negs, for example, are an entirely other dealy...
Certainly simple yes/no scenarios would make life easier... but I have found fewer and fewer of them the more years I work. All of the above is for the level of scanners to which you refer, please let's not have another DPL thread.

Tyler