Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: sngraphics on December 18, 2012, 05:52:37 am
-
I have been using the SilverFast v.8 Demo with my Epson V750 for a little while now and will be purchasing the upgrade.
(Previously used with SF v.6.6)
During emails back and forth they mentioned a coupon code. 25% off the upgrade and their targets when purchased together.
This got me thinking.
Till now I have been profiling my scanner with X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-One Match 3 and have been pretty satisfied.
But in my correspondence with LaserSoft they state I will get better results with one of their targets and the Auto IT8 Calibration Feature.
I am not a color expert and that is why I am asking for a little help.
What provides a "Better" result?
Profiling your scanner using X-Rite's solution (i1Pro & i1Match) or SilverFast's solution (Auto IT8 & Their Targets)
Any comments or advice would be much appreciated.
I don't have any experience with SilverFast's IT8 auto Calibration and am just looking to get the most accurate scans possible.
Thank you in advance.
-
I am not a scanner profiling expert since I have not compare too much profiling solution for scanner besides ProfileMaker and Eye-One Match.
But based on my exp., and what I've taught by the a few scanning expert, they have told me even you use the best target on the market, you still won't be able to get a perfect match on a slide scanning.
I have not done any critical archival job but still, I have scan a lot of slides from 135 to 4x5.
I would setup a lightbox next to my workstation to get the best I could. I think scanning is still a man power job rather than putting it to an auto mode. Just my 0.02
aaron
-
If you download the PDF file linked in this introductory article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml) you will find a considerable amount of material on colour management using the SilverFast AI6.6 Auto-IT8 process with several scanners including the Epson 750. SilverFast 8 produces similar results with the same targets. I also discuss colour management (including Auto IT8 profiling) extensively in my book on SilverFast 8, information for which appears in the links under my name in this post. I cannot give you a comparative analysis using XRite materials because I haven't profiled a scanner using an XRite suite of software and targets. I agree with the previous post that scanner profiling will not give you a definitive result at the push of a button. It takes you much closer than not having a scanner profile, or a wrong scanner profile, but some image editing is usually needed to optimize the scan.
-
you still won't be able to get a perfect match on a slide scanning.
I have not done any critical archival job but still, I have scan a lot of slides from 135 to 4x5.
aaron
I forgot to mention in my original post that almost all the scanning I do here is Reflective.
So when I profile my scanner with Eye-One Match & i1Pro, I am scanning in the "Eye-One Scan Target 1.4" that came with this package.
-
What provides a "Better" result?
Profiling your scanner using X-Rite's solution (i1Pro & i1Match) or SilverFast's solution (Auto IT8 & Their Targets)
Stay tuned for a new option that will surpass all of those...
-
Stay tuned for a new option that will surpass all of those...
You wouldn't happen to be talking about the update we are waiting for any day now from X-Rite that will be adding scanner profiling to i1Profiler would you? ;-)
-
You wouldn't happen to be talking about the update we are waiting for any day now from X-Rite that will be adding scanner profiling to i1Profiler would you? ;-)
Those that know can't say, right?
-
If you download the PDF file linked in this introductory article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/scanners/plustek.shtml) you will find a considerable amount of material on colour management using the SilverFast AI6.6 Auto-IT8 process with several scanners including the Epson 750. SilverFast 8 produces similar results with the same targets. I also discuss colour management (including Auto IT8 profiling) extensively in my book on SilverFast 8, information for which appears in the links under my name in this post. I cannot give you a comparative analysis using XRite materials because I haven't profiled a scanner using an XRite suite of software and targets. I agree with the previous post that scanner profiling will not give you a definitive result at the push of a button. It takes you much closer than not having a scanner profile, or a wrong scanner profile, but some image editing is usually needed to optimize the scan.
Thank you for your reply Mark.
And thanks for the link to the PDF.
I have noticed your book at LaserSoft's website while I was looking to upgrade to v.8
I'm not trying to find a push button solution.
I know it takes a little work just to get the scanner profiled and of course there will ALWAYS be image editing involved.
I'm just trying to get the most accurate scan possible to try and cut down on the amount of editing.
That's why I took to the forums.
To get some practical advice before spending money on solutions that might not be better than what I already have been using.
I hope you have a good Christmas!
-
You are welcome, and a happy holiday season to you too.
I think your approach to try to find out what delivers better results before spending money - and more importantly scads of time on scanning - makes good common sense. I see so far on this forum, at least, there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. Perhaps you are posing the same question in several other forums too - can't do any harm. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.
At the least, one thing SilverFast's Auto IT8 has going for it is its real ease of use to produce a profile. The "learning curve" for this process is close to zilch, but any one doing a lot of scanning also wants to be sure it would produce the closest to optimal outcomes of the available options.
-
You are welcome, and a happy holiday season to you too.
I think your approach to try to find out what delivers better results before spending money - and more importantly scads of time on scanning - makes good common sense. I see so far on this forum, at least, there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. Perhaps you are posing the same question in several other forums too - can't do any harm. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.
At the least, one thing SilverFast's Auto IT8 has going for it is its real ease of use to produce a profile. The "learning curve" for this process is close to zilch, but any one doing a lot of scanning also wants to be sure it would produce the closest to optimal outcomes of the available options.
Thank you.
I usually have to do some research before spending here because we are non-profit. Also I hate buying something that turns out not being that useful.
Yes I have posted this same topic in 2 other forums.
At the Large Format Photography Forum one person posted that he has used a few types of software for profiling including Silverfast and X-Rite solutions.
And he found they all work fine. Found the Hutch targets provide better results. But no "I've done both options and here's what I found" there yet.
At Chromix's colorforums.com there is no "I've done both options and here's what I found" yet but they strongly believe in measuring your target independently of the scanner.
eg. measurement device
X-Rite should be releasing (any day) an update to their i1Profiler software to include scanner profiling so we'll what happens there when it comes out.
Probably another topic for this forum!
We also have Onsight's previous post stating "Stay tuned for a new option that will surpass all of those..."
Who knows what that could mean?
If I find someone with an "I've done both options and here's what I found" answer I will most definitely be returning here to post it.
If not, then I may just do this comparison myself!
-
That's interesting, and looking forward to hearing back if you make a discovery.
-
Those that know can't say, right?
OK.
The i1Profiler 1.4.2 update with scanner profiling is finally out.
If this isn't the "new option that will surpass all of those..." then is it possible to at least let us know after this "new option" has been released.
For those of us who are not on the cutting edge of color info. (or who are a little clueless)
;-)
-
SNAGRAPHICS, yes, it's finally out! i1Profiler's scanner profiling solution is simple, easy and surprisingly effective.
I've been calibrating scanners for clients around the world since 1994, and making ICC profiles for them since 1999 and have spent a lot of time comparing various profiling solutions and targets. One observation is that the color gamut of film based targets is pretty small relative to the potential range of the real-world objects being scanned. The original 24 patch Colorchecker seemed promising years ago but it doesn't have a dark enough black patch to characterize the shadows, and it's color patches aren't particularly saturated either. I've tried making my own inkjet targets with little success and was briefly encouraged by XRite's ill-fated Colorchecker DC (digital camera) target. All of this changed when XRite released the ColorChecker SG (Semigloss), otherwise known as the CCSG. This reflective target has a better range of saturated colors with deep blacks and bright whites than any other target I've seen and this translates into better scanner profiles. I've insisted that all of my high end clients with Cruse scanners own their own CCSG targets and re-profile regularly with it. PMP, MP and now i1P profiles made with this target have performed very well for this type of demanding user for years now. It's also makes excellent profiles on Epson scanners. On of the reason's it's taken so long for i1P's scanner module to come out is that I've been really insistent that they release it with a wide variety of supported targets, including the CCSG.
ProfileMakerPro (PMP) and Monaco Profiler (MP) have been my scanner profiling tools of choice for over a decade. There are others that are very good as well but for me it boils down to CCSG support for reflective profiling. Mac OS 10.7 and 10.8 won't run these and other, older scanner profiling applications so i1Profiler is the solution going forward, IMO. They've made some nice improvements to the engine (that's based on the Monaco Profiler engine) that you'll see with these profiles. I think it's a solid, well built platform that they'll continue to expand upon in the future.
PMP and MP provided a lot of control over the scanner profiling process including the geeky ability to measure your own targets with a spectro and develop customized reference files. i1Profiler doesn't have this ability with this release but I'm plenty happy with the results using the supplied reference files for the supported targets. Colorchecker targets are incredibly consistent and stable over time, and making custom reference files for them has extremely little return for the effort. Making custom targets altogether is a nightmare I'd encourage people to avoid!
As for transmissive targets, I feel like the options are all very similar with no clear winner. The scanning software is so critical here, especially when it comes to the tricky task of scanning C-41 color negatives. I used to be a drum scan operator and C-41 always took such an incredible amount of time to get a scan I felt good about selling...
So to make a long story short, I recommend the ColorCheckerSG target and i1Profiler for reflective scanner profiling - it's really straightforward and the results are fantastic. As it's been said before here, scanner profiling is not a magic bullet - it's one piece to a much larger workflow pie. Color correction and color management go hand in hand with any scanning workflow and there are many aspects other to identify and take time to master (lighting, polarization, scanner metamerism, etc).
-
.......As for transmissive targets, I feel like the options are all very similar with no clear winner. The scanning software is so critical here, especially when it comes to the tricky task of scanning C-41 color negatives. I used to be a drum scan operator and C-41 always took such an incredible amount of time to get a scan I felt good about selling...
So to make a long story short, I recommend the ColorCheckerSG target and i1Profiler for reflective scanner profiling - it's really straightforward and the results are fantastic. As it's been said before here, scanner profiling is not a magic bullet - it's one piece to a much larger workflow pie. Color correction and color management go hand in hand with any scanning workflow ...........
Scott, for people scanning film, transmissive profiling is what matters. When you say the options are all very similar, what options do you have in mind and in what critical respects do you think they are all very similar?
As for color negatives, AFAIK from much previous research and inquiry, there is no such thing as "icc-profiling" them; rather one uses various inversion algorithms that neutralize the "orange" mask, image contrast and saturation (mainly) - these algorithms are either bundled with the software (SilverFast and Vuescan both do so), or one can develop them oneself in Photoshop, as I have illustrated in my book on scanning workflows. You are correct that profiling is not a one-stop shop for deriving top quality images from scans. Good colour management and editing practices are important.
-
Scott, by any chance did you try to take a picture of CCSG on film, and use it as a target for trasmissive scanner profiling or it's just a bad idea?
BTW - the profile created for a digital camera is really nice looking:
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/19059944/CCSG.jpg)
-
Scott, for people scanning film, transmissive profiling is what matters.
Naturally :-]
When you say the options are all very similar, what options do you have in mind and in what critical respects do you think they are all very similar?
I feel like the film based targets are all relatively similar. Film based reflective targets are kinda silly, but they are perfectly appropriate for transmissive scanning, since film is what we're actually scanning.
As for color negatives, AFAIK from much previous research and inquiry, there is no such thing as "icc-profiling" them.
Naturally :-]
...rather one uses various inversion algorithms that neutralize the "orange" mask, image contrast and saturation (mainly) - these algorithms are either bundled with the software (SilverFast and Vuescan both do so), or one can develop them oneself in Photoshop, as I have illustrated in my book on scanning workflows. You are correct that profiling is not a one-stop shop for deriving top quality images from scans. Good colour management and editing practices are important.
Right. Different applications perform the orange mask removal differently, and some do it much better than others! Flexscan and Nikon Scan are two of my favorites here. What we are saying is in perfect concert with each other.
-
Scott, by any chance did you try to take a picture of CCSG on film, and use it as a target for trasmissive scanner profiling or it's just a bad idea?
Probably just a bad idea. :-] The existing methods of creating transmissive targets are sufficient. The CCSG is designed to address the unique challenges of reflective scanning.
BTW - the profile created for a digital camera is really nice looking:
Lots of warm reflective light bouncing around in that shot! You can see how the CCPassport has evolved from the CCSG for the purposes of camera profiling...
-
Scott, we may be in "perfect concert" but perhaps singing past each other in one respect - perhaps you didn't get quite exactly what I was asking about. In your comment about transmissive targets where you say the options are all similar with no clear winner - I think there are people who may take issue with this; though I may not be one of them. As we both know, there are several makers of these targets, and there are targets for different films. In the case of Kodachrome, for example, LaserSoft Imaging is running down on their Kodachrome target availability and there will be no more from anyone anywhere as the film and its processing are gone. In fact, as you know, there never were many options for Kodachrome targets. Turning to targets for other positive transparency films, as you know there are more options, the most prominent ones being the various IT8 editions, of which several from LaserSoft Imaging, but also very prominent and well reputed are the targets from Don Hutchison. And there are several others. So my question really, given the generality of your statement, was to learn whether underlying this statement you have tested all these various transmissive targets and still find there to be no clear winner, because if that's the case, it's a quite significant and useful finding.
-
I used to feel good about using the Hutchison HCT targets. XRite is still making targets for an OEM relationship. Perhaps a fresh review and comparison of the targets *currently available* and *recently manufactured* is in order my I'm not likely to be the one to do this. Mark, you're probably in a better position to do so - would love to hear your thoughts if you do!
-
I would need to acquire some expensive new XRite software etc. and my time is really tight over the medium term, so I won't be doing this soon; but one should never say never, and if I do, yes indeed, I would publish the results. I've been using SilverFast's Auto IT8 calibration/profiling and their associated targets/reference files. The FOGRA Institute of Germany has tested these materials and their publicly available reports are positive. My results have been on the whole satisfactory, understanding that good profiling is very important but not a stand-alone quality optimizer.
-
I would need to acquire some expensive new XRite software etc...
You could always send your IT8 and hopefully reflective CCSG scans to someone with i1P so they could generate profiles for you. You seem like the kind of person who likes to do their homework and know the process you've chosen is the best one.
-
Yes Scott, thanks, and that is indeed possible. My principal constraint right at the moment is time, so as soon as I'm freed-up enough to get back into this I'm going to consider either buying the software or working with someone who has both the software and interest to participate.
-
SNAGRAPHICS, yes, it's finally out! i1Profiler's scanner profiling solution is simple, easy and surprisingly effective.
I've been calibrating scanners for clients around the world since 1994, and making ICC profiles for them since 1999 and have spent a lot of time comparing various profiling solutions and targets. One observation...
With the release of i1Profiler 1.4.2, maybe we should change the subject line of this thread to "i1Profiler 1.4.2 VS SilverFast's v.8"?
Or start a new thread: "X-Rite's i1Pro & Eye-One Match3 VS i1Profiler 1.4.2"
We can probably start a few other topics too!
Scott I wanted to thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed and informative answer.
You probably answered a bunch of questions I had all in one shot.
But, of course there are always more from a color rookie.
Is this update that much of a "Game Changer" for scanner profiling?
What is the difference between how i1Profiler performs its scanner profiling as compared to Silverfast's or even VueScan's Auto IT8 feature?
Now that i1Profiler does not use a measurement device, but relies entirely on the scanner, doesn't it basically work the same way as Silverfast?
I always had the impression that measuring the target was more accurate than the Auto IT8 workflow.
Does X-Rite have any plans to at least offer the option to use a measurement device in i1Profiler's scanner profiling process?
Is a measurement device necessary anymore? Is this even a concern?
Or am I just so used to profiling my V750 with my Eye-One Match and i1Pro?
Why aren't the HCT targets in the list of compatible targets for scanner profiling in i1Profiler 1.4.2?
Did I miss something here?
Apologies for all the questions but I am the entire graphics dept. here and currently in the middle of trying
to finalize a workflow of which the scanner (& profiling it) is of course an important part of the equation.
God Bless.
-
With the release of i1Profiler 1.4.2, maybe we should change the subject line of this thread to "i1Profiler 1.4.2 VS SilverFast's v.8"?
Perhaps we should. These seems like two good profiling solutions to really do a side-by-side test with. One is strictly profiling software for all devices while the other is scanning software with profiling capability. They target different audiences but still it would be fun to do a side-by-side test.
Is this update that much of a "Game Changer" for scanner profiling?
I think it is, especially as apps like ProfileMakerPro and MonacoProfiler are now discontinued and don't work on modern Mac OSs. Big deal shops that use big deal scanners like Cruse scanners can't use Silverfast so having a decent profiling solution is important. For reflective profiling the Colorchecker SG is a deal changer and i1P supports that. For transmissive scanning I doubt there's that much difference between this and other profiling solutions. For a color management consultant that needs to be able to profile anything, i1P is fitting the bill nicely these days (finally! after so much waiting!). It's nice having a professional profiling solution that will profile anything.
For those that are using inexpensive desktop scanners with Silverfast this isn't a game changer. These people already have a decent profiling solution and now they have another.
I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles. I also scanned some of them on my Imacon and sent out a few dozen for Heidelberg Tango drum scans. There are things to appreciate about each scanning solution. To ge teh best results I had to employ a variety of scanning solutions each tailored to the different challenges at hand. It was a fun exercise for a former commercial drum scan operator.
Anyway, we can talk about this till we're silly but I'd try to summarize by suggesting that you've got use a Colorchecker SG for the best reflective profiles and IT8 transmissive profiles don't vary a huge amount from one application to another. Focusing on what scanning software/solution is a more important topic. Some are clearly happy with a desktop scanner and Silverfast while others will find need to go beyond that (Cruse, drum, Imacon/Hasselblad, etc).
-
Another profiling software that might be worth adding to any test is CoCa. It utilizes Argyll open source color library. It’s free and very easy to use. http://www.muscallidus.com/coca/
-
I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles.
When scanning negatives, and outputting normal positive images, it would be expected to see a difference between Epson Scan and SilverFast since they likely employ different algorithms to convert the linear data from the scanner’s CCD into normal positive images. (I’ve done such a test with three different scanning software and indeed there was a noticeable difference.)
On the other hand, for positive scans, if i1Profiler was used to create both profiles from the scanner’s linear output, and subsequent scans were made with the same settings and the profiles assigned, it would be expected that there would not be any (or extremely minor) differences between Epson Scan and SilverFast. Theoretically, the linear output from Epson Scan and SilverFast would be identical (or nearly so) since the linear output should be the unadjusted linear data from the scanner’s CCD. In addition, if the linear files are identical, then it would be expected that i1Profiler would create identical profiles.
If different profiling software was used with the linear output to create the profiles, i.e. i1Profiler and Silverfast, then it would be expected that any differences would be due to the different profiles. On the other hand, if i1 Profiler was used to create both profiles, but from the normal output from the scanning software (not the linear output), then any differences would be expected to be due to differences in how Epson Scan and SilverFast internally convert the linear output from the scanner’s CCD into normal output.
Of course, if image adjustments are made in the scanning software, then it may not be possible to determine whether any differences are due to those adjustments, different profiles, or different scanning software.
Scott, does the foregoing correspond with your experience?
-
Dean, I don't know about the Epson software, but Silverfast has a gamma setting that applies to all scans, and can be turned on or off for raw "HDR" scans as well, it is user selectable. So depending on this setting, "linear" from each software may not have much to do with each other in the first place. Additionally, those of us using Silverfast tend to do some testing to determine what gamma setting results in the best profiles, and results seem to vary... may be scanner dependent...
Tyler
-
Tyler, based on what I’ve read, I’m pretty sure it’s possible to output unadjusted linear data from most Epson scanners using both Silverfast and Epson Scan.
I’ve also read that profiling results can vary depending on whether you start with a linear scan or first make a gamma adjustment to the linear scan, such as gamma 1.8 or 2.2. I’ve tried to replicate that outcome, but couldn’t. I started with the same linear scan, and then created three profiles using the same profiling software with the same settings, except one profile was made with the linear scan data, one with a gamma 1.8 adjustment, and one with a gamma 2.2 adjustment. There was no difference in my profiles. Perhaps under some circumstances could there be a difference, but not in my test.
-
yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output and use it for display, just not convert to a working space on the fly for you. I'm unfamiliar with the Epson software under the hood in this regard. I did make profiles with a wide variety of Silverfast gamma settings and looked at delta E's between the reference values and the results, and found that there were gamma settings better than others, but it was not dramatic. With my Howtek there is also either a linear and a log amp being used, but silverfast will not give access to a selectable option. Again, how it interacts with an Epson or other brands, I don't know..
There is some discussion of some of this on the reference material at hutchcolor.com as well, a good site for scanner color management info.
Bottom line for this thread, I'm probably muddying the water, since what you are after is simply a way to get unadjusted output from both softwarezzzz. For Silverfast, HDR with the gamma preference unchecked for HDR will give you that.
Tyler
-
I think your approach to try to find out what delivers better results before spending money - and more importantly scads of time on scanning - makes good common sense. I see so far on this forum, at least, there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. Perhaps you are posing the same question in several other forums too - can't do any harm. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.
yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output and use it for display, just not convert to a working space on the fly for you. I'm unfamiliar with the Epson software under the hood in this regard. I did make profiles with a wide variety of Silverfast gamma settings and looked at delta E's between the reference values and the results, and found that there were gamma settings better than others, but it was not dramatic. With my Howtek there is also either a linear and a log amp being used, but silverfast will not give access to a selectable option. Again, how it interacts with an Epson or other brands, I don't know..
There is some discussion of some of this on the reference material at hutchcolor.com as well, a good site for scanner color management info.
Bottom line for this thread, I'm probably muddying the water, since what you are after is simply a way to get unadjusted output from both softwarezzzz. For Silverfast, HDR with the gamma preference unchecked for HDR will give you that.
Tyler
After enough "sitting on the fence" I decided to finally upgrade to Silverfast v8.
I want to take a shot at doing some comparisons between profiling with X-Rite's i1Profiler 1.4.2 and Silverfast IT8 feature. (maybe even Eye-One Match as well)
I will not be using SilverFast's AUTO IT8 feature seeing that I did not purchase any of the LaserSoft IT8's yet. Will do it "manually" for now.
I will be using 2 Monaco IT8's (reflective&transparency) that came with EZcolor in my V750Pro bundle.
Also have one Wolf Faust R1 reflective (flatbed) scanner target coming in any day now.
Below are the settings I will be using for SFv8 and Epson Scan.
I hope these are the correct settings and as comparable as possible between the two pieces of software.
Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated.
This test won't be that "scientific" seeing that I don't have the experience of others but I will try to post some sort of results here and even the created profiles. (if anyone is interested)
-
Based on your screen grabs, those settings look right for scanning profile-making targets. I would be interested in seeing your comparative outcomes.
-
yes, certainly Silverfast's "HDR" mode with gamma setting NOT applied is unadjusted... and it is still a color managed mode in a sense, it will assign your profile on output ...
Tyler, do you mean that the file is linear? Also, what profile is assigned, and do you mean that that profile is embedded?
-
I hope these are the correct settings and as comparable as possible between the two pieces of software.
Sngraphics, you may want to scan a target with both Epson Scan and SilverFast and compare them in PS. Any significant differences should be readily apparent.
-
According to this web site, it’s not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, you’ll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan.
Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/
-
According to this web site, it’s not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, you’ll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan.
Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/
Thank you for the links. I had a chance to read them over.
Would this info apply to reflective scanning as well.
Just asking because I will be using 2 reflective IT8s for this test and only 1 transparency.
-
Sorry, I can't be more helpful. I just scan film. I suspect that you'll have to make some minor change to the settings for reflective, such as the input type, but most of the instructions should be valid for reflective scans, too.
-
The scanning software is so critical here,
I like comparing Silverfast with Epson Scan on my own Epson flatbed. I did a huge scanning job for a special client recently and profiled the scanner both through Silverfast and Epson Scan. Afterwards I scanned a whole bunch of prints, 4x5 C-41 negs and 4x5 transparencies in both apps and compared the results. Believe it or not (and much to my surprise) I preferred the Epson Scan results more often than the other. But some images clearly scanned better in Silverfast so there was no clear winner to use 100% of the time. Of course, this had more to do with the scanning software than the profiles. I also scanned some of them on my Imacon and sent out a few dozen for Heidelberg Tango drum scans. There are things to appreciate about each scanning solution. To ge teh best results I had to employ a variety of scanning solutions each tailored to the different challenges at hand. It was a fun exercise for a former commercial drum scan operator.
Focusing on what scanning software/solution is a more important topic. Some are clearly happy with a desktop scanner and Silverfast while others will find need to go beyond that (Cruse, drum, Imacon/Hasselblad, etc).
I know this topic is about scanner profiling but when I read all this (especially about EpsonScan) I just had to ask your opinion (and anyone else's of course) on which scanning software produces better scanning results.
(Resolution, Color etc. For both Transmissive & Reflective scans)
The reason your comments specifically caught my eye is because I have been using EpsonScan with my V750 since I've had it and recently have been trying SilverFast(more) and VueScan(less) with the thought they might be better than EpsonScan because they are separate solutions you actually pay for and have more options with.
Regards,
Frank
-
According to this web site, it’s not possible to output linear files with Epson Scan. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Epson/Perfection/Epson_Scan/
Since it appears that Epson Scan cannot output a completely unadjusted file, you’ll have to work with as close to unadjusted as you can with Epson Scan.
Here are instructions for linear scans with SilverFast 8. http://www.colorneg.com/scanning_slides_and_negatives/scans/Lasersoft_Imaging/SilverFast_8/SE/Ai/
Vuescan allows a "RAW" output that can be imported in ACR. Not more than a "RAW" Tiff where Vuescan does not interfere on the basic scan data. It is possible to create a DNG profile too as I have done with CC Passport and the X-rite software for an Epson V700. Reflective scan of course. The target is not optimal as I understand from the discussion here but I mention it for others that it is possible.
So far I find the color results of an Epson 3200 reflective scan better than with the V700. Using the 3200 with Vuescan in a normal fashion. I think the spectral sensitivity of the V700 is more aimed at photo dyes than the 3200 is and by that less suitable for reflective scanning of a variety of originals that do not have photo dyes. I guess the HP G4050 and G4010 are even better for this purpose of scanning non-photo originals in reflective mode. A clever use of two different CCFL light sources. See third article on this page:
http://www.image-engineering.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=91
Whether one can improve on that with custom profiles remains a question, I think the HP engineers must have done a lot of tweaking for a lot of originals and their colorants.
The Vuescan "RAW" setting also allows a simple reversal of a negative scan so I use that for B&W negative scans made with the Green LEDS only of the Nikon 8000. That makes it easier to use the tools in ACR for further RAW development, like the lens sharpening tools. Noise reduction in ACR is however not that nice for film scans in my experience. Neat Image does a better job later on.
--
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2012, 500+ inkjet media white spectral plots.
-
Perhaps we should. These seems like two good profiling solutions to really do a side-by-side test with. One is strictly profiling software for all devices while the other is scanning software with profiling capability. They target different audiences but still it would be fun to do a side-by-side test.
...there hasn't been a forthright answer to the effect: "I've done both options and here's what I found". I must say I'm a bit surprised about that. If some one does pop up with a respectable comparative view of these options, please do revert here and let us know. I for one would be most interested in reading about it.
Sorry for such a delay but I finally got around to taking a shot at doing some comparison tests between these scanner profiling solutions using different targets and scanning softwares.
This is the first time I have done this so please forgive any missteps and feedback would be much appreciated.
The various tests and results will be posted under a new topic because I felt it would be better to start one with a more accurate title.
For anyone that's interested the title of the new thread will be: Scanner Profiling Comparisons: i1Profiler1.4.2 vs SilverFast8 IT8Cal vs i1Match3
I will not be providing too much feedback on the results because I cannot say which one is "better". (I do have my preference though)
More so I will be providing the profiles themselves, screen shots of the results after creating the profiles and Photoshop files containing test scans with the applied profiles.
This post will be available soon so anyone interested can download these files, look them over and provide any comments based on their own experience and knowledge.
Thank you.
-
No need to apologize - our participation in these forums is a voluntary hobby, not an obligation. I too am way behind on one set of issues for a number of good reasons - but I haven't forgotten and I'm not apologizing. Anyhow - great that you are doing this. I have some of this kind of work underway as well in another context, so it will be fun to compare observations if and when that becomes possible. I look forward to the posting of your new topic, and I would be interested in your comments on the results, because in the final analysis results is the one thing that really matters most.