Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: V750/EZ Color/Silverfast = hair loss  (Read 3639 times)
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« on: February 26, 2009, 01:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I cannot figure out how I'm meant to get these to play together.

Silverfast has built in ICC profiling.
Epson ship Monaco EZColor and targets.
Silverfast needs Silverfast targets to use the built in ICC profiler
So I need to profile using Monaco - but how to I then get that profile to play with SilverFast?

In fact, how to I get Silverfast to work at all?!  I'm going to go back to work out why it's not accepting my serial now...

Thank you

Charly
Logged

David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2009, 11:04:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: situgrrl
I cannot figure out how I'm meant to get these to play together.

Silverfast has built in ICC profiling.
Epson ship Monaco EZColor and targets.
Silverfast needs Silverfast targets to use the built in ICC profiler
So I need to profile using Monaco - but how to I then get that profile to play with SilverFast?

In fact, how to I get Silverfast to work at all?!  I'm going to go back to work out why it's not accepting my serial now...

Thank you

Charly

Well, I haven't got your setup, but as far as I'm aware, you can select any profile in Silverfast's colour settings, it doesn't have to be one created by the program.  For example I can switch between the manufacturer profile and a Silverfast generated profile for my Minolta film scanner.

As for the serial, why not ask Silverfast support ? They're usually pretty responsive.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
stevebri
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 171


« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2009, 11:12:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Charly,

I have this kit and after first paying Silverfast for an upgrade, then they wanted me to buy THEIR targets i stopped using it.

I profiled with Monaco and I use Vuescan and I scan as a raw flat image.

I know Silverfast has a big reputation but it's half baked, clunky and doesn't 'work' for me in a workflow sense.

All we want from a scan is: all shadow/highlight detail, little noise, accurate ish colour..  Most scanning software does that.

If you haven't decided to, you might consider dropping Silverfast, Last time I enquired they said they didn't support 64 bit Vista and had no intention of doing so.....



........ ok then...

S
Logged
David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2009, 04:45:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I would tend to agree that Silverfast deserves a Lifetime Dog's Breakfast Award for UI Engineering, but the software does work very well once you get on top of it. I would say that it is easier to understand than VueScan, which despite being a sterling effort, does expose the fact that it is a one-person project.  Personally I always get the feeling that it isn't entirely clear what's going on with VueScan. Both, in any case, could seriously benefit from a long weekend on Usability Island.

It must be a pretty hard task keeping a film scanning software company above water these days, so I tend to cut them some slack. Lasersoft do tend to try all sorts of tricks to extract money from their dwindling customer base, but I can't really blame them. Sometimes, just sometimes, they still come up with good stuff, like the recent multi-exposure upgrade.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2009, 04:45:46 PM by drm » Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2009, 07:30:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I've now resolved the profiling issues but I REALLY hate SilverFast....it strikes me as the most arrogantly designed piece of software on the planet.  It's like the company does not listen!  The UI is horrible and they have never done anything about it and it's so expensive.  Partly! I bought the 750 for the "full version" only, it's not - and won't be until I cough up for HDR Studio it seems - though I don't know - because the documentation is so terrible - it's an ongoing informercial on why you should upgrade rather than how to use what you have.

David, can I ask what you upgraded to and how you use it?  At the mo I have Ai.  Scanning as HDR in theory gives the "raw" scan - but in doing so, fails to invert - so I'm left with a "positive-negative" if that makes sense.  I can, of course invert it in photoshop but I don't see what "HDR" gives that scanning an unadjusted regular 16/48 bit file doesn't.  Perhaps I'm not looking close enough or at the wrong thing?  Really, I want a smooth workflow from the scanner and into Lightroom, scanning to PS to LR just seems - backwards!  Especially as I will then go back to PS for soft proofing at the very least.

I understand that if I upgrade to Ai Studio, I get the multi exposure option - which would be nice.  I understand that if I upgrade to HDR, I have the possibility on working on the files scanned after the fact.  Does HDR offer any benefits over Photoshop?  Is it all marketing bull?  Should I just go with Steve's option?!  I'd rather not - I have afterall paid for SilverFast!

Thanks
Logged

David Mantripp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 696


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2009, 01:06:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: situgrrl
I've now resolved the profiling issues but I REALLY hate SilverFast....it strikes me as the most arrogantly designed piece of software on the planet.  It's like the company does not listen!  The UI is horrible and they have never done anything about it and it's so expensive.  Partly! I bought the 750 for the "full version" only, it's not - and won't be until I cough up for HDR Studio it seems - though I don't know - because the documentation is so terrible - it's an ongoing informercial on why you should upgrade rather than how to use what you have.

David, can I ask what you upgraded to and how you use it?  At the mo I have Ai.  Scanning as HDR in theory gives the "raw" scan - but in doing so, fails to invert - so I'm left with a "positive-negative" if that makes sense.  I can, of course invert it in photoshop but I don't see what "HDR" gives that scanning an unadjusted regular 16/48 bit file doesn't.  Perhaps I'm not looking close enough or at the wrong thing?  Really, I want a smooth workflow from the scanner and into Lightroom, scanning to PS to LR just seems - backwards!  Especially as I will then go back to PS for soft proofing at the very least.

I understand that if I upgrade to Ai Studio, I get the multi exposure option - which would be nice.  I understand that if I upgrade to HDR, I have the possibility on working on the files scanned after the fact.  Does HDR offer any benefits over Photoshop?  Is it all marketing bull?  Should I just go with Steve's option?!  I'd rather not - I have afterall paid for SilverFast!

Thanks

Charly, I have Ai Studio with Multi Exposure.  I bought the full version about 9 years ago, and I've paid for maybe two upgrades since.  I've never really got into HDR - it requires a lot of work in Photoshop, and I find that if I tune Silverfast well, then I can get very usable scans directly in 48 bit RGB. You can buy Silverfast HDR I guess (careful, I'm not sure that this is a more fully-featured version than Ai, but rather a seperate application), but I'm not sure I see the point if you already have Photoshop.  There are of course two arguments - make a "flat" scan in Silverfast and correct in Photoshop, or do as much as you can in Silverfast.  The latter would be more attractive if Silverfast was known to be working on pre-output, so raw scan data, but it is pretty opaque about this.  Anyway, I've settled on doing mild levels and curves adjustments in Silverfast, and any colour work as required in Photoshop (or rather I let Photokit Color do it for me as I'm lazy and it's cleverer than me). By the way, the Multi Exposure option also splits opinions. On my scanner, a Minolta Dimage ScanMulti Pro, it works at least as well - and much faster than - 8x sampling. But others have been less impressed. Check the Lasersoft forums.

The problem with the UI is that it is showing its age. It was designed back in the days when DTP was _supposed_ to be difficult and arcane.  I'm sure Lasersoft are fully aware that it is very far from meeting expectations of users these days, but I have to say in their defense that I doubt that cost of redesigning it would ever be recouped in sales. People moan about usability but they're rarely prepared to pay "just" for an interface redesign. You do get used to it after a while, and frankly, what competition has it got ?  VueScan ?  Geek heaven, but even worse UI.  I believe Nikon's Capture software is pretty good, but for that you need a Nikon scanner.
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad