markds
Lives in
Canada
Joined on
Oct 6, 2005
|
Comments
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| Female Yellow Dung Fly by mikero from Insect/Spider - macro only and no close-up | No deal by Hooyat from Neither a lender or a borrower be | PA020047.Bald Eagle Approach.2 by Hornsbee from BIF | The king of the mountain by Dan Paris from Landscape with Wildlife | Couples' oh No moment! by mythshri from Seated Couples | Bon appetit! by valenttin from Van een mug een olifant maken | Big eyes by Minas_Eye from Eye - macro/close-up |
VEK: All scanner programs are SOFTWARE and does NOTHING to your scanner, adjust light etc!
All scanner scan i fact in auto and then afterwards you " adjust" in the software.
USE your scanner i "Auto" mode, only crop and use best optical resolution. (Often underscored_) otherwise interpolated.
Aftewards adjust in Photoshop or Lightroom
An interesting tidbit indicating something many here may not realize: LaserSoft Imaging has developed another application called SRDx which removes dust and scratches very effectively (if carefully used to avoid erroneous corrections) without the need for an IR channel.
John Koch: I can attest that, when scanning negatives or prints, the single biggest problem is dust on the platen or the item scanned. Prints from old albums usually about with dust from worn folio paper. They are also apt to have lots of fingerprints or other blemishes. Negatives usually have dust too. Or the dyes may have faded and lost color saturation. Often some hues fade more than others. Another thing that dismays: film negatives or slides shot with 35mm SLRs common 40-60 years ago are not very sharp. Not clear whether this was due to slow film speed (and camera shake), sub-par lenses, or an intrinsic limit of the resolution of Kodak or Fuji 100 ISO film of the era. I recall reading somewhere that ordinary 35mm film had a resolution comparable to 5 or 6mp. My eye suggests it was equal to less than 2mp. Am I mistaken? Or was over-the-counter film less than optimum?
A considerable literature is available about the native resolution of film media, and indicates resolution potential in the range of 300PPI equivalent or more, depending on a number of key conditions. Beyond the film, camera shake and lens quality would be major determinants of sharpness, quite apart from resolution (they are not the same thing!)
rpjallan: Couldn’t find the ebook by Mark Segal on the SilverFast store. Looks like it could have been replaced by the version 9 one which is a pity...
Thank you for the commendation Wolfgang, much appreciated.
As for being pleased or not pleased, I think we must accept that things we have no control over will happen for their own reasons. Unfortunately, they pulled the book from their website behind my back so when I found out, I had to scramble to develop a new portal, which is now in place at PhotoPXL.com.
While this book is not totally up-to-date with the most recent tweaks of the software - or the Adobe applications for that matter, I agree with you that the fundamentals don't change much and this book remains the only resource I know of showing options for integrating SilverFast with Adobe applications, which of course really leverages SilverFast and provides users with multiple approaches for optimizing images. So much about software, as we see in the comments to this review, is more about user preference, feature preferences and experience, than it is about the intrinsic qualities of the applications.
2manylenses: I have a question that I hope someone can answer: I'm scanning using a Sony a7RII on a macro focus rail set up. Can either of these 3rd party scan software solutions be used with images taken with a camera, not a scanner?
You didn't mention whether you are scanning positives or negatives. If negatives, a very elegant solution allowing you to work in the raw format is to use Negative Lab Pro version 2 as a plug-in to Adobe Lightroom, where you can enjoy the whole integrated process from ingestion/cataloguing to editing in both applications to outputting for Web, Print or Books.
There are third-party resources at least for SilverFast 8 and Vuescan. Sascha Steinhoff for Vuescan from Rocky Nook, and mine for SilverFast 8 (now available through PhotoPXL or Imaging 91); mine also covers optimizing between SilverFast, Lightroom and/or Photoshop.
I don't think reviews like this can do justice to the options and the differences between these products. They have trial periods - download, try and decide based on your own needs and preferences.
Finally, the scanner era is ending. Truly high quality equipment has vanished (except for some supply in the resale market) and the options for digitizing film using cameras have been growing a lot. This is the way forward for all of us with decades of film waiting to be digitized efficiently - buy some accessories and the right copy lens and use a camera.
Idiots. Many other lovely places on earth to use as photo backdrops.
Very comprehensive and useful review, except for one critical issue that is almost a deal-breaker for this camera, if the situation is the same as for the a6300: sensor cleaning: the in-built sensor cleaning is close to useless. If you manage to have stubborn dirt on the sensor, which can happen easily when changing lenses in various environments, Sony wants you to send the camera to an authorized service center to have the sensor cleaned. But what if there are none anywhere near where you need to use the camera? Sony steadfastly and quite rudely, refuses to provide ANY information to customers about what fluid, swabs and procedure should be used for self-cleaning the sensor. This makes me suspect an issue with the sensor coating or the cleaning materials THEY use that they don't want customers to know about. Sad situation, impairs usability and very bad management of customer relations.
PhotoHawk: I am against buying CS as a service (in the cloud). It is very much in Adobe's interest to have me work with CS in a subscription model and very much not in my interest. Adobe can artificially create a "burning bush" by making new features available only in the cloud but frankly all they will do is alienate me and I'll find an alternate such as Capture One for example that recognizes that not everyone wants a software as a service model.
Frankly I think Adobe is a getting a bit too pushy and is putting long term alienation of its user base at the altar of short term profits.
But then most of us have been saying that for years.
When you think of it, the traditional up-grade cycle was about once every 18 months and the up-grade cost for PS alone was about 200 dollars. That's around $11 per month. Now they are asking 20, so almost double. The one advantage of it is that new features come more quickly than they did with dot releases, if that is at all important to you. The major disadvantage is that it's a taxi meter - the day you stop paying you cease having Photoshop, whereas a perpetual license is exactly that. There's no question that it's an attempt to chain users to a revenue grab at a time when the case for upgrading becomes less compelling with each new release, because the application is so mature that its capabilities probably far exceed what most of us will ever need. Their bean-counters aren't dumb, but they may be outsmarting themselves. Time will tell.