S
Silence Seeker
My new "EPSON Perfection 3200 PHOTO" scanner came with two supporting
programs:
1. EPSON Scan
2. SilverFast SE
I initially installed EPSON Scan and was able to use it for scanning
35mm negatives in no time: The color seems OK and it *automatically*
identifies and scans 12 images in one session.
After resloving a few issues regarding desired scan resolution (you
may remember me from an earlier post), I felt I was ready for the big
job: Archiving all my family 35mm negatives.
This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.
Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.
So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.
Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)
I am confused. Wasn't SilverFast SE supposed to better "guess" the
colors? Am I supposed to enter color correction by hand?
Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?
Could it be that for batch scanning the best tool after all is EPSON
Scan?
Thanks,
Sam
programs:
1. EPSON Scan
2. SilverFast SE
I initially installed EPSON Scan and was able to use it for scanning
35mm negatives in no time: The color seems OK and it *automatically*
identifies and scans 12 images in one session.
After resloving a few issues regarding desired scan resolution (you
may remember me from an earlier post), I felt I was ready for the big
job: Archiving all my family 35mm negatives.
This is a huge task, which is unlikely to ever be repeated again, so
since I already have SilverFast SE, I decided to check whether it
could actually be even better for this project.
Sure enough, after some reading I discovered that SilverFast SE is
supposed to be superior to EPSON scan by the mere fact that it "knows"
how to calibrate and get the most correct colors by matching the film
type (e.g. Kodak VR-100). Also, EPSON scan overcrops 1-2 mm from each
side of the frame, which seems to me too much.
So, impressed by these superior capabilities, I decided to install
SilverFast SE. I ran it, entered the film type of the negatives I just
placed on my scanner - and expected to see vivid & truthful colors, at
least better than those generated by the "low end" EPSON scan.
Instead, I received "blue-ish" result, far far away from the EPSON
scan colors which seem pretty good (albeit not the best ones that
could be extracted from the given hardware?)
I am confused. Wasn't SilverFast SE supposed to better "guess" the
colors? Am I supposed to enter color correction by hand?
Have I misunderstood the purpose of SiverFast SE? Is it possible that
it is really intended for those professional uses in which one spends
hours to tweak and fine tune a single (highly valued) photograph?
Could it be that for batch scanning the best tool after all is EPSON
Scan?
Thanks,
Sam