![]() ![]() It is all you need.My wife bought me a Plustek OpticFilm 8200i SE scanner for Christmas. You need a decent profiler software that does better than built in scanner software calibration. I tried Prism profile and it does better job than the Silverfast or Vuescan film profile it seems. Yeah just realised when I learn about metamerism just last night so this one is the issue problem. Not to mention metamerism kicks in when Agfa profile is used with other kind of film stock. I think it still does lag behind with other dedicated film scanner such as Minolta or Nikon.Īgfa target is probably too old to use it. ![]() Best just colour correct after default scan then it looks good. Cos when I tried to use Agfa chrome IT8 it came out green haze in black or shadow area. Probably better off using default scanner setting in Vuescan without calibration. The black is black not haze green/black or magenta/black in dark contrast area. I find that Vuescan does better job with slide without any calibrating the scanner so it looks good. Positive may come different story though. Vuescan is not very good with negative I am afraid it is all flat and washed out. ![]() If Plustek did fine tune LED to be not too bright, it would have come off much better result but my belief is that LED has to be bright to shorten scan time while they have narrow aperture not wide aperture to keep sharpness even across the film even the corner of it. Yeah and I think Plustek CMOS/LED do not mix well so the brightness off raw scan is actually too bright and it is hard for Silverfast to compensate it. Just get your scan and do everything outside of SilverFast. So should I use very flat setting and then edit later in photoshop? So when using Silverfast film emulsion like Fuji Superia 100 same as on film strip it came up too bright or too contrast. I guess Plustek Opticfilm 120 is not good at dynamic range. I have notice when using film setting in Silverfast, some contrast is too harsh and I tried everything like reduce exposure or anything nothing much luck. Lightroom is very good at postprocessing. I normally work in Lightroom, not being very good at Photoshop Moreover, as mentioned above, you have way more control than in silverfast. In silverfast you are working with a preview of the image whereas in Lightroom or photoshop you can see the final result. This means that most of the time your scan will look a bit flat. All the rest of the post-processing should be done elsewhere (especially sharpening). Multiple exposure and IR cleaning for instances should be done there. I need to learn what needs learning and what I can safely ignore.īasically, any setting that will help pulling more information from the scan should be done in Silverfast. It seems that the majority of SilverFast can be ignored. ![]() Hmmm.I normally work in Lightroom, not being very good at Photoshop nor wanting to spend huge amounts of time there with every image. I'll reckon that the algorithms in photoshop are more sophisticated as well. Photoshop without a doubt! You'll have a lot more control of the final result. I do not have a good feel for what is better so would appreciate some guidance. Is it highly preferable to do this while in Silverfast or do some here think that it is better to just ignore that feature and complete that in Adobe software? Can anyone comment about which is better, doing various processing actions in Silverfast as opposed to Photoshop or Lightroom? For example, you can sharpen in Silverfast. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |