Scanner recommendations

Oatcake

Oatcake

Messages
169
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
No
What scanner would you recommend?

I''ll be shooting 35mm colour film (C41) only, so I have a fair few options. The main thing I am concerned about is speed. I did look into a Pakon 135 as this can alledgedly scan 36 frames in ten minutes, but they are like £600 used and that's if you can find one. Hearing from my friends using Epson scanners I've heard anything from 40 minutes to 2 hours a roll. The plustek scanners are another option, but I hear you have to advance the film holder manually between each frame, whereas the Epson flatbeds can scan a strip without much human intervention (thereby allowing you to do other things while you wait).

As far as quality/size goes I'd be happy if I can get an 8x10 print from the file. If I ever need to do anything bigger I would either rescan or send it out to someone with a better scanner.

I'm not sure what the best options for software are either. The plustek comes with silverfast, which I hear good things about. The Epson software seems to get mixed reviews and buying silverfast in addition to an Epson will prove expensive.

I'm looking to move all my photography over to flim and want to start developing and scanning myself. So expect a lot more questions from me in the coming weeks while I ascend the ever increasing learning curve that this will bring.

Matt
 
Last edited:
I've been looking in to scanners recently as I'm moving over to film although I'm struggling to find anything in budget for 35mm and Medium Format, however for 35mm the following grabbed my attention;

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan10T.html
https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/reflecta/reflecta-proscan-10t.html

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html
https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/reflecta/index.html

There appears to be mixed revies on VueScan and SilverFast with people moving between camps, SilverFast looks horrific cost wise when you move up to 35mm & MF Scanners.

It'll be good to see people opinions to see what else is out there for dedicated scanners.
 
I've got an Epson V550 and would say it takes approx 8-10 mins to scan two 6 shot strips of 35mm negatives at 3200 dpi on my PC. I'd estimate it takes me around half an hour to scan a 24 exposure roll, and about 45 mins for 36 exposures (including time for loading and unloading the negs, dusting the glass etc). I don't tend to do much manipulation of the images in the scanner software unless there are highlights and shadows that I feel are best recovered there, but this adds additional time if I do. I also give the area around my scanner a damp dust before starting as it minimises the amount of dust.

I've not used anything other than the bundled Epson software, which has been fine for my needs, but that doesn't mean that there aren't better options out there.
 
Last edited:
I use a Plustek scanner (sorry, I cannot remember which model) and I find it excellent. Yes, you have to manually move the film holder between scans but I check the scanner setting for each negative so the one second required to move the film holder is nothing.

The reason I check the scanner settings for each negative is because negative density varies according to the details of the shot. I could use standard settings for an entire film but that rather obviates the point of going to the trouble of using film in the first place.
 
First, are you certain that you'll never want to go larger than 35mm? If 10x8 is your maximum print size, and you'll never need to crop much, then you should be fine. But if you do decide to go larger, then realistically, an Epson flatbed will be the best choice as offering the chance to scan larger negatives. I've used Epson flatbeds since I started scanning (so take that as either hopeless bias or user satisfaction) and from the earliest models 35mm will give a reasonable 10x8 print.

You will get higher resolution from a dedicated film scanner, but the question is whether you will need to.

The big advantage to VueScan (apart from running with almost any scanner) is that you can save the raw scan data, and adjust parameters afterwards to improve the scan without needing to take the time to rescan. When I first started scanning 5x4 negatives, each scan took 4 hours (dropped by half when I increased the 512KB RAM on the computer) which meant that if I needed a small tweak in the scan settings, I was in for another 4 hour wait without VueScan.

I don't use 35mm so I can't comment on the scan times - and 5x4 scans no longer take literally hours with a new computer - the four hours was in 2003.
 
If your just sticking to 35mm is might be worth looking for the Nikon Coolscan, the 4000 or 5000ED machines, used, I have an older Coolscan IV machine and it takes roughly 30+secs per image to scan at 2900dpi but speed is not an important thing for me.

SIlverfast is fantastic bit of software BUT it is not easy to use, I used to use it on one of my scanner when I ran OSX Snow Lepoard but when I upgraded to Yosemite it did not work any more so I got hold of Vuescan, its quirky to use and takes a bit of arsing around to get it to work as you want it, but for the price you can beat it and the added advantage is I can run all 3 of my scanners off it. With Silverfast you are one machine one licence.
 
If you are serious about scanning 35mm I'd forget totally about flatbed scanners. They might do if you're just casual about it. Rather, I'd look for a (used) Coolscan or similar - which commonly have a film feeder of some sort as well as a holder for (6) neg strips. BUT - older models may have a legacy scsi connection which is a hell of a fiddle on any Windows later than XP, so do your research!. Some also had firewire, and later ones usb. However since these scanners are out of manufacture Nikon haven't updated the driver software and it won't generally run on current systems.

Silverfast SE at about 49 euros is a good alternative but will be dedicated to a particular scanner model - you may find there's a learning curve but that's true of most apps anyway. It's good with colour neg. There's Vuescan too (but I hate the interface and much prefer Silverfast) for a similar price - which works with nearly any scanner and is available cross-platform including Linux. You can trial both these free to see what suits.

Because film frames can vary so much I'd normally eschew any sort of automation and want to make tonal adjustments manually per frame in scan software. But this might not suit your drift?

There is of course a profusion of cheap and nasty film scanners - and nasty is the word!
 
Last edited:
I've used both a Plustek 7500i and an Epson V500, although only a few 35mm rolls through the latter (hundreds of rolls through the former). The big advantage of the Plustek is that its registration is secure enough to do multi-pass and multi-exposure scans, including an infrared pass, that can be used on colour film (except Kodachrome) for dust removal. Yes, it IS a bit slower and more fiddly having to advance the film between each frame, but than again I never did manage to get the multi-frame scan option on the V500 working properly. And the most you can get on the scanner is a strip of 6 frames (4 if they are mounted slides) in either case.

Multi-pass rescans each frame with the same parameters and averages the results, and as a result reduces noise in the scan (*). Multi-exposure adds an extra pass at a higher exposure (same light but slower pass, I think). For slide/reversal/transparency film that pass punches a bit more out of the shadow areas, while for negatives it can give a bit more detail in your highlights. The infrared pass is an optional extra; the idea is that the frame itself is transparent to infrared (almost) but the dust isn't. So any dark areas on the IR pass can have those areas automagically removed from the scan file and interpolated. In the worst cases this can lead to softness or even weird artefacts, so be careful. All these extra passes can slow things up a lot. I tend to set a frame scanning, then go away and do something else, then come back and set up another frame. As mentioned above I prefer to give individual attention to each frame.

It's worth reading some of the scanner reviews on filmscanner.info to begin to understand the difference between the nominal resolution and the actual achieved resolution. Basically, almost none of the available models will scan much above 2400 ppi whatever it says on the tin, and many much less. Reflecta is said to have some good models (but beware, they also sell cheap models that scan direct to SD cards with in-built software; avoid these and the even cheaper ones from other brands).

I used Silverfast 6 SE for a long time, until a Mac upgrade stopped it working. I had a look at Silverfast 8 but the upgrade was very expensive (much more than €49) and it would only be usable on the one device, so I switched to Vuescan Pro, which I can use on both scanners plus the scanner in my all-in-one printer and anything else I buy in the future with continuing free upgrades. Silverfast does have a handy masking function that I used when applying IR dust reduction on old dusty Kodachrome slides, which allowed me to get most of the dust out of sky areas. It does have a function similar to the raw function in Vuescan mentioned above, but I think you have to pay a lot more for the version that uses it.

One issue with colour negative film is the orange mask which makes "inversion" to positive tricky. Vuescan has a set of templates for the inversions, but they are not complete for all emulsions and not always accurate. My ability to manipulate colour in PP is very poor, so I've tended to get my C41 films scanned by the lab; Filmdev does a good quality low cost scan that's better than I can. For the most accurate inversion I would scan the frames as positives then pass them through ColorPerfect which does an excellent job for an extra €50 or so (I forget exactly how much).

* I believe that if you scan at twice the pixels per inch rating and then get your software to reduce down the same size you can achieve a similar effect of noise reduction.

EDIT: just checked the web site; the version of Silverfast SE available at €49 does not include multi-exposure, or the Kodachrome choice, and you have to go to AI Studio at €299 to get IT8 target calibration and 16 bit histograms (and, I think, the equivalent to Raw). Vuescan Pro has multi-exposure and IT8 calibration built in for US$79.95.
 
Last edited:
I use Silverfast and when I moved from a PC to an iMac, I updated the Silverfast to the iMac version at no cost (Silverfast 8). I only have the one scanner so there is no issue for me there.
 
ChrisR said:
One issue with colour negative film is the orange mask which makes "inversion" to positive tricky.
Click to expand...

All Silverfast versions have 'Negafix' which works pretty well.

ChrisR said:
... the version of Silverfast SE available at €49 does not include multi-exposure, or the Kodachrome choice, and you have to go to AI Studio at €299 to get IT8 target calibration and 16 bit histograms (and, I think, the equivalent to Raw). Vuescan Pro has multi-exposure and IT8 calibration built in for US$79.95.
Click to expand...
Matt quoted his purpose as C41 type films, for which multi-exposure may be less needed than for slide film?

SF 8SE may not have 16-bit histograms, but it nevertheless can output 16-bit files. If one assumes further work being done in say Photoshop (CS / CC), this can be useful.
 
I use vuescan so I can use it with any scanner I like. I have an old minolta film scanner. It is very good but they're daft money to buy now. I don't think I could stand having one that required me to move the carrier between frames.

Has anyone made a genuinely high resolution medium format film flat bed scanner?
 
srichards said:
I use vuescan so I can use it with any scanner I like. I have an old minolta film scanner. It is very good but they're daft money to buy now. I don't think I could stand having one that required me to move the carrier between frames.

Has anyone made a genuinely high resolution medium format film flat bed scanner?
Click to expand...

Yeah you can get a big MF scanner in the style of your minolta... Mega bucks though!
 
srichards said:
I use vuescan so I can use it with any scanner I like. I have an old minolta film scanner. It is very good but they're daft money to buy now. I don't think I could stand having one that required me to move the carrier between frames.

Has anyone made a genuinely high resolution medium format film flat bed scanner?
Click to expand...

Nikon 8000 and 9000 work well no longer new and on the used market for anywhere between £1500 - £2000

Minolta did a Dimage Scan Multi Pro which was i competition to the Nikon 8000, I can remember the last time I saw a Minolta.

Or if your feeling flush then the Hasselblad X1 and X5 Flextight scanners £12000 - £18500 which go up to 5x4, or there about, have seen them used but most of the older ones use SCSI connections so would be tricky on modern day computers.
 
Sorry for the late reply, I have been reading the replies with great interest and I've been researching all day. I think I'm more confused now than I was before!

Dork Knight said:
I've been looking in to scanners recently as I'm moving over to film although I'm struggling to find anything in budget for 35mm and Medium Format, however for 35mm the following grabbed my attention;

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaProScan10T.html
https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/reflecta/reflecta-proscan-10t.html

http://www.filmscanner.info/en/ReflectaRPS10M.html
https://www.scandig.com/filmscanner/reflecta/index.html

There appears to be mixed revies on VueScan and SilverFast with people moving between camps, SilverFast looks horrific cost wise when you move up to 35mm & MF Scanners.

It'll be good to see people opinions to see what else is out there for dedicated scanners.
Click to expand...

The RPS 10M appeals as it can scan a full roll of uncut film. Does anyone know if this would speed up the workflow?

john.margetts said:
The reason I check the scanner settings for each negative is because negative density varies according to the details of the shot. I could use standard settings for an entire film but that rather obviates the point of going to the trouble of using film in the first place.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. I know that with silverfast you can preview all the shots, set the sliders etc as you want for the first frame and start scanning it, whilst it's scanning you can prepare the settings for the next frame.

StephenM said:
First, are you certain that you'll never want to go larger than 35mm? If 10x8 is your maximum print size, and you'll never need to crop much, then you should be fine. But if you do decide to go larger, then realistically, an Epson flatbed will be the best choice as offering the chance to scan larger negatives. I've used Epson flatbeds since I started scanning (so take that as either hopeless bias or user satisfaction) and from the earliest models 35mm will give a reasonable 10x8 print.

You will get higher resolution from a dedicated film scanner, but the question is whether you will need to.

The big advantage to VueScan (apart from running with almost any scanner) is that you can save the raw scan data, and adjust parameters afterwards to improve the scan without needing to take the time to rescan. When I first started scanning 5x4 negatives, each scan took 4 hours (dropped by half when I increased the 512KB RAM on the computer) which meant that if I needed a small tweak in the scan settings, I was in for another 4 hour wait without VueScan.
Click to expand...

I think a dedicated 35mm scanner is the way to go. I'm only really interested in that medium and all the projects I am working on have already been shot in 3:2 aspect. I don't see that changing anytime soon. What do you use to edit the raw scan files John? I'd like to stay away from longwinded workflows like photoshop if possible. I hear that when you scan RAW you don't need to tweak the settings for every frame, do I have that right? I'd be happy with a jpg output if it saves me having to add photoshop to the workflow.

Knikki said:
If your just sticking to 35mm is might be worth looking for the Nikon Coolscan, the 4000 or 5000ED machines, used, I have an older Coolscan IV machine and it takes roughly 30+secs per image to scan at 2900dpi but speed is not an important thing for me.

SIlverfast is fantastic bit of software BUT it is not easy to use, I used to use it on one of my scanner when I ran OSX Snow Lepoard but when I upgraded to Yosemite it did not work any more so I got hold of Vuescan, its quirky to use and takes a bit of arsing around to get it to work as you want it, but for the price you can beat it and the added advantage is I can run all 3 of my scanners off it. With Silverfast you are one machine one licence.
Click to expand...

srichards said:
I use vuescan so I can use it with any scanner I like. I have an old minolta film scanner.
Click to expand...

Will the nikon scanners feed a whole roll of film or strips without putting them into a frame? Thats also what appeals to be about the Reflecta RPS 10M. What does the workflow look like with vuescan with a scanner of this type? Is it the same as silverfast where you can preview the strip, and scan one frame while you're working on the next?

Knikki said:
Nikon 8000 and 9000 work well no longer new and on the used market for anywhere between £1500 - £2000

Minolta did a Dimage Scan Multi Pro which was i competition to the Nikon 8000, I can remember the last time I saw a Minolta.

Or if your feeling flush then the Hasselblad X1 and X5 Flextight scanners £12000 - £18500 which go up to 5x4, or there about, have seen them used but most of the older ones use SCSI connections so would be tricky on modern day computers.
Click to expand...

Bit out of my price range that!

excalibur2 said:
if you live near Middlesbrough to collect this would be a good buy if the bidding stay cheap and IF it has all the film holders http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Scanner-E...962113?hash=item3f73c0e941:g:qB4AAOSw241YfNiC it will easily give a VG 8X10" print scan from 35mm
Click to expand...

I'm watching that one on ebay. Bit of a trek for me to collect though so it'd need to be pretty cheap to make it worth my while (2.5hrs each way).

I am leaning towards the Reflecta RPM M10. It seems to get decent results and it'd save the hassle of dealing with frames. Software wise I am leaning towards Vuescan purely to keep costs down and it seems to have great customer service/support, upgrades, etc.

If I got the relfecta, the way I would like my workflow to go is:

1. Preview scan whole roll
2. Make selections of which frames to do a full scan on
3. Edit settings for first frame and set it on it's way
4. While that frame is scanning, edit settings for second frame
5. Rinse and repeat, once the scanner has done one frame it automatically advances the film to the next frame and does its job

Am I right in thinking that this is how it works? Excuse my ignorance. I was hoping to find a decent youtube tutorial for vuescan but I'm struggling to find one that uses a scanner with a film feeder rather than a flatbed or one that relies on the user to advance the frame.

Another thing that came up during my research is that IT-8 colour calibration seems to get you a lot closer to a finished product straight from the scanner. However, the calibration targets only seem to be available for kodak, fuji and kodachrome. I'm probably going to be using a lot of agfa vista 200 (at least in the beginning, because I also have to learn how to develop my own film and vista 200 is cheap so it doesn't matter too much if I screw up). Does the calibration have to be done with the particular emulsion you are using or not? I'm assuming the calibration is a once-only or at least periodic thing and once it's calibrated you're good to go. I am also planning on pushing the vista to 400 or 800 so I imagine this is going to screw up any film profiles as the contrast and colours will wind up different than normal. Is it hard to edit/create your own film profiles?
 
Blimey, you'e making everything sound incredibly complicated, like you expect to workflow through a thousand frames a day on some bonkers production line or something.
As a home user, you are going to have to dedicate some measure of personal attention to every single frame at some point or another, "batch" and go for a coffee isn't a realistic target unless you're not too picky about the results.
 
Dork Knight said:
There's a review on the Reflecta below with a section on scanning a whole roll;
http://www.35mmc.com/14/01/2017/reflections-reflecta-rps-10m-guest-review-frank-lehnen/
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I do like 35mmc. It sounds like he isnt completely convinced about the benefits though. The batch scanned colour files, although flat, did look like they could be easily edited in lightroom at probably less than a minute a shot. I'm not sure how well it would deal with a wide variety of exposures on the same roll. He didn't really get into specific details regarding settings etc...

excalibur2 said:
For the V700:- http://www.imaging-resource.com/SCAN/V700/V700.HTM and http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson V700/page_1.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check that one out too.

joxby said:
Blimey, you'e making everything sound incredibly complicated, like you expect to workflow through a thousand frames a day on some bonkers production line or something.
As a home user, you are going to have to dedicate some measure of personal attention to every single frame at some point or another, "batch" and go for a coffee isn't a realistic target unless you're not too picky about the results.
Click to expand...

Having never done this before I don't know what to expect in terms of workflow. Some people I've asked say they're batch scanning a roll on a Pakon 135 in 10 minutes, and others are spending two hours reviewing and changing settings frame by frame. I'm looking to you guys to enlighten me! Unfortunately I don't have a lot of spare time on my hands so any time reduction in me sitting in front of a computer effectively doing nothing whilst the scanner does its thing between frames is of great benefit to me. In terms of the quality I am expecting I have been getting my shots scanned at max speilman on the high street, I'd like them to be higher resolution than theirs so I can print bigger but in terms of the quality/colour I'm pretty happy. I'm not a pixel peeper by any means - in fact one of my favourite shots in the last few months was taken on a disposable camera. No matter how much money and time I spend on scanning, I doubt I'm going to get a fantastically detailed file out of that negative. I plan on doing my shooting for the meantime with an olympus mju-ii point and shoot if that makes any difference. I like the snapshot aesthetic. If I get around to it, I want to teach myself how to shoot film with a manual flash at some point so I might give my Pentax MX an outing. I'm generally a fan of pocket cameras though as I always have one with me.

Does anyone know if vuescan can batch scan DNG raw files? Could this be a good option to come back and post-process them when I do have the time to sit in front of the computer without having to wait for the scanner between frames?
 
skysh4rk said:
Retracted
Click to expand...

Oh RJ, I dunno what you've retracted but you've always got something valuable to say.
We need to balance out jox's airy fairy approach with some equalizing RJ science and sense, for the greater good of the thread...:)
 
Refracted.....;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
Just the standard Epson V500. I have the 4980 but thats because i need to scan LF.
 
joxby said:
Oh RJ, I dunno what you've retracted but you've always got something valuable to say.
We need to balance out jox's airy fairy approach with some equalizing RJ science and sense, for the greater good of the thread...:)
Click to expand...

Oatcake said:
Yeah, all input is welcome!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I had been trying to provide an alternative perspective on scanning and the challenges that it presents, which is a role that I've played a number of times in similar threads, but I thought that my post was potentially too negative in tone. I certainly don't want to discourage experimentation with film.

I will keep it simple and say that I've owned or have access to scanners from the relatively inexpensive (e.g., Plustek and Epson) to the absurdly expensive (e.g., Hasselblad Flextight X5) and there is nothing fast or straightforward about any of these in my experience. Plus, through my own complex calculations, I have determined that there is an inverse relationship between scanning time and time spent cloning out dust in Lightroom, which is the real killer for me in the self-scan process.
 
I know that is a little perverse but I rather like dust spotting, i find it relaxing and rather satisfying. I will admit though that i'm not in any way normal. o_O:)
 
Andysnap said:
I know that is a little perverse but I rather like dust spotting, i find it relaxing and rather satisfying. I will admit though that i'm not in any way normal. o_O:)
Click to expand...

The scanning/cloning process for a few photographs is fine, if even enjoyable, but it gets tiresome quickly beyond that for me. Over the last three years, I have averaged in excess of 180 rolls of 120 format per year and I have neither the time nor the patience to undertake that amount of dust spotting.
 
I don't think scanning film and no time are words that belong in the same sentence.
Nobody's had anything to say about digital ice, I haven't used it enough to proffer an untainted review, I tried it once, I wasn't impressed and haven't bothered since, but that doesn't mean it isn't effective by some measure....I dunno
Pro labs must have some method of automated dust spotting cos they're not gonna do it manually.
 
joxby said:
I don't think scanning film and no time are words that belong in the same sentence.
Nobody's had anything to say about digital ice, I haven't used it enough to proffer an untainted review, I tried it once, I wasn't impressed and haven't bothered since, but that doesn't mean it isn't effective by some measure....I dunno
Pro labs must have some method of automated dust spotting cos they're not gonna do it manually.
Click to expand...

If you use ICE it doubles the scan time, unfortunately, at least with the Epson scanners. Also, it's not 100% effective in my experience, so you still will need to do quite a bit of cloning. With the Hasselblad scanners, the ICE capability is software-based, so the photographers that I know using the Flextight don't bother with this feature and clone out the dust later.
 
skysh4rk said:
If you use ICE it doubles the scan time
Click to expand...

Yeah I read that too, I guess I'd try both ways and see which is quicker. Has anyone tried the silverfast HDR software? Apparently that lets you do a raw scan and then come back and do the adjustments later, which would at least allow me to break the job up into chunks.

joxby said:
I don't think scanning film and no time are words that belong in the same sentence.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm starting to come to the conclusion that it's going to take a lot of my time up.
 
Oatcake said:
Yeah I read that too, I guess I'd try both ways and see which is quicker. Has anyone tried the silverfast HDR software? Apparently that lets you do a raw scan and then come back and do the adjustments later, which would at least allow me to break the job up into chunks.
Click to expand...

I have done raw scans with both Silverfast and Vuescan. It results in huge files that I never use, so I no longer bother. I can see an argument for a raw scan with colour negative photographs, depending on how you want to invert it, but it's pointless for black and white in my opinion.
 
skysh4rk said:
I have done raw scans with both Silverfast and Vuescan. It results in huge files that I never use, so I no longer bother. I can see an argument for a raw scan with colour negative photographs, depending on how you want to invert it, but it's pointless for black and white in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I obviously can't contradict your own experience, and, from what has been said (size of negative, maximum print size, paramount requirement to take as little time as possible) then this would probably also be true for the OP. My experience, work flow, negative size and volumes lead me to a totally opposite conclusion. When I first started scanning, my scanning parameters were hit and miss, and I often produced scans with such limited tonal range that I couldn't fix them in Photoshop. At four hours a scan it took a lot of time to go back and try again; with a saved raw file it was only a minute or less. Even now, I find the ability to make a small tweak almost instantly a benefit. I look on it as "scan once, process many" and find it helps me. My scans, by the way, are black and white.
 
Ah ok, that's probably worth bearing in mind. From what I can tell silverfast with negafix seems to give an almost finished result. Where as vuescan gives a flat scan that requires a lot of arsing around in photoshop to correct the colour cast. Does that sound about right to you?

I had a play with the demo version of vuescan and using the ring around tool I found it incredibly frustrating trying to remove the colour cast. And even when I did the saturation and hues were still completely wrong.
 
Not in my experience. I scan using a Nikon cool scan 4000 and 9000 and an Epson 750, Silverfast in my experience is one of the worst pieces of software I've ever had the misfortune to try and use. I used to think that Nikon Scan was troublesome to use buts it's a dream compared to Silverfast and although VueScan is clunky it works very well with all 3 scannners and is constantly being updated which makes it great value imho
 
Also, I don't bother with Photoshop 99% of the time I scan everything as Tiffs and then catalogue and tweek as necessary in Lightroom.
 
RaglanSurf said:
Not in my experience. I scan using a Nikon cool scan 4000 and 9000 and an Epson 750, Silverfast in my experience is one of the worst pieces of software I've ever had the misfortune to try and use. I used to think that Nikon Scan was troublesome to use buts it's a dream compared to Silverfast and although VueScan is clunky it works very well with all 3 scannners and is constantly being updated which makes it great value imho
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'd agree with this assessment. Silverfast is terrible. I much prefer Vuescan, which works with all the scanners I own and have owned, and is much easier to navigate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top