Digital BW, The Print

After reading these posts, I went back and downloaded VS to try again, for
the 3rd time.  Surely, I must have been missing something.  Unfortunately, I
came away with the same impression as before: NikonScan (with the 4000 ED)
is far preferable in my system (Mac OS 10.4.9), hands down.

I thought that specifying the specific film type in VS, in this instance
XP2/400, and following directions carefully, would give VS an edge.  It
didn¹t happen.  The NS raw scan, in simple B&W mode, was far superior.  The
VS scan would have required some heavy tonal correction in PS compared to
what had to be done for the NS scan.

I guess we Mac users are just less tolerant of struggling with difficult
interfaces, and struggle I did with VS.  Maybe as djon43 implies, VS is
friendlier to the Wintel, rather than the Mac, world.  Or maybe there are
some hidden secrets in the documentation that I was too lazy to ferret out.
In any event, I¹m finished with the experiment.

Harry Lockwood


On 4/12/07 11:04 AM, "djon43" <djon43@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> I use Vuescan and Nikonscan with my Nikon V, Vuescan and Epson with my
> flatbed. 
> 
> I have had no problems with any of them, or with Minolta's
> application, with the exception that Vuescan doesn't as conveniently
> control film advance with the motorized Nikon SA21 carrier...I use
> Nikonscan with color negs only.
> 
> Vuescan's front end seems initially complex, but that's mostly because
> it involves linear logic and lacks cartoons and graphics that make
> other apps seem more friendly. I like being able to use the same
> scanning workflow on both my flatbed and my Nikon, and it worked well
> on my Minolta, while that briefly functioned.
> 
> The performance advantage of Vuescan over Nikonscan, that I find
> convincing, is with silver B&W. 1) It may not exaggerate grain as much
> as Nikonscan. 2) Its "slight grain reduction" setting definitely does
> prevent grain exaggeration and it does not soften the grain or degrade
> finest detail. This makes post processing applications related to
> grain and noise unnecessary, if they ever were necessary to Photoshop
> users. 
> 
> You'll find, if you follow posts on this topic on other sites, that
> there is an individual who continually damns Vuescan, even damning the
> man behind it as a person. When somebody reports huge and continuing
> problems with Vuescan, this is sometimes the story. Personally, I've
> never had a problem with Vuescan in 98 or XP, but I've heard
> real-sounding complaints with Mac.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> , Daniel Ridings
> <dlr@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > I have been using Vuescan for about 5 years now. Best thing since
> sliced 
>> > bread in my opinion. One piece of software for all of my scanners.
> Works 
>> > the same everywhere.
>> > 
>> > This was done with it and the b/w print is even more beautiful:
>> > 
>> > http://www.dlridings.com/paw2007/14.html
>> > 
>> > Don't go in to the darkroom either if you don't want to learn things.
>> > 
>> > Daniel
>> > 
>> > 
>> > David Keenan wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > 
>>>> > >  >Try Vuescan,
>>> > > 
>>> > > Don't try it, though, if you want scan software that doesn't require a
>>> > > degree in both computer science and scanner design to use -- nor
> if you want
>>> > > software that has anything more than the most rudimentary
> documentation --
>>> > > nor if you want software that is backed up with timely, responsive
> technical
>>> > > support.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I own it and have tried to use it numerous times and never without
> a high
>>> > > degree of frustration. I have 30+ years experience with computers and
>>> > > software development so I'm hardly a novice-- and I think that
> while the
>>> > > developer of Vuescan may mean well, this product borders on being,
> well,
>>> > > just plain awful.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Silverfast is marginally better but it has its own issues.
>>> > > 
>>> > > I pretty much end up using the manufacturers software be it Epson,
> Nikon, or
>>> > > Minolta. These are far easier to operate and the results come out
> just fine.
>>> > > 
>>> > > Dave.
>> >
> 
>  
>     


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]