Re: why is silverfast better than generic scanning software?

["Gary L. Hunt" <glh@srv.net>]

At 04:46 AM 1/10/2000 -0800, Michael Greer  wrote:
>
>This whole thread has evolved to this point because I was trying to make a
>point about the relative importance of scan software in today's digital
imaging
>workflow. Jerry was concerned about not having Silverfast available to him in
>the Epson Expression 1600's software bundle. Then he started wondering what
>seperates Silverfast from other such application. I was trying to point out
>that yesterday (before scan software returned high bit data to the host and
>before the host could accept it), scan software was much more important
than to
>today. Today, since hosts can accept the high bit data and scanners can
return
>it, the reliance on the "goodness" of scan software as waned. This is NOT to
>say it's better to do the corrections in the host application. I do mine
in the
>scan software. This is simply to say that they CAN be done there with
>equivalent results.

We're on the same wavelength here.  I'm willing to use whichever alternative
gives me the "best" images with the least work.  With my present situation,
this is generally the scanner software.  I'm still having trouble getting
decent
scans (i.e. decent prints) of some images, and so far, I haven't managed to 
improve those specific images by using raw scans in Photoshop--but I'm 
still hopeful that I will eventually.  I've saved up the worst ones and am
about
to head into my darkroom to try printing them there.  (I had forgotten how
much easier it was just to turn on the Epson printer and start printing.)

Gary Hunt <glh@srv.net>

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.