They cannot even make up a believable excuse. I don’t know why they just won’t admit they are too lazy to profile Acros, inspite of all the many requests they have received to do just that. I use and like Silverfast, and use a great deal of Acros, so their attitude about at least making an effort to profile it, the same effort they extended for many lesser used films, has always irked me. If anything, Acros is the film which isn’t “a normal B&W”, given the response curve. None of those films have an orange mask, so who do they think they are fooling? One wonders why they pretend to have Negafix profiles for Tri-x, PanF, HP5, etc, all of which are markedly different, if that’s their attitude. Much like how one has there own method of printing their analog negatives, The more you use it, the more of the intricacies you will find, and will begin to learn tricks for your personal look you like. Its a matter of taste, and as stated above the monitor that your viewing with. In fact, in the past, we have used a different Negafix profile for a particular film we shot, and not the one they have listed for that film. The look and result you want, the exposure and development method you use, is not consistent from one user to another. is very GERMAN!!! But have found nothing else that has ever come close to it for my use!Īlthough its frustrating, my belief is why SF does not do any modern profiles, is that its very subjective to how you personally scan. Or, the profile assigned is that provided by the device manufacturer (and applied also at the screen).Ĭlick to expand.Although you could, by selecting 'OTHER', for not having any profile, we have never done it.īut can noticed the difference in scans, when trying to find a profile that works best for the film we may be scanning that does not have a profile.Īs with Arista 400. baseline sRGB + ColorMatch + whatever else, combined and recalibrated for the destination device.
SILVERFAST 8.8 BATCH SCAN PROFESSIONAL
In Post, profiling at a professional (lab) level is highly customised to the destination (printer(s) ) and is a worked-up specific combination of several profiles combined e.g. For B&W films, no profiling is necessary at all, as it assumed the native gamut (1.2 or 2.2 or customised adjustments for print output). Images viewed on the web (profiles as sRGB, AdobeRGB or ColorMatch or the plain ghastly ProPhoto) can be grossly distorted colour-wise because so many, many profiles are on millions of uncalibrated/old monitors. Profiling is carried out in post (after and only after all other adjustments are completed), with the objective of matching the input to the output e.g. Profiling is very rarely (if at all) done at the scan-step by default, the scanner assumes the profile that is available, if it is not explicitly selected, and once taken to post, the profiling is often swapped out by the software's default, again unless something has been explicitly selected.
I hope others will chip in with useful information on this thread,and I will be following with interest.Īnd more to the point, it is completely superfluous and unnecessary.
Have you emailed them about this with a query? According to all my contacts, they are usually very responsive. Often as not it won't be a setting for the particular brand of film (Kodak, Fuji etc) you are using, so you'll have to chop/change until you hit pay dirt.Įveryone I know who originally went with Software, is now using ViewScan which, I believe, will support your scanner. My way of dealing with it so far has been to scan a negative of average contrast whenever I try out a new film, and play with the different settings until I find one that most closely suits the 'look' of the final image I want. Yes, there are quite a few of us facing the same problem you described.
SILVERFAST 8.8 BATCH SCAN SOFTWARE
My Plustek scanner (the software came with it) still functions well, but it is almost a decade old and I shudder at the thought of having to buy new software when it eventually passes away or my old laptop curls up its toes - you can be bloody sure it won't be Silverfast!
(Disclaimer: Offence not intended here to non-neurotic Germans, of which there are many.) The 'situation' you describe is one of my major complaints with the software - it just doesn't seem able to cope with 21st century films, and while it does the little that it can do, reasonably well, it isn't really good enough to want to put up with all its varied ideosyncracies. I've been fighting on and off with Silverfast since about 2008, and long ago decided it was designed by a team of neurotic Germans to make other neurotic Germans (the users) even more neurotic.
0 kommentar(er)
