Software for Plustek 8100 Transparency Scanner

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Chopper 01 Jan 2021

I've been getting used to my Plustek 8100 scanner but I'm less than impressed with the associated SilverFast software. I'm just trying a free download of VueScan which I think Rob Exile Ward endorsed on my earlier thread about scanners. It certainly seems to produce better images.

Before I splash out the cash are there any other votes for VueScan? They seem to do a standard version circa £20 and a pro version at circa £60. Depending on the UKC verdict I might plumb for the pro.

OP Chopper 01 Jan 2021

I've just noticed that the standard version only allows flatbed scanning so it looks like the Pro

OP Chopper 01 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

BUMP

 ali.scott 01 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

What don't you like about Silverfast? I know the interface takes a bit of getting used to, but having used both SF and Vuescan, I *much* prefer Silverfast. Batch scanning is an absolute nightmare in Vuescan, at least on the Nikon and Epson scanners I've used. 

OP Chopper 01 Jan 2021
In reply to ali.scott:

> What don't you like about Silverfast?

Because I found the scanned image on SilverFast appalling. Difficult to illustrate with showing you comparable images. I am having no problems with VueScan. It does what I want it to.

 Andy Johnson 01 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

> Before I splash out the cash are there any other votes for VueScan?

I have a plustek scanner (as well as an Epson flatbed) and I opted for vuescan pro over the supplied silver fast s/w. Vuescan takes more getting used to, but the results and flexibility make it far superior in my experience.

Post edited at 21:39
OP Chopper 01 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> I have a plustek scanner (as well as an Epson flatbed) and I opted for vuescan pro over the supplied silver fast s/w. Vuescan takes more getting used to, but the results and flexibility make it far superior in my experience.

Quite agree. As I said I found the scans from the SilverFast atrocious and I'm finding no big problem with the VueScan

In reply to Chopper:

I'm finding Silverfast produces really dark images,  maybe I'm being to hopeful but an hoping to minimise post processing if possible.  same setup as you...

 Tim Sparrow 02 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

Vuescan for me. 

 Frank R. 02 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

While VueScan does really great job of talking to many otherwise unsupported scanners, the whole UI looks and works like something from the 1980s (it's awful). Unfortunately, SilverFast (last time I used it, few versions back, when my version still worked with then current computers, refused to upgrade afterwards for their ridiculous prices) looks like something from the 1990s, not that much better. Scanning overall is tedious at best. Scanning with software that is two decades old and doesn't want to change (what author of VueScan said about its UI, which is simply just awful) or is frequently bugged (SilverFast, according to some reviews) is painful. 

I think both have serious problems. VueScan's UI is simply bad, no other words for it. SilverFast used to be not that much better - not even in the latest versions, from what I have read (and their license policy is simply awful as well). Your best bet might be scanning RAW (DNG) with whatever software you have and using something modern to process the resulting RAW files. Perhaps Negative Lab Pro (although I haven't tried it myself, since it requires Lightroom). Perhaps something else.  

Post edited at 19:17
 Andy Johnson 02 Jan 2021
In reply to Frank R.:

> VueScan's UI is simply bad

Disagree that it's bad.

Sure the UI is a bit agricultural. But it gets the job done, doesn't get in my way, and produces better results. I'll go with that over something that's prettier. It's a tool, not a lifestyle accessory.

 kevin stephens 02 Jan 2021
In reply to Chopper:

Another vote for Vuescan.  I get excellent results from my Minolta 5400 film scanner 

In reply to Andy Johnson:

I find the VueScan program easy to use with the Nikon Coolscan - much easier than the software that came with the Nikon scanner. As you say, it gets the job done.

 Frank R. 03 Jan 2021
In reply to Andy Johnson:

> I'll go with that over something that's prettier. It's a tool, not a lifestyle accessory.

I don't need software to be "pretty" (ugh!), I need good workflow. Sorry, but I do think I do have an understanding what distinguishes good workflow from "prettiness" - working as a PJ, editing hundreds of photos on the sidelines during 15-minute football halftimes with a deadline over my neck. Comparably, scanning workflow with VueScan for big batches ain't good.

For me, VueScan does get in my way and makes my workflow slower and prone to mistakes. I value my time, especially since scanning is such a slow process. Of course, everybody's use is different and it might be ok for you, just not for me.

I scan mixed batches of different films from years past from a big archive, 120 and 135, on a big flatbed with tranny adapter (big Microtek, glass-less). I was surprised how much time I had to spent just having to click and adjust all the different options between each film. Presets didn't help at all, since you can't choose the specific settings to be saved. It's always so many mouse clicks between each film scan.

It's easy to make a mistake that ruins the whole batch (saving as grayscale, since you have several different options that set scan colour, all over the place in the options). File management, since you have several options to set file names again all over the place (and they don't stick). When I compare it to professional photo workflow tools like PhotoMechanic (different, but still a similarly niche photo tool), yep, it's bad. If you only scan a few films at once, yep, it might be just fine.

But for many older scanners, it's the only game in town (and I am really glad that anything still supports them, after all, without VueScan, most scanners would be just paperweights!). Any consumer scanner software sucks (if it even works with modern systems at all), there's been zero to little innovation in it, being such a small market. Everything feels like using SilkyPix or worse.

It's a like a love-hate relation - I really love that Ed Hamrick still makes software that can talk to any old scanner working on latest Apple M1 hardware (yay! incredible!), but hate that it looks and works just like when we had OS 9...

End of rant

Post edited at 21:16

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...