Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Carl Pultz wrote: > I agree. I find there is better rendition of both extremes of the > brightness range with Vuescan and an easier means of controlling how the > sw places the white and black points. Is that your experience, Nathan? Yes. And also, when I have scanned the same B&W negative with Vuescan and Nikon scan, and then look at both in Photoshop at 100%, then the Vuescan scan was visibly sharper (without any manipulation). > I think color is closer to correct on those programs, for Reala anyway. > I have to do heavy correction in Photoshop to what the Vuescan white > balance usually renders. Still the final result is better, and I use the > processing time to read the LUG digest. I never use C41 films, and find that for slides the Nikon Scan and Vuescan are about equal, except for Kodachrome where Vuescan is better. The biggest difference in performance is in B&W IMO, and that is the main reason I use Vuescan. Finally, I have to confess that I like the idea of supporting a small software company, which makes a good product for $40 and where my e-mails with questions are always answered promptly and competently. Nathan - -- Nathan Wajsman Herrliberg (ZH), Switzerland e-mail: wajsman@webshuttle.ch mobile: +41 78 732 1430 Photo-A-Week: http://www.wajsman.com/indexpaw2002.htm General photo site: http://www.wajsman.com/index.htm - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html