If you've ever spent long hours colour correcting colour negative images after NikonScan has been at them then you may appreciate Vuescan or Silverfast. NikonScan does not have this sort of profiling and simply uses a generic algorithm to remove the orange mask and invert the image. This is done with a database that Vuescan has containing the colour characteristics of each type of film.īy using the advanced workflow you can lock the expsoure and the orange mask so that the film profile can then perform a correct negative-positive translation. One of the biggest advantages of Vuescan, and probably Silverfast, is the ability to accurately remove the orange mask from colour negative film and invert the image to make a well balanced colour positive.
If Nikon could remedy this problem and allow you to set color samplers in the image the software would improve a lot. The biggest problem with the raw scan workflow is that the image changes slightly when imported into Photoshop, because you cannot use your monitor profile when Scanner RGB is your color space. The Scanner RGB mode allows you to use the LCH editor and still output a raw scan. This way you can make your color adjustments in curves or levels and then use the lightness curve in the LCH editor to adjust the brightness of your scan without altering the color balance of the image. You can use it the way you can use LAB in Photoshop, since it also separates contrast from color. I find the LCH editor in Nikon Scan to be very good. GEM,ICE and ROC are far superior to the Vuescan equivalents though, so I wind up using Nikonscan for most of my scans. I have Vuescan and can only find 2 plus points, (1) It does a better job with the latest generation of Agfa negatives than Nikonscan, (2) It has less of a blue cast when scanning Kodakchromes than Nikonscan. Like you I too am puzzled by the enthusiasm for Vuescan and Silverfast versus Nikon scan.