The latest version of SilverFast Ai IT8 - MICROTEK Scan-Software (Mac) is 6.6 on Mac Informer. It is a perfect match for the System Tools category. Unison file sync mac download. The app is developed by LaserSoft Imaging. Font univers free download mac. SilverFast Downloads. Soundflower mac download cycling 74. Demo Versions. Download embroidery software for mac. Our SilverFast movies introduce the software and its most important features - online, as downloads, or for integration in SilverFast. (to the Movies) Top 10. https://yellowdis.weebly.com/blog/java-applet-plugin-mac-download. SilverFast 8 First Steps SilverFast 6.6 Manual Docu Installer. SilverFast SE NIKON LS2000 (Mac) for Mac Free to try LaserSoft Imaging Mac OS X 10.3/10.4/10.5/10.6 Version 6.6.2r4 Full Specs Download Now Secure Download.
Hi,
I am using Silverfast Ai Studio 6.6.1r1 on a Macbook Pro (latest Leopard-Version) with a Nikon Coolscan V ED for HDR-Scans of my negatives.
The rest of the editing is done in Photoshop (ColorNeg-Plugin - http://www.colorneg.de or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html#plugdesc for the english website).
Today i found out, that there are to versions of Silverfast Ai Studio available:
- The M-Version (NikonM) that uses the Nikon-Drivers (as far as i understood)
- The SF-Version (NikonSF) that uses Silverfast-Drivers and gives me iSRD instead of ICE (by the way, why is the scanner described as SCSI in the options?)
After installing the new (SF) version (i have used the M-version so far) my ColorNeg-Plugin gave me not as good colors as it used to do.
So I installed the M-version as well and scanned the same negative with both Silverfast-Versions.
The ColorNeg-Plugin needs 'true' 16bit linear-scans, so both version have the 'for HDR-Output'-gamma-option unchecked.
The scan itself is done in negative mode and 48bit HDR.
When i open both (HDR-)images in Photoshop the look very different.
How is that possible? The Settings are exactly the same in both versions.
Shouldn't this data just be unprocessed data from the scanner and therefore pretty much the same?
Normally i wouldn't complain, but the SF-HDR-output does not get a long with my plugin (the colors from an M-HDR are way better!!).
On the other side iSRD gives me better dust- and scratches-handling (except some odd artefacts in high resolution scans, but this will be another thread).
I would be very thankful if someone would explain all this to me. I wouldn't want switch over to v**s**n to do my HDR-scans.
best regards,
daniel
P.S. While I'm talking about the two Mac-Versions:
Why does it take Silverfast so much longer to get the overview-images in the SF-version? it's about six short scans in this version.
I am using Silverfast Ai Studio 6.6.1r1 on a Macbook Pro (latest Leopard-Version) with a Nikon Coolscan V ED for HDR-Scans of my negatives.
The rest of the editing is done in Photoshop (ColorNeg-Plugin - http://www.colorneg.de or http://www.c-f-systems.com/Plug-ins.html#plugdesc for the english website).
Today i found out, that there are to versions of Silverfast Ai Studio available:
- The M-Version (NikonM) that uses the Nikon-Drivers (as far as i understood)
- The SF-Version (NikonSF) that uses Silverfast-Drivers and gives me iSRD instead of ICE (by the way, why is the scanner described as SCSI in the options?)
After installing the new (SF) version (i have used the M-version so far) my ColorNeg-Plugin gave me not as good colors as it used to do.
So I installed the M-version as well and scanned the same negative with both Silverfast-Versions.
The ColorNeg-Plugin needs 'true' 16bit linear-scans, so both version have the 'for HDR-Output'-gamma-option unchecked.
The scan itself is done in negative mode and 48bit HDR.
When i open both (HDR-)images in Photoshop the look very different.
How is that possible? The Settings are exactly the same in both versions.
Shouldn't this data just be unprocessed data from the scanner and therefore pretty much the same?
Normally i wouldn't complain, but the SF-HDR-output does not get a long with my plugin (the colors from an M-HDR are way better!!).
On the other side iSRD gives me better dust- and scratches-handling (except some odd artefacts in high resolution scans, but this will be another thread).
I would be very thankful if someone would explain all this to me. I wouldn't want switch over to v**s**n to do my HDR-scans.
best regards,
daniel
P.S. While I'm talking about the two Mac-Versions: