Photo scanner compatible for macOS Sonoma.

Best is measured by optical and density measurement. Some info next so you know what you're comparing as you search.

The higher the optical resolution, the finer the detail that can be seen by the scanner. An obvious comparison - a scanner with a 3200 dpi optical resolution isn't as good as one with a 6400 dpi optical resolution.

The higher the density range (D-Max), the better the scanner can see and capture specular highlight and shadow detail. Less obvious to most people - a D-Max of 4.0 is considered perfect. Some scanners can go higher than that, but then you're usually talking about true (and very expensive) PMT drum scanners.

Like the Richter scale, D-Max is a logarithmic measurement. While a D-Max of 3.4 doesn't sound bad compared to 4.0, it's actually huge. The lower value is okay (not great) for reflective scans, but is horrible for negatives and positive film (slides and transparencies). What will happen on that 3.4 scanner is shadows will fill in with random black pixels where you can see detail in the film. Near white values will simply blow out to white. That because the 3.4 scanner can't tell the difference black and near black, or white and near white, so it assigns them all the same value. Roughly, anything that would be 85% black or darker will fill in as solid black. Anything about 5% gray or lighter will become white.

Ignore all resolution measurements you see like 6400 x 9600. The second number is meaningless. It's still 6400 dpi no matter what. The higher number is simply the length of the glass area being half again as long as the width.

There's a huge cost difference between the V600 and V850, but it's that 3.4 D-Max vs. 4.0 D-Max you're paying for more than anything else. That, and it's twice as fast.

When we closed our business, we sold our Creo Eversmart Supreme II. I had no interest in lugging around a 150 pound commercial level scanner in retirement. But, I also wanted something as a replacement that could come at least close to its scanning capability. After looking at every currently available flatbed scanner (meaning, still being made and supported, not just you can buy one and hope it works), the only scanner that compared is the Epson V850.

The scanning software that comes with the V850 works, but is generously described as garbage. Very few controls. I tried VueScan with it, and while that also worked, it was also highly simplified. Not the kind of control I was used to with the Creo's oXYgen Scan software. The V850 comes with a base version of SilverFast. While it took a while to get used to, it didn't take me long to decide to purchase the higher level upgrade to get the extra pro controls.

Okay, more info than you probably wanted, but asking for "best" kind of requires explaining why one is better than the other, and not just throwing make and model names out.

"Best" is in the eye of the beholder.

Epson makes very good scanners. The Epson V600 & V850 are among the best photo scanners. Both are supported on Sonoma.

The Silverfast software that came with the scanner may be several versions older than what Silverfast now provides as compatible with macOS Sonoma. You may want to check the Silverfast site for a newer version stated to be compatible with Sonoma.

VueScan Professional is kept current and I use it on Sonoma with a Canon flatbed scanner. I don't have a V850 scanner yet to comment about using VueScan with it, and Kurt Lang's informed discussion has touched on the VueScan .vs. Silverfast comparison.

Per VikingOSX's explanation, the SE version of SilverFast you have is likely too old to run under Sonoma. You can download a trial that will work directly from LaserSoft. Click the Test SilverFast SE button a bit down from the top of the page.

If you decide you like it, you can upgrade to a more advanced version for much less than a full version copy would normally cost. You actually do this from within the SE software menu while it's running. Though I'm not sure if that would work from a downloaded copy of SilverFast SE. It's been quite a while now since I did the upgrade from the SE version bundled with my V850, and I don't recall if it asks for the SE serial number. You may have to call them directly to get the upgrade price by reading the serial number off the DVD sleeve to them.

Personally, I wouldn't pay for the top-of-the-line Archive version. The only thing it adds over the Studio version is a clone stamp tool. But that's something you would already have your image editing software for.

If your scanner supports it (the V850 does), it goes beyond typical software based dust removal methods and uses a separate infrared pass to determine what is actually dust and dirt. Much less chance of image details that are neither from being removed. I've used it a few times on some particularly dirty negs that couldn't be cleaned well - even with film cleaner - and it does a very good job. In short, an ICE dust removal option.

Vuescan was slightly better than the included Epson scanning software. But when you're used to having far more control over sharpening, color management, and other attributes, it will drive you nuts with how extremely limited your options are. Worst is sharpening. It's either not enough, or goes greatly overboard. You simply don't have enough control.

I would just comment that for non-pro users, including advanced amateurs, D-Max is a more important consideration when comparing scanners than PPI because all decent scanners these days support at least 3200 PPI. And most people are not even going to use 3200 PPI.

In my experience most flatbed scanning isn't done at much more than about 1200 PPI because the original documents, artwork or even printed photos do not warrant higher pixel densities unless you want to make extremely large prints. A 4"x6" original scanned at 1200 PPI can be printed at 32"x 48" with high quality, and larger if you have the proper software. Scanning at higher pixel settings just gets you bigger files, not better quality.

EpsonScan2 is quite adequate, it does its job well; I would not call it garbage. But in my own case I have long preferred Vuescan for its significantly greater features & capabilities as well as its user interface. Ed Hamrick continues to do an excellent job maintaining & enhancing Vuescan. I have used it for many years with numerous scanners including my present Epson V550, Epson 12000XL and Nikon LS-5000 film scanner. I also use Silverfast 9 but it's expensive, it has a steep learning curve, is more difficult to use than Vuescan and the license limits you to a single scanner.

Note, I don't use my scanning apps to do any image editing or enhancements other than occasional white balance adjustment or descreeninng. I use Photoshop, CaptureOne and other apps to process my scanned images.

That depends on what your needs are. I would look at VueScan (software) they make great software that works with a lot of scanners. I've been using it for years. VueScan is Sonoma compatible but maybe the scanner's included software isn't.

Hope this helps.

Paul

X2 for VueScan. I've used it for over 20 years, I think.

The very nice thing about slide scanners is how little desktop space they take up. Downside is film is all they do. So you need a separate, larger scanner for reflective anyway.

The 4.0 "perfect" D-Max thing really just means that's the minimum requirement for the hardware to be able to see and capture all visible detail. Higher values mean smoother, finer results across the image. Some PMT drum scanners had D-Max values as high as 6.5. But a 4.2 D-Max that most of the current models have should produce some very nicely detailed scans.

Film scanners tend to work one way. They scan everything at 100% of size. So with 35mm, you always get a (roughly) dimensionally 1" x 1 ¾" scan. They create different scan sizes by jamming more or less pixels into that fixed space.

This is kind of a pain, depending on what you're used to. In the print industry, and here on my V850, everything is scanned to size at 300 dpi, standard print resolution. If I want a scan from a 35mm slide or neg at 4" x 6", I set the software to 300 dpi, size 350%. Done. No scaling afterwards to get the scan to the correct dimensions. With a film scanner, you can generally only select a handful of preset resolutions. So you have to calculate which size to use in order to get a 1200 pixel x 1800 pixel (4x6) scan. Or whatever is closest. It's either that, or scan everything at the maximum and have really huge files you may never need that much pixel information for.

SilverFast does support these scanners, so you may have more options for sizing. Like being able to set a scale and resolution output as you can do with a flatbed or drum scanner.

All that said, I've never owned or used a dedicated film scanner. I like having one flatbed scanner that can do both. You also have more flexibility for film. Only their most expensive model will do 120 film, besides 35mm. With the V850, I can scan any size film that will fit on the bed or in the full size fluid mount holder. I have one person I do scans for who often brings 5"x7" and 8"x10" negs from his large format cameras. I obviously couldn't use a film scanner for those. 🙂

I did notice PacificImage throws out this tired trope.

Resolution has nothing - NOTHING - to do with sharpness. The optical resolution of the scanner itself (lens quality) does most of that. After that, it's the sharpening settings you use in the software to fine tune the scan. Pixel count has no determination for sharpness. Optics does.

Here I overlapped two scans displayed in Photoshop at 1:1. First was a 575% scan at 300 dpi, and the second (on the right) at 1244% at 300 dpi.

You'll have to pull the image out to your desktop so you can view it 1:1. But one scan is just as sharp as the other. It's all about the scanner's optics and your sharpening settings. It is a bit blurry, but so is the original.

all decent scanners these days support at least 3200 PPI. And most people are not even going to use 3200 PPI.

You're confusing these numbers. The optical resolution of a scanner refers to the resolving power of the lens. Not the number of pixels per inch you choose for the scanned image.

For this, higher is always better. Always. It's like taking the same photo with a $20 Kodak Instamatic and a Hasselblad camera, pointing them both at a chain link fence 200 feet away. You'll be lucky to even see any of the links in the fence in a photo taken with the Kodak, but you'll be able to see the dirt on the links on a photo take with the Hasselblad.

The optical value drops for reflective scans on my V850 (and generally any flatbed scanner), because it has to use an anamorphic lens to capture the entire width of the glass in one pass, with the lens running down the center.

The Creo Eversmart Supreme II we had always had a 5400 dpi optical resolution no matter what you were scanning, or where the original was placed. That because it was an XY scanner. The scanning head could move to any position under the glass to be centered on the original. If the size you were scanning exceeded the optical resolution, it would automatically divide up the scanning into strips and stitch them together into a single image. All for the reason of keeping the scanner within the optical capability of the lens.

A 4"x6" original scanned at 1200 PPI can be printed at 32"x 48" with high quality

Sort of, but that's only because you scanned the image far beyond the pixel density needed for a 4"x6" image. This is the same trick film scanners use. You can't control the percentage size, only the pixels per inch. So you have to choose a much higher DPI in order to have enough pixels to print a larger image.

And a 4"x6" at 1200 dpi is 4,800 pixels x 7,200 pixels. Divide that by the standard 300 dpi output virtually every print service uses, and the optimal output size is 16" x 24". In order to print a 32" x 48" image from that scan, it has to be scaled up 200%. I would never call having to add four times as many pixels from out of nowhere high quality. I'd scan my original directly to the output size I wanted at 300 dpi. That would be a 9,600 x 14,400 pixel image.

EpsonScan2 is quite adequate, it does its job well; I would not call it garbage.

Sorry, I can't agree. I tried it when I first got the scanner and was far from impressed. Though trying it again just now, the updates have improved it quite a bit. But it suffers from at least one major, glaring error. There is no color management. Left is a 600%, 300 dpi scan from EpsonScan2, and the same size from SilverFast. I had to put the sharpening on High in EpsonScan2, but at least it produced a scan similar to SilverFast. But the color is several miles off from SilverFast. The scan from the Epson software doesn't even get a profile of any kind embedded. Scanning dozens, or hundreds of images takes enough time as it is. I don't want to spend hours trying to fix the color to match every original. Scans from SilverFast match as I can create both reflective and positive film profiles for it. It also comes with 250 orange mask profiles for color film. That is a massive time saver when scanning color negs.

I also tried VueScan again just now. It's actually worse than the EpsonScan2 software. As with the Epson software, there is zero color management. That's an instant non-starter for me. Sharpening? What sharpening? You have no choice at all. This is the blurry result I got scanning the same slide to the same size as above.

What good is that?

Sizing? What sizing? All you can pick is a resolution. At least at the bottom it tells you how many pixels the image will be, based on the resolution you entered for the crop area.

But then you have to figure out what that would be at 300 dpi for the print size you're going for. If it's wrong, you have to calculate the correct resolution to get the correct dimensions. I don't have time for that when doing hundreds of scans. With SilverFast, I leave it at 300 dpi all the time. Then all I have to do is set the dimension I want (Output) and let it figure out the percentage (Zoom).

And yes, I say dpi because that was the term everyone used for image resolution way back at the beginning of digital imaging. Including scanning software. Somewhere along the lines (Adobe?) thought it should be ppi. But to me, they mean the same thing.

Is SilverFast a bit overwhelming for the casual user? Probably. After decades in this business, it doesn't throw me at all. And I prefer having the ability to use those fine tuning options.

Thanks for the good scanning tips!

I have scanned my old B&W and color prints by slightly overdoing it (because I do not want to do that clumsy process ever again!) with Canon CanoScan LiDE 220 with 600 ppi, 48 bit color, .tif, and archived those. Then post-processed with Lightroom as .jpg.

Also old Super 8 films (scanned frame-by-frame in a service by Rank Cintel 4K scanner as ProRes 422HQ 1080p format as 25 fps because current software does not properly support 18 fps movies -- I slow them to 18/25 = 72% in post), VHS and Digital 8 movies (digitized and archived as .dv files with Sony TRV320E and post-processed with iMovie 1-6 and Final Cut Pro) are done.

But I still have old slides and B&W negatives scanned only with a poor quality cheap device (which is better than nothing!).

Scanning film is even slower than scanning prints so one option might be to shoot them with a good quality DSLR or a newer mirrorless digital camera. That might be the same quality as a dedicated film scanner but much faster. But then I'd have to build or buy a steady rig with an even good lightning to it etc.

https://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/10/29/the-other-way-to-scan-positive-slides-or-why-i-kept-my-big-dslr-by-stefan-schmidt/

So maybe a film scanner might be better after all?

might be to shoot them with a good quality DSLR or a newer mirrorless digital camera. That might be the same quality as a dedicated film scanner but much faster. But then I'd have to build or buy a steady rig with an even good lightning to it etc.

Before I sold all of my DSLR gear, I tried shooting slides with a macro lens. I laid the slide on a small D50 light table, and a Nikon D800 on tripod. The results were actually pretty good, but still not as good as the scanner.

Still, it's a pretty fast way to do a lot of slides quickly. Especially if you have a slide holder for the lens. I think this first version was designed to slip over their AS macro lens. Slip a slide into the holder, shoot. Swap it out for the next one. Shoot. But, you did need neutral lighting for the process so you weren't color correcting everything shot against a typical yellowish incandescent bulb.

Film scanners can be a good choice if you have a lot of them to do. But as mentioned earlier, I have no experience using one, so I can't say how well they do.

Thank you for full explanation. And to the following couple of responses. The silver fast that came with the scanner does not oblige by loading on my Mac with sonoma. Does VUESCAN give the same as the Epson software or better for sonoma? I notice that if I had a windows machine I could use the ICE dust and scratch removal tool but it won’t load on the Mac.

Thank you for full explanation. And to the following couple of responses. The silver fast that came with the scanner does not oblige by loading on my Mac with sonoma. Does VUESCAN give the same as the Epson software or better for sonoma? I notice that if I had a windows machine I could use the ICE dust and scratch removal tool but it won’t load on the Mac.

Any thoughts about the Pacific Image slide and negative scanning hardware, some with stated 4.2 Dmax?

Thanks Kurt.