On 6/20/2012 7:53 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> For scanning of slides I much prefer Nikonscan, the Kodakchrome settting
>> gives rather accurate results.
> Other than for the dust, I agree.
Considering the larger initial context of this thread, lack of dust removal is,
as you said "a deal breaker".
> Nikonscan really is a very fine program. We always like to dis' the
> manufacturer's software,
There you go again. Are you royalty, or choosing to speak for everybody?
Personally, I'd like to use maker's software,
if it works. Canoscan for the FS4000 was pretty nice, but it stopped working
about three windoze versions ago. Canoscan
for the 9950F would be wonderful, if I could find a way to control white and
black points, contrast, something so it
wouldn't clip highlights and shadows. It's handling of batch scanning is better
than VS for this scanner. Canon's Raw
converter and editor for their cameras would be fine - it its default colors
were as good as ACR, and if I liked the
layerless LR, Aperture, etc. style editing paradigm. So no, I don't knock 'em
until I've tried 'em.
> ... For the long-term archival aspect that Tina's library will be used for, I
> would keep the images true to the
> original slide. I would not recommend forcing "today's" visual aesthetics on
> future generations.
Now time to put my Team AG T-shirt back on.
Disagree Agree Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|