You can see what they are. Boy in swing, garden with trees, house in garden, and water, sky and houses. What are you guys complaining about? ;-)
Honestly. They are far from acceptable. BTW. I did a very rough test, scanning some 35 dia with my new Epson RX700 yesterday. They are better (read near acceptable when displayed in small format at screen) than those displayed here, but I really hope I will get better results after some fiddling*. If not, it wont be worth the trouble, and certainly not the money spent. *To whomever it may concern: Please don't be offended by the word fiddling, tweaking sounds a bit too pretentious, - like I know what I'm doing, and I'm not. Perhaps experimenting is a better word. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 3. desember 2005 17:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: "Photo scanner" vs real film scanner? > > > On Dec 3, 2005, at 10:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > These look awful .... I must be missing something. > > > Whatever you're missing, I'm missing it too. These are nowhere near > the boundaries of acceptable. > > Bob >
