Yes, you're righjt, David. The 3200 is good enough for many things. I use it to scan pics for stock and magazine articles, and everyone is happy with the results. In only in comparison that it suffers. But don't we all:-). Paul On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:05 PM, David Savage wrote:
> The detail & sharpness everywhere is improved :-) > > As you say, not surprising, but the 3200 for what it cost does an OK > job. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > On 1/6/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Here's a pic I rescanned on my friend's Imacon. I treated it somewhat >> differently as well, both in terms of the crop and the rendering, but >> I >> still think there's a distinct difference. Note the detail in the >> background trees. >> >> The imacon scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5416945&size=lg >> >> The Epson 3200 scan: >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2609820&size=lg >> >> No surprise, but mildly interesting perhaps. >> Paul > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
