Paul Freeman wrote: > I'm really surprised about the comment that Viewscan is less suitable for > batch scanning than SilverFast.
Not actually what I said:) I meant that I can see that someone who wants to scan lots of images, day after day without going anywhere near PS, and is prepared to learn SF's idiosyncratic UI and stump up occasional wads of cash, might love SF dearly. Some people do, and there must be a reason;) For myself, I far prefer VS, despite the fact it's almost as idiosyncratic and its UI tends to outrage Mac users sense of propriety. But then I'm not dealing with volume, I use PC's, shoot colour neg or B&W neg, and actually want to do the messing about in PS - a different set of priorities. Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
