The clue might be that the one you are having trouble with has a huge amount of color shift. I don't know why that would keep any scanner software package from scanning the transparency so that it looked the same in Photoshop as the original.
I assume you know how to set up Silverfast correctly.
I also recommend the plug-in version. It supposedly is integrated with Photoshop's color management system.
If you buy the download version, make sure you decline the $5US charge that would allow you to make additional downloads if you needed to (such as might happen in a bad computer crash). The
Based on what I've read on this list (now and earlier), I just ordered iCorrect Professional (the CD-ROM version rather than the download version) from Pictographics for a quoted price of $109US plus $7.95 shipping for a total of $116.95. After that price was quoted, I was somehow diverted to a
I received two requests (one off-list), and I suspect a few others might be interested as well, so I'm attaching a Microsoft Word document with my tables. The tables give a summary of the settings you need to use when working with SilverFast. I can't guarantee their accuracy, but I did the best I
I sent my tables in another post. Your tutorials are great. I would have given up on SilverFast if it weren't for them. But every time I turned on my scanner, I had to look through your tutorials and find the settings I needed to use. I was always afraid I'd miss something and make a mistake, so I
It would be worth your while to go through Ian Lyons' tutorials and compare each item
in my tables to his recommendations for the Mac. Correct anything in my tables that
is incorrect for the Mac and you end up with your own set of tables. Then you'd have
your own version. I don't think
Ian, thanks for the info on the new SilverFast user manual. I knew they were working on it but I'm surprised that it was released so quickly. Is it any good? Will it put you out of business??
For what it's worth, I made a series of tables showing what settings to use with SilverFast. They were
I agree that $45US to upgrade SilverFast is not an unreasonable price. However, it's more complicated than that. A lot of us paid a lot of money for SilverFast only to learn that the new version was released before we even got our version installed and working. Lasersoft should give free upgrades
It's often easier to make the color corrections with the scanner software rather than with Photoshop (and I assume that also applies to Paint Shop Pro) because scanner software often includes film profiles, which is very helpful in removing the orange mask from color negative film. But a lot of
If you are happy with Insight, stay with it. There's no point in punishing yourself by being forced to learn how a new piece of software works. The ability to remove the orange mask from negatives is something that some software can have problems with. Insight has been improved and if it does a
From everything I've read about the Polaroid SprintScan 120, and from my own experience, it is one of the best medium format film scanners the average photographer can currently afford. It would be a shame for you to pass up such a fine scanner based solely on this argument. I've never noticed any
My comments that follow are oriented towards commercial photography. You'll probably
find that sleeved portfolio cases are more common in 8x10 format rather than 8x12. If
you use 8x10, then you'll either have to crop or else do a custom elargment and print
a black band at two edges of the
Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're photographic issues. Before
scanning, you should have a negative or transparency that is sharp. If it isn't,
scanning won't improve anything. It's possible that a 2700 dpi scanner can camouflage
some lens defects, but a 4000 dpi
Thanks, Rob. I understand a little better about what you were asking about. It
sounds like you want to know how much money you should spend on lenses (and maybe what
brand) in order to get decent scans.
My suggestion would be buy reasonably costly lenses, fixed focal length rather than
zoom
Try:
www.photodo.com
Keep in mind that fixed focal length lenses are generally better than zooms, fixed aperture zooms are better than those that vary with focal length, and the more you pay, the better the lens.
In a message dated 11/1/2001 8:03:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think you would be doing the right thing by not using USM in SilverFast. As I mentioned before, I think it was intended for users who would be doing no further processing with Photoshop or other graphics software and were going directly to press with the scanned image. By using unsharp masking
If you want to scan color negatives, you really need to upgrade Silverfast to 5.5 as its NegaFix film profile feature is a big improvement. Silverfast will output high-bit (48-bit) files, but it's a raw output. You have to do all processing on that file with Silverfast HDR, Photoshop, or something
It's my understanding that there are only two recognized TIF formats, one for 24-bit data and one for 48-bit data. So a scanner that outputs 36-bit data is going to actually give you a 48-bit TIF file, since the data won't fit into the 24-bit format. It would be nice if a standard existed for
My alibi is that I stated, As a general rule, sharpening shouldn't be done more than
once and even Bruce Fraser indicates that my comments are in agreement with
conventional wisdom. Nevertheless, you and Michael Shaffer are quite correct in
pointing out that there are more sofisticated
When you scan at 12 bits you are basically doing a "raw" scan without making any corrections to the image. The expectation is that all corrections will be made in Photoshop. It would be normal for the image to look dark until you process it in Photoshop, where you'll eventually convert it to an
In a message dated 10/24/2001 12:00:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How are folks using Silverfast unsharp mask vis a vis Photoshop? I'd like
to do some sharpening on the scan side but leave a little final sharpening
to be done in PS. I don't know if this is a good idea
In a message dated 10/21/2001 9:54:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How do you resize an image without losing/adding pixels? Just by
specifying the inch dimension? That's something I've never been clear
about - whether choosing inch, cm, pixels or whatever in the size
Here are some quick answers to some of your questions. Hopefully, others will give you better answers.
Get PS6 if you can afford it, but if you have to ask the question, you'd probably be happy with PSE. PS6 is needed if you want to send images to a printing press. It also has features not
In my opinion, the 5.5 upgrade to SilverFast is worth it for anyone who works with color negative film as the NegaFix feature gives you film profiles that do a fairly good job of removing the orange mask. I don't know that you need to spend $45US to upgrade both SilverFast Ai and SilverFast HDR
Thanks, Laurie. I got my wires crossed. The problems I described were actually with ScanWizard Pro, the scanning software for my Microtek ScanMaker 5 flatbed scanner. That one actually is a Photoshop plug-in. Omnipage LE was also bundled with the flatbed and, while I did have some problems getting
In a message dated Fri, 19 Oct 2001 4:22:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Arthur Entlich
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The effect you are seeing is called Newton Rings, and it happens
whenever two glossy surfaces come in contact. I believe the colors are
determined by how many molecules of air
Make sure that the 48-bit file that Silverfast Ai creates is in TIF format. Also,
tell Silverfast HDR to save its output to a file rather than export it directly to
Photoshop. That might eliminate any problems between HDR and Photoshop. Other than
that, all I can recommend is to contact
Obviously, you haven't used Silverfast yet. My Caere Omnipage (OCR reader only) for
my flatbed ranked number 2 on the heartburn scale. I couldn't get Omnipage installed
and Caere had to send me a patch. Then it crashed about every third scan. I finally
found that it operated reliably if I
Use whatever film profile works. Those NegaFix profiles are suspect since all Portra
films are supposed to use the same channel in automatic printers. But there are
extreme differences in the results when you use the different Silverfast Portra
profiles. Also, make sure that you are aware
I don't remember the SS120 manual saying to push on the film carrier until the light
starts blinking. But if you push on it until the scanner grabs it out of your hand,
you should be OK
The worst thing about Silverfast is not its poor documentation! We have Ian Lyons to
help solve that
That documentation if for version 3 or 4. It bears little resembance to the current
version of the software. Even at that, the documentation is very poor, unclear, and
suffers from a very bad translation from German to English. Lasersoft claims that are
working on a new documentation
Forgive me for not remembering all the details in this thread or even knowing if you
finally solved the problem, but until now, I didn't think I could contribute anything
so I didn't pay attention as much as I should have. I believe your problem was that
Photoshop would not open a TIF file
Lasersoft has been described as "anal" on this list. That's a polite way to describe the way the company is run. I had exactly the same problem as you and paid my $45 to upgrade SilverFast (only SilverFast Ai, as it turned out) thinking that both SilverFast Ai and SilverFast HDR would be upgraded
I agree with the other comments you received, though a dual computer system might be
more than you need for your circumstances.
Make sure you have a lot of disc space for image storage. I use two 80 gb drives.
Also, you'll want to partition a drive so that Photoshop can have it's own
I ment to say that Windows Me would NOT be my first choice for an operating system.
Sorry for that.
Wire, I like your review better than Bruce's!!! And I haven't even read Bruce's!
I guess I'm a born skeptic and have never completely trusted any review in any publication that accepts advertising for the products being reviewed. There's too much conflict of interest.
In a message dated
I never sharpen when scanning. I only sharpen just before printing. The reason is that sharpening destroys the original content of the pixels to some degree and you can never back up and recover exactly what you had before you sharpened. And after some processes, resampling for example, you may
In a message dated 10/3/2001 11:15:12 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 03:32 03-10-01 -0400, you wrote:
Wire, I like your review better than Bruce's!!! And I haven't even read
Bruce's!
I guess I'm a born skeptic and have never completely trusted any review in
any
In a message dated 10/3/2001 11:11:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Polaroid has announced a $300 rebate on the Sprintscan 120 Plus. The coupon
will be posted on the web site soon and in the meantime I would be happy to
forward a copy, pdf file, to anyone needing it.
This
In a message dated 9/30/2001 11:40:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Has SiverFast come out with a fix to the ‘Upgrade Disaster’?
I have a Wintel system (PIV 1.4g, Win2k, lots of hard drive space). I held off upgrading when I heard of all the problems, be they
I'd also recommend trying Polaroid Insight first, and I agree with David's other comments shown here, as well.
If you think you need the power of SilverFast, then make sure you upgrade to version 5.5 if you scan color negatives Version 5.5 gives you something called NegaFix and it's really
In a message dated 9/30/2001 5:32:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regarding #2 below, is $45 the "reasonable charge" you refer to? Is there
another way to order the upgrade with a purchase after 9/1?
Thanks,
Stephen
If you bought the Polaroid scanner just before
If you define "resizing" to mean that the pixel dimensions don't change (you do that when you uncheck the "resample image" box under Image Image Size in Photoshop), then resizing within Photoshop will have no affect on the image. A two-inch wide image at 300 ppi looks the same as far as the
Paul, you'd probably find it more useful to display "Document Sizes" rather than "Scratch Sizes" in Photoshop if you want to keep track of your image size as you manipulate it, etc. It's not all that important to know the scratch size, provided you have enough of it, of course.
In a message dated
Buy the SS120. I have one and I like it. The Nikon is probably a fine scanner if you could find one, but is reported to have problems keeping medium format film in focus at the edges due to the type of light source it uses, which also evidently accentuates dust which means you need to use ICE with
Wire wrote an excellent comparison of the SS4000 and LS-2000. Objective and unbiased. The SS4000 is indeed a fine scanner.
A week or so ago someone asked if they should order any extra film carriers for the SS4000. I responded that I didn't think it was necessary. I said that one of the plastic
Roger, it would also be interesting if you exposed two identical rolls of film, sent one to a good lab for processing, and then processed the other yourself. If the "bubbles" appear on both rolls, then they would be related to the film or the processing chemicals. If they only appear on film that
In a message dated 9/19/2001 11:30:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Even with these
precautions I can see significant amounts of dust when the scan is greatly
magnified. I've come to the conclusion that almost all of it embedded in the
emulsion and results from sloppy
Congratulations on your SS4000 purchase. I don't think you'll be disappointed. I'm not so sure about SilverFast, though, as I've had nothing but trouble with it.
Anyway, to answer your questions, to eject the film carrier from the scanner, look to the left side of the SilverFast preview screen.
Thank the gods! Finally a filmscanner question.
If you are going to buy one do it soon. The $200US rebate ends at the end of this month. If you can find one, they are selling for under $450 right now (including the rebate) as it's being replaced by a new model. The new model will have 14-bit
I don't know the answer, but I believe it does. Hopefully, someone who does
know will respond. If not, you can probably find out at Ed Hamrick's Vuescan
web site.
One word of warning: I've determined that SilverFast Ai will not work with
my SS120 due to it causing Photoshop to crash. I have
If you don't have a good lab near you, check the yellow pages phone directory
on the Internet and locate a lab that caters to commercial, portrait, and
wedding photographers. Call or write them for prices and procedures. Many
of them will pay shipping charges both ways for photographers who
I've never used ICE, but I do own a Polaroid SprintScan 4000 and am perfectly
happy with it. I think that people who sing the praises of ICE are people
who have a dust problem, either because of the own making or because of
circumstances beyond their control that require them to scan slides
If David's suggestion doesn't work, you could always ask for a volunteer.
I'm sure someone here would be willing to manually send out an admin notice
on a regular basis and free you up to take care of other problems.
Don't ask me to volunteer, though. I'm busy trying to get SilverFast to
work.
Has anyone been able to use SilverFast Ai as a Photoshop plug-in with a
Polaroid SprintScan 120 medium format scanner to create large 48-bit files
approximately 500 MB in size? When I try, I get the message, "Photoshp has
caused an error in unknown. Photoshp will now close."
If I crop the
Formal wedding shots (in your studio or posed shots at the alter) have to be done with
medium format film because the customer will frequently want an 11x14 enlargement or
bigger. Candid shots at the reception can be done with 35mm film because the largest
print requested is likely to be 8x10
In a message dated Tue, 14 Aug 2001 3:36:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Bob Kehl -
Kvernstoen, Kehl Assoc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Neil,
Perhaps it works much differently in the UK, but here in the colonies I
sought out a small, but reputable, professional camera dealer who had a list
Thanks, Ian. I reached the same conclusion over the weekend after reading one of my
Photoshop books in which they also warned against using a single unpartitioned drive
with Photoshop. You're right, I have an single 80 GB 5400 rpm drive and it is not
partitioned. I plan to buy a second
Lloyd, it looks like I won't have to use TWAIN as a possible workaround after all.
Ian Lyons' post indicates that he thinks my problem is due to my using a single
unpatitioned drive for everything. Photshop doesn't like that, it wants its own
reserved area for a scratch disc. So I'm going
Thanks, Steve. SilverFast also advised me to set the marching ants frame
inside of where they were supposed to be. I tried it and it didn't work for
me. But when I was finally able to get a new serial number for the 5.5
upgrade, I found that I was able do an IT8 calibration with no problem and
Since you're asking about SilverFast, I assume you've already made up your
mind that you want it and are looking for validation that you've made the
right decision. OK, "Buy it, you'll love it!" I think you'll enjoy its
features and its flexibility, such as letting you do a raw scan with Ai and
In a message dated 8/12/2001 4:26:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This appears to be making a mountain out of a molehill surely. Defragging
should be done regularly anyway, uninstalling and reinstalling Photoshop is
not difficult, likewise the plug-ins and all you need
In a message dated 8/12/2001 4:56:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not wishing to sound to gloomy, but the advice sounds like a "we have no
idea - but it might work if we re-install everything". The good news is that
it often does - the bad news is IME it more often
I called the SilverFast U.S.A. office and got help. (They're slow with
answering e-mail.) They said you have to pay $45 to upgrade Ai and another
$45 to upgrade HDR. Also, they charge to upgrade each scanner you have. The
exception is for Polaroid since they use one piece of software for both
This is probably a stupid question, but how do you do an LZW compression on a
TIFF file? Photoshop doesn't offer TIFF compression as an option, as far as
I know. Is there freeware available? Since a lot of my work involves models
against a solid colored background, it seems like lossless
Well, my Photoshop 6.0 (on a PC) doesn't offer any compressed TIFF file
formats. When doing a "Save-as" for a 48-bit file, I was given three
choices: TIFF(*.TIF), Ras(*.RAW), and Photoshop(*.PSD,*.PDD). When saving a
24-bit file, I have many more choices including GIF, JPEG, etc., but nothing
OK, thanks, I found it. The dialog box only appears after you kick off the
save and I didn't take it that far when I was doing my testing. I've seen
the dialog box before and always ignored the LZW checkbox as I didn't thing
that it was lossless and would offer me any thing. My question wasn't
Does anyone know if the $45US upgrade includes both SilverFast Ai and HDR?
Or do we have to spend $45 for each, for a total of $90? SilverFast isn't
responding to my e-mails and they aren't answering my questions at their
forum site.
I think they're busy with their meltdown over serial
You might try doing a search at cnet.com for the best price. I'd heard on
this list that ecost.com had the best price for a SS120, but when I bought
mine I found that pagecomputer.com beat them by a few dollars. Also, ecost
claimed they gave free shipping, but if you read the fine print, they
In a message dated 8/7/2001 4:37:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Roger,
Go to PS6 Edit-preferences-saving files and tick enable advanced
features. That will give you the extra Tiff file options.
Geoff
Thanks, Geoff, and to all the others who gave me hints. I have
In a message dated 8/4/2001 11:28:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read a great deal about SilverFast, can someone tell me the
advantages of SilverFast over say Nikon Scan 3.1 and VueScan?
James Grove
I can think of several hundred differences between SilverFast
I just paid extra to buy SilverFast with a Polaroid SprintScan 120 medium
format film scanner. I received the scanner a week ago Friday and it was
inoperable for a week due to poor installation instructions from Polaroid.
Then, after I got it running with Polaroid Insight, I tried to load
Rob, I want IT-8 calibration because I'm color blind and I want to reduce the
number of variables I have to deal with. In theory, any of my calibrated
scanners can be used to scan the same slide and the final files will all be
nearly identical. As you imply, IT-8 calibration has its limitations
In a message dated 8/5/2001 4:32:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can also appreciate your problems with the level of (SilverFast) support.
It took me
several weeks just to get the password for the download out of them. When it
came to fixing a showstopper problem they
We don't know the details of the problem between Ed and Apple, so it's hard to point
fingers. However, if Mac users are upset about Ed dropping Vuscan support for the Mac
(and they have every right to be), then they ought to be directing their displeasure
at Apple, not Ed. Apple only has the
Tom, the Polaroid SprintScan 4000 should, indeed, be available for $700US. B
H says, "$889.95 Our Price" on their web page and then states that the $200
Polaroid Rebate Coupon expires at the end of September. So, your final cost
should be about $700. Like I said before, I paid double that just a
Tony, I have no quarrel with your statements (I almost never do) except with
your two-phased processing approach to restore detail in a specular
highlight. It won't work with a true specular highlight which is what the
original question was about, but only with a diffuse highlight. A specular
Stan, you may be correct in your belief that the US Copyright Office will
accept CDs as a deposit when registering photographs. All I can say is that
I was told otherwise when I talked to them via telephone. I just completed a
search of the Copyright Offices web site and couldn't find the
Rob, the copyright symbol in your notice should be followed immediately by
the year, not your name.
Stan, since when does the copyright office accept CDs for the required
deposit? I was specifically told when I called them (US Copyright Office)
about six months ago that they wouldn't accept
Rafe, thanks for your excellent response. I'm not exactly a newbie at
scanning and Photoshop, but I obviously still have a lot to learn. Thanks
for providing the definitions of "resize" and "resample." In the past, when
I would resize in Photoshop, I always left the "Resample" box checked. I
Rick, I'm not familiar with your scanner, but I'm going to pretend that I
know what I'm talking about. So fasten your seat belt; this may be a bumpy
ride.
Another post indicated, if I read it correctly, that your scanner has a
maximum optical resolution of 3200 ppi in one direction and 1600
I don't know what OTT means either. Maybe, "over the top?"
As for 12-bit scans from the SS4000 that get treated as 16-bit: it's because
the folks who invented the TIF file formats only invented two of them. A
24-bit TIF format (for 8-bit per each RGB channel) and a 48-bit TIF format
(for up to
Tony, that's a good point about Photoshop, and other software, viewing image
dimension only in pixels, with the other sizing information being nothing
more than auxiliary instructions for use in displaying or printing the image.
By the way, your halftone site is hosed up. I tried to call it up
Rick, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "density," but not knowing what
the question is has never stopped me from giving an answer before. I'll
assume that density means the number of dots per inch (dpi) that you send to
the printer. There's another value that has to do with how many dpi
Ray wrote me (Roger) off line concerning my last post:
Roger, your message to the group needs to be corrected.
dpi is printer resolution (dots per inch)
ppi is image resolution (pixels per inch)
Your printer will print at 1440 dpi.
Your computer will send a 300 ppi image to your printer for
Claudiu is obviously frustrated with his software, and I can understand how
that can happen. I'm sure that just about everyone on this list knows that
scanner software is notorious for being poorly documented, or buggy, or
substandard in some way. Most people who buy a film scanner are doing so
In a message dated 6/30/2001 11:15:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
C-41 film has so much latitude that manufactures can rate it one to
two stops faster than the optimal speed and get away with it.
That's not exactly true. Film speed is determined by methods established
In a message dated 7/1/2001 3:48:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lasersoft produce a HDR version of their SilverFast software. This is
supposed to enable saving on disc the 48bit raw data from the scanner.
How useful is this function. Can't figure out if it's better to
In a message dated 6/25/2001 3:11:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have some vague idea of how infrared scanning is used to remove dust and
scratches from film scans on scanners that have this capability. Is there
any possibility that this method could mistake elements
In a message dated 6/24/2001 11:21:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've
printed is 36"x 48" - but I am interested in doing some printing with
painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary
In a message dated 6/22/2001 6:20:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Rafe wrote:
35 mm images are about 60 Mbytes (24 bit color.)
645 images are about 160-170 Mbytes (24 bit color.)
That stands to reason, given the larger size. I'm wondering if there is a
program that
So, are you planning on using a digital camera for your glamour photography?
Ouch! I can't see how you'd be happy with the results compared to what wet
processing in a commercial lab can do for you. Resolution is lousy and you
can't get the look and feel from it that wet film and paper will
David, concerning Polaroid's negative profiling plans for the SS 120, you've
received some "why bother" and "it's a bad idea" comments from Austin
Franklin while Isaac Crawford defended the idea.
I, also, think there's merit in your plan and I hope it works. Do you think
it will work well
I second that motion. The Polaroid is a good machine and it comes with two choices of
scanning software (Vuscan is an inexpensive third option). Software documentation
isn't great, but then poor documentation seems to be an industry standard. The best
thing about Polaroid's scanner is that
In a message dated 4/5/2001 5:39:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John Matturri wrote:
I got my SS4000 back from Polaroid servicing center a couple of days
ago. There was a notation that, among other things, an MFT adjustment
was made. Any idea of what that is?
Would
I am new to filmscanning and find it terribly frustrating. In spite of many
hours of research and experimentation, I still am having trouble with the
basics. I'm hoping someone can help me figure out how to use Insight with my
Polaroid SprintScan 4000. This is going to be a long post, but I
In a message dated 3/20/2001 9:19:32 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There are several legal issues in terms of dating images for copyright.
On the one hand, you receive your copyright the moment you press the
shutter button, even prior to processing... which protects you
My apologies to everyone for not including the text of the message that I'm
replying to, but I can't seem get AOL to include it when I send a reply. As
a summary, Tony asked for comments on the Kodak RFS 3600 and I told him that
Shutterbug magazine said the scanner was good but the software
Berry, I'm new at this scanner business, so I hope I understood your question
and that the answer is as simple as I think it is. I assume your printer is
set up correctly and that the problem you are having is with Photoshop LE.
Here's how to get the 13x19-in. size that you want. In the upper
Don't buy the Kodak RFS 3600, Tony. The April 2001 issue of Shutterbug
magazine has a review of it and the author states that he'd like to have one,
"... just for the access to the excellent Kodak color negative interpretation
capabilities. But the software precludes that possibility. This
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
