Herm wrote:
> Vuescan did a better job, also lots more detail in the shadow
> areas. I would say Vuescan did a better job on the scratches
> too but this only based on small web images. Thanks for the
> comparison..
Overall the results from Vuescan were far more useful - mostly because of
the col
Vuescan did a better job, also lots more detail in the shadow areas. I would say
Vuescan did a better job on the scratches too but this only based on small web
images. Thanks for the comparison..
"Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I happened to try scanning an old (circa 1980) kodak 100
