Digital BW, The Print

Beautiful image, Daniel, as are the others.  But I¹m one of those who has
tried Vuescan on a couple of occasions with little satisfaction.  I¹ve been
using NikonScan as a PS twain for my Nikon 4000 ED instead.  I have not been
able to determine why Vuescan is better.
However, if you¹re claiming that I will get a better scan with VS, then
maybe I¹ll have to go back and try it once again.  Sigh.

And BTW, I notice you¹re using an old Leica.  I am moving toward the
purchase of an M7.  I already have and use the 35mm Summicron asph. on my
Hexar RF.

(Some of my stuff can be seen at www.pbase.com/hlockwood.)

Again, great shots.

Harry Lockwood


On 4/11/07 1:17 PM, "Daniel Ridings" <dlr@...> wrote:

>  
>  
>  
> 
> I have been using Vuescan for about 5 years now. Best thing since sliced
> bread in my opinion. One piece of software for all of my scanners. Works
> the same everywhere.
> 
> This was done with it and the b/w print is even more beautiful:
> 
> http://www.dlridings.com/paw2007/14.html
> 
> Don't go in to the darkroom either if you don't want to learn things.
> 
> Daniel
> 
> David Keenan wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>>> >  >Try Vuescan,
>> > 
>> > Don't try it, though, if you want scan software that doesn't require a
>> > degree in both computer science and scanner design to use -- nor if you
>> want
>> > software that has anything more than the most rudimentary documentation --
>> > nor if you want software that is backed up with timely, responsive
>> technical
>> > support.
>> > 
>> > I own it and have tried to use it numerous times and never without a high
>> > degree of frustration. I have 30+ years experience with computers and
>> > software development so I'm hardly a novice-- and I think that while the
>> > developer of Vuescan may mean well, this product borders on being, well,
>> > just plain awful.
>> > 
>> > Silverfast is marginally better but it has its own issues.
>> > 
>> > I pretty much end up using the manufacturers software be it Epson, Nikon,
>> or
>> > Minolta. These are far easier to operate and the results come out just
>> fine.
>> > 
>> > Dave.
>  
>     


-- 

Harry F. Lockwood




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]