Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Coolscan V ED discontinued

Subject: [OM] Re: Coolscan V ED discontinued
From: "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:35:03 -0500
Bill,

I agree, if the negatives have been properly protected in a professional 
way, they can be great.  I have some of these in 5x7 and 3.5x5 studio shots. 
But, if they have been tumbled into shoe boxes, or, in my case, Kodak print 
paper boxes, they can be a challenge.  I had a wet darkroom in my early 
years of photography, but, since a move over 40 years ago, my enlarger and 
trays have been in boxes in the attic.  I don't think, at age 78, that I 
will be returning to that process.  It's too hard on the old back. :-)

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 8:12 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Coolscan V ED discontinued


>
> given the quality
> of the older images, the latest and greatest scanners are not necessarily 
> a
> requirement.
>
> I with you till this. Many of the older images (ie. med. format B&W) are
> remarkable, and deserve wet darkroom printing. Scanner technology hit the
> peak about twenty years ago, anyway, with some of the great drum scanners,
> and the drum substitutes all peaked at least ten years ago.
>
> I/v never been pleased with the flatbeds, so I got a Minolta MultiPro, and
> am really pleased, but I built a wet darkroom anyway.
>
> Bill Pearce
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz