Art, I'm sorry if my reference to "someone like Art" has upset you; it was not intended to do so - quite the opposite in fact, as it was really a compliment to your experience and knowledge. I said it to Brian to contrast my relative inexperience in serious photography with people like you and Brian who obviously have far more experience than I do. But one of the main things you learn in becoming a scientist is to question everything. That is not to say that I think that you are wrong in your statements about the relative merits of diffuse and collimated light sources in scanners - you may well be right (and Austin says you are), but I want to know why it works the way you both say it does. So I will read and re-read your comments, and those of Austin and Brian, and follow up Brian's references (and any that you may have that throws further light - collimated of course - on the subject).
Respectfully yours, Bob Frost. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Oh, so I've become the "someone like" reference now, eh? Fine. If you think my intent here is to mislead or just give uneducated opinions with no forethought or research, just ignore them. I have found that the vast majority of people who have followed my advice in regard to scanner decisions have been expressed to me that they were better off for it, but I can't provide you with scientific evidence of that, sorry. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body