I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside. It has helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I know, scanners are still improving. Many of the members on this list, and they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable assistance to me.
I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to digital photography. While I now use a digital camera regularly, I still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and distribution is in digital form. Other lists that are peculiar to a manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope. Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found. I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in my home town of Huntsville, Alabama. I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been informed and assisted from this list. I will do all I can to help revive this list, Tony, from my area - just say the word. Please, keep up the good work, Jim Sims Brad Davis wrote: >Tony, > >First, below is a note from Ed Lusby. I don't know what to make of his >difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to you might be >useful. > >Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so kindly sent >me the info re: cleaning an SS4000. I hate to see this list die, it has >been too good to just let it disappear - especially when much of the >expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all along the process of >digital photography. Other lists that are supposed to deal with various >topics are usually too limited - either to a certain manufacturer, or >software vendor, or the material they deal with lacks the depth that I know >I need. The people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know >the answers, and more. Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and there >are several others who are as good and in some cases better. My suggestion >is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list. I would be willing >to help by shilling for the list on other venues. > >Hope we can keep it going. > >Brad > > >Hi Brad, >I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my return >email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the return address, >so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried to contact Tony Sleep >(the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message is also returned. Would you >please forward this to filmscanners for me? >Thanks. > >I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree that the >expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at the responses from >the experts on the list regarding the amount of time that these people have >taken to help others. I believe that is part of the problem, however. >Sooner or later you just can't keep doing it. >New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn what the >professionals on this list know. > >Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up to >Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like that area >added as well. >I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his view of filmscanners and what he >would like to do with it. > >Ed > > > >I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates to all >aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and printing than >I have found anywhere. The level of intelligence here has been several >orders of magnitude above any other imaging list Iıve been on. > >Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², letting it >grow to include discussions of various software from Lasersoft and Vuescan >through various programs like PS (I saw a note elsewhere that asserted that >a Lasersoft product is better than PS I think that was what was claimed) >through specific printing programs. > >There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David Littleboy and >many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now and then) to just let >it go. I know that other lists exist, but the chaff is often so thick, and >the wheat so sparse that I despair. That wasnıt true here, even when the >arguments re: dMax and # of bytes were going on. Even discussions of >equipment I will never own (probably), like the Minolta scanners, were >useful. > >Is something like this worth proposing further? Or am I missing something >and it would be best to just let ³Scanners² die? It is my hope that by >talking with a few folks, I might refine my idea and have a better chance of >selling to whoever (I donıt even know who runs this list I can be >oblivious on occasion). > >Who should this suggestion go to, and how might it be modified to improve >its chances of succeeding, first in being tried, and second in practice? > >If you think this useful to post to the list, please feel free to do so >with any modifications you think are useful. My goal is to find a way to >get this going again, Iım aware that I would feel the loss of a tremendous >resource if this list went away.. > >Thanks again for the info re: Polaroid. Iıve observed the cut off on the >left of the histogram has been creeping up but Iıve never cleaned the unit >and Iıve had it at least 5 years. Iıve also had other difficulties in >separating highlights that appeared separable on the negative. I can >imagine how dirt could affect that too. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body