John wrote: >Both the Coolscan 2000 and the Minolta Dimage Speed Scan have a 3.6 >density rating but the latter is about $700 less expensive (about $1800 >and about $1200 U.S. prices) . The main differences I can see are the >ICE technology and the ability for the Nikon to make multiple scans of a >single slide. Would anyone have information about the practical >difference there would be in the quality of an undamaged, non-damaged >slide? I have the Minolta Dimage Dual Scan and I have been very dissatisfied with it. I have gotten good scans with it but only after much grief and aggravation. Customer support stinks. I have 2 main complaint. Minolta's scan driver does not interface properly with Adobe's Photo Deluxe 2. (I have read that it doesn't work at all with Photo Deluxe 1) Problem #1: When you scan it loses the photo unless you leave the scan window open and close it manually. If you do this right the photo will be in acquired photos and not in the Photo Deluxe desktop where it should be. You can then launch it and work on it. Problem #2: The scanner tends to scan slides towards blue. I have to adjust almost every scan. This means you cannot use the autoexposure feature. It seems to work better with negatives but it does still tend to shift toward blue. I do very little negative scanning. I mostly scan slides. I have multiple emails from both Adobe (the Photo Deluxe creator) and Minolta, each blaming the other. Each claiming the other has or soon will have a fix for this. I have also read in the in the rec.photo.digital news group of others who have had the same trouble. I have recently (Feb 1999) downloaded a Minolta driver update but that didn't solve the problem though it seems to have improved it a little. I regret ever having bought the Minolta scanner. I should have bought the Nikon for a little more money. Does anyone want to buy it from me? Art Art Searle, W2NRA, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Lake Grove, Long Island, NY, USA 20 miles east of Nikon USA www.erols.com/w2nra
