29
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
James,
is this still on your ftp site?
I have two goes at downloading 3.1 from the Nikon site but it keeps
bombing out. i would be *very* grateful if you could give me temp access
to download it from your site instead?
Grove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Claudiu Falub'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 9:56 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
> You can grab it from me by ftp at
>
> 62.31.210.174 username
tlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>
>
> Dave King wrote:
> >
> > Rafe, you are right on the money.
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-)
>
> Art
>
>
>
Dave King wrote:
>
> Rafe, you are right on the money.
>
> Dave
Luckily, most lists aren't much about money. ;-)
Art
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> A discussion on technical merits is
> what I expect. Recitations of unfounded,
> inflammatory opinions, alleged regional
> allegiances, pop-psychology and broad
> generalizations serve no useful purpose.
>
> rafe b.
Respectfully, IY(perhaps H)O.
Art
Rafe, you are right on the money.
Dave
- Original Message -
From: Raphael Bustin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
>
&g
On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Lynn Allen wrote:
> Is the criticism valid? Yeah, it is. And it's fixable, too. Have I seen
> anybody trying to do so, lately? Nuh-uh. AFAIC, the mfgrs are just cutting
> to deep to be competitive--they're cutting the product, cutting the user,
> and ultimately cutting th
At 20:23 09-07-01 +, Lynn Allen wrote:
>The main point is that regardless of how *monolithic* sofware companies
>believe themselves to be (Microsoft and Adobe come to mind), and how
>*infallable* some engineers occasionally consider themselves to be (no
>present company included or excluded
good documentation cost money, and its not a "sexy" feature..ie. it will not
sell more scanners. So that's why you see poor documentation..
Lets be honest here ok?
"Lynn Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Poor documentation is at least 1/2 the problem in these complaints--I'd
>direct anyone i
Rafe wrote:
>By singling out Nikon as a company writing lousy scanner
software, others might presume that Canon, Minolta,
Polaroid, Acer, HP, Leaf, Kodak or Brand Z must be doing
a better job in that department.
Poor documentation is at least 1/2 the problem in these complaints--I'd
direct anyo
A
>From: Arthur Entlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 02:46:40 -0700
>
>rafeb wrote:
> >
> > At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
At 02:46 AM 7/9/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
>My comment, based upon fact, was that Nikon's scanner software has had a
>history of many problems, and that these same problems extended to
>several Nikon peripherals their scanners work with.
Oh, poop, Art. Go to the PhotographyReview web site a
rafeb wrote:
>
> At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
>
> >You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of
> >problems.
>
> And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's
> scanner software as well.
>
> >Not having their scanner or need for their software...
>
plugin and
contrasty negative scannings.
Mikael Risedal
>From: "Hemingway, David J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:41:19 -0400
>
>I wi
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 7:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
>You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of
>problems.
And quite
At 06:11 AM 7/7/01 -0700, Art Entlich wrote:
>You know, some people have had problems with Nikon software... a LOT of
>problems.
And quite a few have complained about Polaroid's
scanner software as well.
>Not having their scanner or need for their software...
So why add fuel to the fire, Art
Ray Amos wrote:
>
> Claudiu Falub wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
> > effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
> > really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
> > garbage
Claudiu is obviously frustrated with his software, and I can understand how
that can happen. I'm sure that just about everyone on this list knows that
scanner software is notorious for being poorly documented, or buggy, or
substandard in some way. Most people who buy a film scanner are doing s
m: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Amos
> Sent: 06 July 2001 23:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>
>
> Claudiu Falub wrote:
> >
> > Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems t
software.
Bye
Ramesh
-Original Message-
From: Ray Amos [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 3:24 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Claudiu Falub wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is
Lawrence Smith wrote:
>
> Ray,
>
> "my software" ??!! did you write it for Nikon? If not, I hardly think it's
> your software ;-) If you did then i have a few suggestions for you! I DO
> live within a 100 miles of greensboro and i'd love to have you come over and
> have a beer and i'll tell
Ray,
"my software" ??!! did you write it for Nikon? If not, I hardly think it's
your software ;-) If you did then i have a few suggestions for you! I DO
live within a 100 miles of greensboro and i'd love to have you come over and
have a beer and i'll tell you how I think it could be improved
Claudiu Falub wrote:
>
> Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
> effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
> really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
> garbage (Nikonscan 3.0) ...
Claudiu,
On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Claudiu Falub wrote:
> Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
> effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
> really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
> garbage (Nikonscan 3
Many thanks to all who answered to my request. It seems this is one very
effective list. I downloaded the software and hope to solve my nightmare. I
really don't understand why a famous company (read Nikon) can produce such a
garbage (Nikonscan 3.0) ...
Cladiu Falub
James Grove wrote:
> You can
At 10:29 AM 7/6/01 +0200, you wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I've recently purchased a Nikon LS IV scanner. It was delivered with
>Nikonscan 3.0. While the scanner is ok, I don't like the software, since it
>crashes all the time and I have to restart my computer and I hate that. I
>heard the new version 3.1 is be
NikonScan 3.1
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro2/download/download_11.htm
Mikael Risedal
>From: Claudiu Falub <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
>Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:29:01 +0200
&g
Hi!
I've recently purchased a Nikon LS IV scanner. It was delivered with
Nikonscan 3.0. While the scanner is ok, I don't like the software, since it
crashes all the time and I have to restart my computer and I hate that. I
heard the new version 3.1 is better. How can I get it? The salesman told m
: 06 July 2001 09:29
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: Nikon LS IV/Nikoscan 3.0
Hi!
I've recently purchased a Nikon LS IV scanner. It was delivered with
Nikonscan 3.0. While the scanner is ok, I don't like the software, since
it crashes all the time and I have to restart my co
29 matches
Mail list logo
