Re: Multi Pro or Coolscan 8000?

On Sep 15, 10:27 am, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>
> I disagree with this, though. Things like GEM and ROC make changes that
one
> may later want to reconsider. ICE is, of course, wonderful. But you are
> better off just using ICE to make your archive file, and then working
from
> there.

so what?  just re-scan without them!  :-)
It's not like the "raw" file is gone, is it?
Still: I prefer NI to what GEM does.  But in
the absence of NI, GEM will do a good job.
Just don't use it full strength: setting of 1
works fine for me.



> But I'll agree here. I've been quite successful at persuading Neat Image
to
> clean up the grain on negative scans. I can't speak for Focus Magic, but
as
> long as you keep a clean archived original, whatever you do is fine. (I
say
> this because I found that over the years I was using less and less and
less
> sharpening. YMMV here, of course. But sharpening can be overdone, and
your
> opinion on where the necessary/overdone boundary falls will change over
> time.)

David: get an eval copy of FM and give it a try.
It works very well as a plug-in to Irfanview, for example.
It beats any other sharpening method I've tried with
the possible exception of some based on
high-pass filters.  It leaves USM for dead, period.
Kid you not.  It works particularly well with
digital raw images.