I've got an Epson Perfection V500 PHOTO flatbed USB connected scanner which does everything I want of it - documents, photographs and negatives (comes with supplied frames to position the negs whilst scanning). Don't kid yourself that it's a swift process - far from it - but the results are good.

If you want to "try it out," you could post me a negative, I'll scan it and e-mail you the resultant digital pic.

Ray

It's like a fairy tale, Don - Grimm!

Ray

I appreciate your take on John's post, Tim, which is how I saw it too, but - as I said - it's still a joke. I sent it on to a friend of mine who's recently bought an i4 and he thought it was great. It's a molehill, let's not start putting crampons on!

Ray

Constructive? It's a joke, isn't it?

Ray

No, it's a walking tour - see here for more - very interesting and entertaining too.

Ray

Great photographs, Peter! Did you take the "Underground" tour?

Ray

Go to "Option" menu, select the function you want to change - either "Imprint the date for printing setting," or "Imprint the date for output setting."

Click on "Date(White)" then click "Copy" to produce an editable duplicate.
Now click on "Edit." Click on "Detailed settings," then alter the text shown by re-typing what you need (%D%M%Y) and OK it. Save the parameter with your filename of choice (Click on Rename), then having selected the pictures, apply the parameter by selecting it from the pop-up list.

Ray

Criticism: noun

1.the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.
2.the act or art of analyzing and evaluating or judging the quality of a literary or artistic work, musical performance, art exhibit, dramatic production, etc.

Mike's criticism is constructive, in that he explains why he doesn't like certain elements of the photograph.

Why, because they don't suit you? You are clearly confused with your use of the word "constructive," as you seem to imply that only positive comments are constructive - nonsense.

I would have thought that at 28 years (an estimate from your forum name) you would have realised when you ask for criticism you're not going to like all of it. Putting that which you don't like down as "not being constructive" is not acceptable, but if that's what you're used to doing, or that's the attitude you have chosen to adopt, then it might not be wise to seek criticism in the future.

I suppose that, being compared to AA early on, the comments could (and should) only have got worse. I wish that there was a more polite way to say "Grow up!"

Ray

Great - incidentally, so do I.

OK, but beware that you don't fall into the trap of continually criticising yourself to the point where nothing satisfies you - photography should be fun too!

Ray

I doubt that you'd be hard-pressed to find a police officer who didn't agree with your point of view. In the "old days," Courts would accept a police officer's view of the accident as a specialist in the same way that they accepted an officer's evidence of drunkenness. If a police officer, especially a Traffic officer, gave his reasoned cause for the accident, that was - in almost every case - that.

Now, we're in an age where everything is questioned, some things apparently just for the sake of it, or because it's now the norm. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act moved some things along, but when substantial amounts of money began to be made out of challenging everyday decisions and winning on a pure technicality (not because it didn't happen, but because it wasn't covered in the officer's evidence), things underwent a sea change.

No police officer enjoys losing a case in Magistrates' or Crown Court, in spite of trying not to take such losses personally. No officer likes to have their submissions to the Crown Prosecution Service rejected on the grounds that it's "not in the public interest" to prosecute. Add to that mix all the ever-increasingly brayed-about "rights" of the motorist and pedestrian and it all starts to go a bit Pete Tong.

If there is an offence, then it's a crime under the criminal law. Where that crime occurred is a crime scene, it's as simple as that. The burden of proof for criminal charges is "beyond a reasonable doubt," so imagine the sort of evidence that you would think about documenting, investigating or covering in order to make a subsequent prosecution a "likely outcome" (because the CPS won't touch it unless it's likely to succeed anyway). Where do you draw the line? Most forces now insist that road crashes (or collisions, or whatever the fashionable label is nowadays) are treated like any other scene of crime. This has several direct effects:

1) Significantly greater amounts of time and staff to complete the task
2) Significantly more inconvenience to other road users
3) Significantly less liklihood of a later acquittal on a technicality.

If you were a relative of someone involved, injured or deceased as a result of such an incident, would you want evidence lost because other road users were in a hurry to get home from work?

All that said, I've got no idea why some less personable (and probably less bright) officers still insist on trying to bull-sh1t their way through. I love to see someone stick it out in this sort of situation, so well done polchraine because it's plainly the officer's own fault for trying it on, or not knowing the legislation - neither of which is acceptable.

Ray