Huh?
Er...
Do you not think that if this were really true, every review under the sun would have trashed the K7 from here to kingdom come?

My immediate reaction to this assertion is that it must be wrong, but I'd be interested to know why you have this feeling?

I can't comment on the 9000, so I don't know how helpful this answer will be.

FWIW, though, I have a 5000, and I'm about a quarter of the way through scanning about ten thousand 35mm colour negs that have been sitting in a cupboard for years. I don't have the prints, so I don't know what I've got, so I need to scan all of them!

For general scanning, I've found that only ICE is worth using on every scan, and it's very well worth it indeed. There's always at least some dust and other crap on the negs, and it's too much of a faff to clone it out individually. ICE is marvellous for that!

I experimented a little with the others, but couldn't reliably improve on the default settings.

I only do 8 bit, single-pass scans in the first instance, with ICE on normal (not fine).

I've tried 16 bit and ICE=fine, but the difference is so marginal that since most of the images are unremarkable at best, there's no advantage in doubling the file size from 70MB to 140MB !

As far as workflow is concerned, I use this procedure, which works just fine, and I can scan a strip of four in a little under 8 minutes, with the only intervention required being the few clicks at the beginning of the strip.

I have a couple of 1TB external drives to which I back up alternately, daily, or twice daily if I'm scanning a lot.

I also tried VueScan, but the results were no better than NikonScan, and the workflow less convenient in a 'fire-and-forget' sense.

I don't do anything else to the resulting TIFFs - I just open them in PhotoShop and save them as PSDs, or JPGs when I'm done.

HTH, but I suspect your needs are a bit more specialist than mine.

The moral...

Your wife ain't so dumb as you thought

I've heard this argument before, and I think it's an oversimplification that sounds superficially enticing, but doesn't really bear scrutiny.

When we're standing in front of a tall building looking up, we're seeing in 3D. So when we look up, although the verticals are converging, our brains are reinforcing the truth that the reduction in size is because of the increased distance.

Even the way our eyes refocus as we look further and further up the building will add to this. It's a sensory cue, that along with others, has been honed by tens of thousands of years of evolution.

In particular, our perception of width remains quite good. We don't suddenly become unsure of whether the walls are actually leaning in, even though visually you might say that the verticals are converging. Further, we can immediately recognise buildings that really don't have vertical and parallel walls.

It's very different looking at a photograph. For one thing the perspective is different with extreme wide angles, but more to the point, there's no 3D - it's a 2D photograph that our brains have to interpret somehow, while focused close, and all at the same distance.

So I'd contend that it's really not the same at all. I think there are good reasons for it to be different, and the difference in the experience bears that out.

Gerri is clearly a lady of taste.
We call that 'stubborn'

Also, what's with that nasty flash reflection?

Yuck. Sorry!!

I don't really know enough to have a view on whether more AF points would be beneficial in practice, but for static subjects I've never had any issue with AF accuracy. It can take its time sometimes, but once it's there it seems to be pretty good.

I'd certainly not want faster at the expense of accuracy - it would defeat the object really.

Is current Pentax AF predictive at all?

I'm trying to be good and not rise to the bait here, but I'm not sure how long I'll be able to last.

With just a shade more editing to enhance the vampire teeth, a possibly more relevant caption could then be...

"Mmmm, crunchy..."

Or you could make the light bulb shine brightly, and then it would have to be..

"Electrifying"

Interesting point.

I think I'd agree with the first one. I find that I'm actually quite liking the way Kris reinforces the irony with his caption. Otherwise, it would have taken me longer to see the significance and I might have looked away before seeing it.

With the second one, I'd disagree. The comic effect is so obvious that the caption is IMO entirely unnecessary, and detracts rather than adding. A bit like when Americans make an ironic joke, and then ruin it completely by tacking 'just kidding' on the end.

With the third one, I can't comment, since I have no idea what it's about, even with the caption. Though I find the composition a bit contrived.

I very much like the irony in the first two, though.