Ok, an update, and it's not great news.

I'm really pleased with the quality of the scans when I get them, but using the Nikon supplied software, I'm getting frequent acquisition failures.

Often, just clicking the scan button again will result in success, but it's a real drag not to be able to scan a strip reliably most, if not every time.

I've tried numerous combinations of settings, with no joy - pretty much every time it will fail to scan a whole strip in one go, and it will often fail to scan a single frame successfully the first time either.

I've also tried VueScan, which doesn't fail to scan, but doesn't give me anywhere near as good results, and I've messed around with the settings there too.

I note that Matt said he'd used VueScan a lot, so I'd be grateful for any suggestions from him, and indeed anyone else who's used the Nikon Scan software.

I wouldn't read too much into it. I'm not entirely convinced English is his(?) first language.

I agree with Peter, and I prefer the uncropped version too.

It is not usual, in the English language, to address people as 'dear' unless you know them quite well, and not even then, unless you are either a lot older then they are, or possibly in a partner relationship with them.

Otherwise, it is likely to be viewed as patronising.

And for what it's worth, language aside, I think it's rude on a 'comment and critique' thread to showcase one's own photographs in response to the original poster.

No lack of relaxation here

And of course, most of us are probably interested in the brand's longevity.

For all I know, P67 may have carefully analysed the market, looked perceptively into the accounting figures, and come to an insightful conclusion.

However, as posted, as I say, it isn't the basis for a meaningful discussion, and it doesn't IMHO contribute anything except a vague feeling of unease.

So with George, I see no purpose in such posts. I wouldn't ban them, but I wish posters of such things would consider (and maybe even tell us!) what they're trying to actually achieve.

Especially when the doom and gloom is posted without any hard information to back up the views expressed.

No figures, no specifics, no analysis - nothing, really, on which to base a reasoned debate (even if there was the will for such a debate, which I doubt).

I think they thought I was bringing breakfast. It was early in the morning, and I was leaning over the fence with the camera. The whole field of them came over at quite a pace.

It was very strange.

The settings are turning out to be fairly important. I've noticed a fair bit of noise in some of the underexposed pictures I'm scanning, so naively I cranked up the 'GEM' (Grain equalization management') setting.

Quite unpleasant at times:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/Scans/133-006-bad.jpg[/IMG]

Compared with this (much closer to my memory of the scene), with it completely switched off:

[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t244/chris5gd/Technical/Scans/133-006a-good.jpg[/IMG]

It's going to be an interesting learning experience this.

Spending the profit you make is part of the plan though, if you want a fun life.

If you can spend £60 and only have to earn £60 to do it, it's better than spending £60 and having had to earn £100 to do it, giving £40 to the berks running the country in the meantime.

Well I've done a roll. And I'm not happy at all.

Why? Because it contained a picture of me, taken some time between '85 and '88. Sadly, I can no longer delude myself that I'm not getting older.

The scanner works well though. I've tried the Nikon software, and I've tried VueScan, which I've purchased. I'll post at greater length on those when I've got more used to the workflow, but initial impresssions are that Digital ICE with the Nikon software produces cleaner results than the Filter options in VueScan.

I'm assuming that the whirring and clonking noises it makes while scanning are normal. It's not as quiet as I was expecting - can anyone with a Coolscan 4, 5, or 5000 comment on the noises they make?

Oh, and 16-bit TIFFs are 137 Mb per file

Even pros that use Canon or Nikon aren't necessarily brand snobs either.

I have a friend that makes his living shooting dance events, and uses a Canon 5D, and 1D MkIII.

He mentioned to me today that the 1D MkIV is apparently coming out. He said, and I quote...

"We Canon users are all waiting for the new 1D MkIV which is rumoured to be out either this month or next - hopefully with AF that works this time" (my emphasis).

Food for thought, perhaps, in the light of recent threads here.

He's only ever been complimentary about the K10D and Pentax lenses, too.