Seeing as how you asked, yes.

Michael

My experience with a Scan Dual II was that using the scanner to make adjustments before scanning gave much poorer results than I got from a straight scan then adjustments in PS.

Michael

I have used ffordes on several occasions and found them helpful and reliable.

Michael

Presumably you mean fotosense.co.uk not the name you gave in the thread title.

Fotosense's website gives a norm of 2-5 working days for standard delivery, not 2-3.

Did you ask the company for an explanation?

Probably because it has to default to something, first professional users tended to favour Macs and Macs then used 72ppi.

But they don't interpolate in this case. A picture that is 600x600 in PS will show as 600x600 on any monitor.

You took the words out of my mouth. Mac used to be 72ppi and Windows 96ppi. It is impossible to accurately size a picture for general web viewing as the actual size it appears will depend on the pixel pitch of the monitor being used. The only control you have is pixel dimensions and resolution has no relevance.

Why 72ppi for the web? Resolution is immaterial as far as web use is concerned, it's the actual pixel dimensions that matter.

Michael

In terms of wordprocessing both Bean and NeoOffice at opposite ends of the complexity spectrum are free.

GraphicConverter may not qualify as an "advanced photo program" but for cheap shareware does a surprising amount.

I've used Macs since the first one came out in 1984 and have hardly ever used Windoze so am in no position to judge on merits and demerits of each platform's OS but from conversations with others I get the impression that the Mac OS is much easier both to maintain (ie virtually zero maintenance) and protect against nasties (again virtually if not actually zero).

What film did they use? Old E6 are subject to colour change which may take time in PP. Kodachrome should be fine.

I used to use a Minolta Scan Dual a lot. Results were good as long as the scanner's own image adjustments were not used. Also the resolution needed to be chosen with some care, 905 ppi produced poorer results than 720, 1440 or 2880. (I think those were the figures - some time since I used it). The actual sequence of scanning operations could also effect final quality. The scanning process of four slides or six negatives at a time was slow, especially at higher resolutions.

In general I found the amount of PP needed depended, as you would expect, on the quality of the original but did not take long unless there was a lot of dust to clone out. Dust might be an issue for you if the slides have not been carefully handled and especially if they're in cardboard mounts. In the end I found the most effective way to get rid of dust was to hold a slide by a corner and flick the opposite corner with my middle finger.

Michael

"I have to say that good use of smilies can deflate an argument or even prevent it arising."

"There are times where you need a "tongue in cheek" smiley."

I don't think those arguments stand close examination.

If a person makes a conscious decision to use a deflationary smiley that means they have realised that the comments they are making are contentious. They would therefore do better not to make the comments in a contentious manner - or at all - in the first place.

Michael