It was JAK wrote that, not me.

A quick Google suggests the original Scan Dual was SCSI.

My Scan Dual II has USB.

For serious work something like one of the Dimage Scan Duals (I have the II and it's good but the process is slow). If there's a problem with old drivers VueScan will probably provide an answer.

For less critical work I have been surprised by how good my Epson Perfection V600 Photo is.

People seem to be avoiding this question but, for what it's worth, my answer is yes, I can tell the difference between the LH and RH images at 6 feet.

I first saw this post shortly after it was made last night. It was late and I was using a browser on an old laptop in the kitchen without my glasses. The RH Pentax image looked better to me in terms of sharpness and colour but I saw little difference in the Nikon pics.

Came the dawn I downloaded the pics and looked at them in GraphicConverter on a 19" monitor wearing my specs. In both cases the RH images appeared sharper and with a greater depth of colour. At about 5 feet (with a change of glasses) the better sharpness still seemed apparent. By 6 feet it was hard to see much difference in sharpness, but the difference in colour was there out to 9 feet or so at which point I was against the wall.

Now I don't know which camera took what, how relevant those obvious differences would be at normal size use or whether there was any variation in focus, exposure etc between the pairs which would invalidate the test. I'm answering the question asked about the images as presented. For the record I got new specs last month and, when wearing them, my eyesight is better than 'normal'.

While I was looking at the pics my wife was around so I sought her opinion. In both cases her response was immediate, she preferred the RH images in both pics because they "look as though they have more definition and the colour's better".

Opinions such as this may lend weight to my comment about eyesight.

I see a detectable difference with the IIs pictures appearing sharper - in the bamboo, the flowery/swirly/wickerwork patterns and the top edge of the light piece at the bottom. The 100% view in the other set of pictures also appears sharper with the IIs to me.

However one thing that had crossed my mind was that the IIs pictures also give the impression of having a tiny bit more contrast which may increase the impression of sharpness.

Many of us think our eyesight is better than it really is and it would be interesting to know when those who don't see a difference last visited an optician.

Plus variations in readers' visual acuity.

Information for those who don't already know: BT Broadband users get a free flickr pro account.

Better still try this in Google:

siteentaxuser.co.uk/forum "the tree"

I don't think they can. Your earlier link shows that 2.1 contains the words "subject to your privacy and application settings". My reading of that is that where you have a privacy setting on a photo of (say) Friends only you are authorising FB to show your stuff to those friends. Incidentally privacy settings don't apply to Profile pictures which are public.

2.5 is a standard "if you give us a brilliant idea which makes us lots of spondoolicks we don't have to give you anything for it" clause.