Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 5000

[Kennedy McEwen]

If you edit the image in scanner software, you are changing raw data.
That is "corruption" of raw data.

If you edit the image in Photoshop you are also changing raw data. By
your definition this is also corruption of raw data - and potentially
worse corruption than in the scanner software due to the known and
unknown deficiencies of Photoshop. In some cases you are better to edit
in the scanner software *before* transferring to PS.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

By *not* omitting the *only* pertinent paragraph! You ignored it in
your response yet again, so:

An entire paragraph from a completely different post to the one I quoted
from!

You said I never include such qualifications, and yet here is a clear
and unambiguous example which directly contradicts your unsupported
assertion.

Read the sentence I wrote:
"You make the point that your absolute statement is "regardless of bit
depth" but you have *never* clarified that you are making a conditional
statement in regards to one particular issue until several posts later."

For someone complaining that I don't take account of paragraphs from
their subsequent posts, you demonstrate surprisingly little ability to
read an entire contiguous sentence in one of mine!

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

It just doesn't work that way:

Yes it does! You appear to indicate some knowledge of mathematics so you
ought to know what a statistically significant proportion is!

Please calculate and report, together with your workings, the percentage
error due to evenly sampling (as per a preview) a 1200 pixel wide image
from the possible 5650 odd samples! Here's a little clue - it isn't
just the probability of a single full resolution pixel not being sampled
by the lower resolution preview that you naively seem to think it is.

Then compare that to the random noise on your data and work out how
small a preview window can actually be, as a proportion of the full
image, before the error even becomes as significant as that noise.

Finally then, tell us all what the significance is of those missing
pin-pricks of highlight or shadow that you are so worried might have
fallen down the gaps (with the probability that you have calculated)
will be to the final image. Tell us how, after sufficient scans to
achieve just a single instance of said occurrence, it results in any
greater error or increased workload than your method, which requires a
full resolution prescan of every image in order to determine the correct
exposure adjustment before making a second, and hopefully, final scan.
You might also explain how the performance of any reasonably scaled
preview stacks up with the resolution used for the autoexposure
function, which you have already indicated you use in some cases.

1. If you preview the full image then you only have very limited
resolution.
2. If you preview using full resolution then you only have a fraction
of the image.

You just can't have both *full* resolution and *full* image in the
Preview window.

You don't *need* both full resolution and full image - that is just
total naivety! I suggest you read up on population sampling.

You have to chose one or the other.

Utter rubbish!

Again, and for the umpteenth time, I never said Photoshop *algorithms*
were superior. Point out where I said that!

You stated, without any qualification then or later, that:
"By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
"tools"."

As I said before, the direct implication that processing in native
scanner software always produces inferior results to passing a raw image
to Photoshop *is* that Photoshop algorithms are always superior, in
spite of their known limitations.

All I said was that the scanner software *environment* (the tiny
preview window, the lack of numerical displays, the lack of additional
tools such as Threshold, etc.) is what makes editing in scanner
software unsuitable for anything but casual use.

Another new "qualification"!

If that's what you're after, then it's perfectly suitable. But if you
are after maximum quality, it doesn't even come close.

Go and calculate the statistical significance of the preview - you'll be
surprised at how close it comes, even with quite small preview windows.
I doubt that you have even made enough scans from all of your scanners
put together to have a reasonable chance of *one* such problem case!

Which is why there are plug-ins like Wide Histogram which will even
export histogram data for further analysis in Excel, for example. This
is impossible to retrofit into scanner software which is limited to a
very narrow subset of underpowered tools.

And the superiority of a Wide Histogram function (which is only 10 bits
in any case!) over an 8-bit histogram that rounds up (as per both
Photoshop and Nikonscan for example) is what precisely? Please limit
your response to issues which are relevant to obtaining an optimised
image transfer into the final editing software. A single pixel outlier
shows up just as readily, perhaps more so, on the 8-bit histogram as in
the full 10-bit wide histogram!

Again, perfectly suitable for a casual user but a nightmare for high
quality data acquisition.

Again utter crap based on the notion that the scanner software needs
everything to be worthwhile!

 

[Hecate]

Isn't that what we all consider we do?

I would hope so, but it just seemed that this debate was getting away
from that

 

[Hecate]

As Inspector Cluseau would put it:

Zet's vat I sed! ;o)


On my uncalibrated LCD monitor it has a distinct dark, blue cast...

Oh no, wait... That's the Kodachromes... ;o)

LOL! Oh hell, *don't* mention Kodachromes.... ;-)

 

[Jerry C.]

<snipped out a tremendous amount of arguing about what one person said
and how the other person edited and quoted it>
===================================================

I have read a number of the posts in this thread (but not all) because I
am also interested in getting a Scan Elite 5400. However, I am having a
difficult time ascertaining much relevance most of these answers have to
the original post. In case anyone forgot, here it is:

"I am currently shopping for a new scanner to replace my Minolta Dimage
Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!"

BTW, there were a few answers of helpful insight. A few.

Jerry Cipriano

 

[Toby]

Hi David,

I understand the reason to get a raw scan--to get the maximum amount of
information possible in the scan itself, instaead of using the scanner s/w
to decide what part of it you are going to get. I'm still wondering about
exposure, insofar as I assume that in some cases the dynamic range of the
film is going to exceed the dynamic range of the scanner.

In photography we have an analogous situation (I think), in that film has a
limited dynamic range. Therefore in contrasty situations especially, you
have to decide if you wish to lose highlight information or shadow
information when you expose a piece of film. Unless you resort to techniques
to change the response of the film (such as the zone system) you will never
get anywhere near all the tonal information that the eye can register.

Similarly doesn't the exposure of the scanner play a role in the amount of
information and which information is finally included in the digital scan?
Is it not the job of the scanner s/w to determine the correct amount of
exposure for a given piece of film, considering its maximum density and
contrast range?

When you talk about a raw scan, how is the exposure determined? Do you
sometimes tweak the analog gain if, for instance, you wish to try to get
better tonal separation in the shadows, or is this just a function of the D
max of the scanner--a set quantity--and changing the analog gain will have
no effect on getting better tonal separation on the other side of the D max
floor?

Toby

 

[Jerry C.]

I think it's probably because natural gas vehicles do not have as much
"kick" as the gasoline powered cars. And, unlike Europeans who pay
thought the nose, the North Americans pay considerably less for
gasoline so why give up this power when there's no apparent benefit -
aside from environmental benefits but that's apparently not on the top
of the list, if it is on the list at all... There are exceptions,
though, like California.




I believe that the Post Office vans are also switching to electric. It
actually makes a lot of sense: there's no need for speed, they only
travel limited distances and are very quiet to boot, so electric power
seems to fit the bill perfectly.

Don.

===================================================
I have a suggestion that regular contributing members of this newsgroup
might consider. In another newsgroup that I inhabit, the regulars have
developed friendships or adversarial relationships and the threads
constantly detour into off-topic subjects. The occasional reader/
lurker that was seeking only on-topic information frequently had to
delve through mounds of off-topic posts to find relevant subject matter.
Many participants claimed that this was inconsiderate. This was
resolved by the regulars agreeing to label their off-topic detours as
"OT: Political" or "OT: something else" in the subject heading.
Sometimes the thread starts on-topic and then detours off-topic. When
that happens, the poster also would change the subject heading to "OT:
something else <formerly Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 5000>". There is then
that option to kill-file or refuse to read those OT postings, if one
wants to only focus on, let's say for example, SCANNERS. Of course
there would still be grey areas when someone may be talking about their
personal scanning theory unrelated to the original post.

I certainly don't want to discourage friendly discourse in CPS, and this
is not intended to object to that. This is merely something that you
might consider.

Respectfully,
Jerry Cipriano

 

[Don]

Excuse me for butting in, re: analog gain. Does the scanner not optimize
exposure by changing the analog gain based on the density of the target
film?

Indeed, if you use Auto-Exposure.

However, that has nothing to do with the current subject matter which
is: What produces purest scanner output, raw or "cooked" (color and
contrast modifications made with scanner software).

Or am I again totally out to lunch here. When you speak about a raw
scan are you not using any sort of autoexposure controlled by the scanner
s/w based on the max transmission/density of the film?

There are two answers to that.

Method 1: No, I'm not!

I turn Auto Exposure off, reset Analog Gain and do a preliminary scan.
After examining the histogram (I happen to use Photoshop) I adjust the
exposure and then scan "for real".

Method 2: Not for the final scan!

I use Auto Exposure to get the "ballpark" exposure. The Auto Exposure
scan is in this case the preliminary scan. After examining the
histogram (I happen to use Photoshop) I adjust the exposure to fine
tune what Auto Exposure came up with and then scan "for real".

NOTE: Auto Exposure depends on the Preview scan. The Preview scan is a
only a *fraction* of available image data (either very low resolution
or only a small portion of the image).

This means that any exposure Auto figures out is not necessarily the
best. Sometimes, after examining the preliminary scan in Photoshop, I
may decide it's good enough and leave it at that. But - if you are
after maximum quality - unless the image is examined in Photopshop (or
image editing software of choice) this can't be established for sure
just from the NikonScan Preview window alone.

Don.

 

[Don]

I understand the reason to get a raw scan--to get the maximum amount of
information possible in the scan itself, instaead of using the scanner s/w
to decide what part of it you are going to get. I'm still wondering about
exposure, insofar as I assume that in some cases the dynamic range of the
film is going to exceed the dynamic range of the scanner.

Yes, and then you have to employ various other methods like
multi-scanning or contrast blending to get the full dynamic range.

However, if you at the same time let scanner software adjust color,
contrast, etc. this will just get in the way and generally interfere -
if you're trying to get the most out of the scanner.

Similarly doesn't the exposure of the scanner play a role in the amount of
information and which information is finally included in the digital scan?

Yes, and this is far too important to leave it to the scanner because
the scanner can only blindly follow simple rules (such as black and
white clipping). This may work in some (even many) cases but can't be
relied upon if your goal is to get the most out of the scanner.

Is it not the job of the scanner s/w to determine the correct amount of
exposure for a given piece of film, considering its maximum density and
contrast range?

Actually, it's not. It's the job of the operator to determine the
correct amount of exposure. The scanner can assist by guessing, but
that's all it is: a guess and a suggestion.

It's just the same as taking pictures. I mean, you wouldn't say it's
the job of the camera to determine exposure. The camera can assist by
guessing, but that's all it is: a guess and a suggestion. In the end
it's the photographer who decides.

!!!
This is actually a very interesting point. People often think their
"work" is done after taking the picture. Scanning, to many of them (me
too when I started!), is supposed to be a mechanical, automated
procedure of converting this photo into the digital domain.

The truth is, however, that scanning is just as complex and difficult
as taking the photo in the first place. One could maybe even argue
more so, because while a photographer works with first-hand data (the
reality) the scanner operator works with second-hand data (a photo of
that reality).
!!!

When you talk about a raw scan, how is the exposure determined? Do you
sometimes tweak the analog gain if, for instance, you wish to try to get
better tonal separation in the shadows, or is this just a function of the D
max of the scanner--a set quantity--and changing the analog gain will have
no effect on getting better tonal separation on the other side of the D max
floor?

I personally tweak Analog Gain all the time. I explained how I, for
one, determine exposure in the other message so I won't be repeating
it here.

My current "obsession" is trying to eliminate noise in dark areas and
bring out the detail. This was torture on LS-30 (a 10-bit scanner) but
after running many tests on the LS-50 (a 14-bit scanner) I'm starting
to think Dmax is really just another theoretical number divorced from
reality... According to my preliminary tests I'd really need a 20 or
even 24-bit scanner to get the full Kodachrome range without noise and
with maximum detail - which is what I'm currently wrestling with.

Even though LS-50 doesn't support single-pass multi-scanning, I ran 18
scans, lined them up *perfectly* with sub-pixel alignment and then
blended them.

The result was underwhelming. While this masked random noise it did
not bring out any more *detail* in shadows. Indeed, comparable results
to multi-scanning can be achieved by simply selecting dark areas
(about 32 Threshold) and then applying 0.3 Gaussian Blur to the
shadows.

A simple scan with Analog Gain boosted by 1 or 2 clicks revealed
gradients in shadows which multi-scan failed to bring out at nominal
exposure. Of course, boosting Analog Gain by 1 or 2 steps blows
highlights big time!

So, the fun continues...

Don.

 

[Don]

If you edit the image in Photoshop you are also changing raw data.

The subject is getting the most out of the scanner. What happens with
this data afterwards is not at discussion.

By
your definition this is also corruption of raw data - and potentially
worse corruption than in the scanner software due to the known and
unknown deficiencies of Photoshop.

It's certainly not any worse than known and unknown deficiencies of
scanner software (when it comes to color, contrast, etc).

So, since these "known and unknown deficiencies" appear on both sides
of the equation, it's irrelevant when comparing raw to cooked scans.

In some cases you are better to edit
in the scanner software *before* transferring to PS.

As I said repeatedly, it doesn't have to be Photoshop, any image
editing software of choice will do.

Where we differ, however, is that whatever external software one uses,
working at full resolution (indeed some operations require 300-400%
magnification) as well as the full complement of tools, far superior
results will be achieved with external image editing software than
with the limited toolbox and working environment of the scanner
software.


But more importantly, you have totally ignored the key paragraph.
Let's cut through all these side issues, and consolidate the
discussion. The key is this:

OK, be *very* specific and give me a *concrete* example of a "raw" vs.
"cooked" comparison where "raw loses a lot of quality".

And don't just make general statements, but give me a concrete,
detailed, specific example so we can nail down this exception you are
referring to.

Give me this example/exception, and then we can clear up all the
misunderstandings and sidetracking, and focus on the subject matter.

Don.

 

[Don]

An entire paragraph from a completely different post to the one I quoted
from!

No, the very same message. The very first one! Quoted below in full.

Read the sentence I wrote:
"You make the point that your absolute statement is "regardless of bit
depth" but you have *never* clarified that you are making a conditional
statement in regards to one particular issue until several posts later."

Because I assume a certain (minimal) amount of common sense and a
known context.

The comments relate to the subject at hand. Otherwise no discussion is
possible if we have to list all common sense exclusions and outline
the full context with each sentence.

I mean would you expect me to keep repeating "except when a meteor
strikes the scanner" with each statement?

Don.

 

[Don]

Yes it does! You appear to indicate some knowledge of mathematics so you
ought to know what a statistically significant proportion is!

Please calculate and report, together with your workings, the percentage
error due to evenly sampling (as per a preview) a 1200 pixel wide image
from the possible 5650 odd samples!

That's not what I'm talking about. As I write elsewhere I'm currently
busy with trying to figure out a way to identify noise in dark areas
and recover image data from these areas by boosting exposure.

Even at 100% and using a clear LCD display it's not always easy to see
single pixel noise. Only at magnification of 300-400% does this become
apparent.

You stated, without any qualification then or later, that:
"By doing image editing at the scanning stage you irreparably *corrupt*
the image at the earliest possible stage and with the crudest possible
"tools"."

And where is Photoshop mentioned?

As I said before, the direct implication that processing in native
scanner software always produces inferior results to passing a raw image
to Photoshop *is* that Photoshop algorithms are always superior, in
spite of their known limitations.

No, the implication is you are making editing decision based on a
limited subset of data and using a limited subset of tools.

Again, no mention of Photoshop.

Another new "qualification"!

No, simply a clarification of something I thought was self-evident and
didn't need clarification.

Since, apparently, it wasn't self-evident I just provide additional
explanation which do not change the original statement in any way.

A "qualification" implies putting additional restrictions. The above
explanation doesn't do that. It just lists what was implied in the
original statement without modifying it.

Don.

 

[Don]

I have a suggestion that regular contributing members of this newsgroup
might consider. In another newsgroup that I inhabit, the regulars have
developed friendships or adversarial relationships and the threads
constantly detour into off-topic subjects. The occasional reader/
lurker that was seeking only on-topic information frequently had to
delve through mounds of off-topic posts to find relevant subject matter.
Many participants claimed that this was inconsiderate. This was
resolved by the regulars agreeing to label their off-topic detours as
"OT: Political" or "OT: something else" in the subject heading.
Sometimes the thread starts on-topic and then detours off-topic. When
that happens, the poster also would change the subject heading to "OT:
something else <formerly Minolta 5400 or Coolscan 5000>". There is then
that option to kill-file or refuse to read those OT postings, if one
wants to only focus on, let's say for example, SCANNERS. Of course
there would still be grey areas when someone may be talking about their
personal scanning theory unrelated to the original post.

I certainly don't want to discourage friendly discourse in CPS, and this
is not intended to object to that. This is merely something that you
might consider.

I sympathize with your predicament but as you point out threads do
tend to meander.

This is a problem with large volume groups but in here there are only
about 30-40 posts per day (if that). I personally find it very easy to
skip the ones I'm not interested in.

Also - not an excuse, but - other groups have much more noise than
this one. Witness 'comp.graphics.apps.photoshop' where it seems half
the messages are long quotes ending with "RTFM" or "Google!".
Followed, by various proto-humans hurling insults and obscenities at
each other...

At least we don't do that here. Well, not yet... ;o)

One parting observation. I used to parachute in here from time to time
when I needed specific information and then, indeed, it's not nice to
have to wade through irrelevant messages. But eventually I just stuck
around (in part because of low volume and low noise). In return, I
find I have learned a lot of very interesting things by serendipity. I
mean, every now and then you come across a gem you neither asked for
nor ever thought about.

Anyway, I'd just end this ramble with apologizing for any
inconvenience I may have caused with my other ramblings.

That reminds me! Speaking of rambling... Juuuust kidding! ;o)

Don.

 

[WD]

Similarly doesn't the exposure of the scanner play a role in the amount of

information and which information is finally included in the digital scan?
YES

Is it not the job of the scanner s/w to determine the correct amount of
exposure for a given piece of film, considering its maximum density and
contrast range?
YES


When you talk about a raw scan, how is the exposure determined?

The short answer is that determing the exposure for a raw scan is no
different
than determining the exposure for a 'regular' scan. It can be
determined automatically
by the scanner software with 'analog gain' tweaks or can be done
manually.

Do you
sometimes tweak the analog gain if, for instance, you wish to try to get
better tonal separation in the shadows, or is this just a function of the D
max of the scanner--a set quantity--and changing the analog gain will have
no effect on getting better tonal separation on the other side of the D max
floor?

Probably the simplest way to state optimal exposure setting is to say
that the optimal exposure will do the best job of aligning the dynamic
range of the scanner with the dynamic range of the film being scanned.


For negatives where the Dmax of the scanner typically exceeds the
film,
I suppose a fixed exposure may work, but again the scanner sw will
attempt
to put the exposure in the 'sweet spot' of the scanner dynamic range.

As a side note, it is my opinion that if scanner sw is properly
designed to produce raw
scans, there should be a raw scan 'switch' and the user should not
have
to play games with a dozen or so settings and still not be sure if
he/she
is really getting a raw scan or not (e.g. is the scanner sw still
deciding
where to clip highlight and shadow data or is it giving the user all
the data generated by they A/D converter?)

 

[Toby]

Thanks Don,

This whole thread has clarified my thinking a lot. As an experienced
photographer who started taking pix about 40 years ago before automation
became all the rage, I should have been more aware of the realities from the
outset, but I get the feeling that basically the mindset with this digital
stuff has become "the automation does it so well that we don't even have to
discuss the results obtainable from doing it manually." However if one
doesn't know the manual possibilites one never can know what might be
missing when leaving everything on automatic.

So I do appreciate the time you took explaining it all, and hopefully it may
have helped others understand too what is basically not in the user's
manual...


Toby

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

The subject is getting the most out of the scanner. What happens with
this data afterwards is not at discussion.

I suggest you read the subject, because as others have already noted,
that certainly is not what it is!

On the topic of this particular sub-thread however, the issue is not
just getting the most out of the scanner - look at the words that you
choose to quote so regularly from Toby's first post. It is about
getting the best *result* and whether that is better achieved using
scanner software first or, as you claim, scanning raw and processing
Photoshop later.

It's certainly not any worse than known and unknown deficiencies of
scanner software (when it comes to color, contrast, etc).

So, since these "known and unknown deficiencies" appear on both sides
of the equation, it's irrelevant when comparing raw to cooked scans.

Which is *precisely* my point - you have no evidence whatsoever to base
your claim that Toby's original statement was "exactly the opposite" of
the truth.

As I said repeatedly, it doesn't have to be Photoshop, any image
editing software of choice will do.

I used PS because that was the editing suite referred to in the original
post, but the result may well differ in other suites depending on what
their strengths and deficiencies are.

Where we differ, however, is that whatever external software one uses,
working at full resolution (indeed some operations require 300-400%
magnification) as well as the full complement of tools, far superior
results will be achieved with external image editing software than
with the limited toolbox and working environment of the scanner
software.

No, that is not where we differ. At no point in the discussion have I
ever suggested that the range of tools available in scanner software
packages are adequate to undertake every image editing function. However
they are equally capable, and in some cases more capable, of undertaking
many functions prior to editing in Photoshop.

But more importantly, you have totally ignored the key paragraph.
Let's cut through all these side issues, and consolidate the
discussion. The key is this:


Give me this example/exception, and then we can clear up all the
misunderstandings and sidetracking, and focus on the subject matter.

I have already answered that Don, with several examples as I recall. The
most specific being that the first thing that happens to your raw image
upon entering Photoshop is that it is reduced from 16-bit range to
15-bits. Now that might not matter much to you with a scanner which
only produces 14-bits and has no capability to multiscan, although I
notice that you have already encountered the 15-bit limit in Photoshop
from your attempts to implement manual multiscan within it, however I
remind you the subject matter of the thread - Minolta 5400 or Coolscan
5000. These are *both* full 16-bit enabled scanners, and your workflow
will immediately result in performance loss over implementing a set of
functions in the scanner software.

 

[Kennedy McEwen]

That's not what I'm talking about. As I write elsewhere I'm currently
busy with trying to figure out a way to identify noise in dark areas
and recover image data from these areas by boosting exposure.

Even at 100% and using a clear LCD display it's not always easy to see
single pixel noise. Only at magnification of 300-400% does this become
apparent.

In which case you are using the wrong tool to do the job! Pixel noise
is a function of correct exposure in the scanner, and this can readily
be determined from the preview. You might like to view the results at
300-400% for the purpose of examining the noise, but not for controlling
it.

So, the question still stands, please explain how and why the preview is
inadequate for controlling the scanner operation.

And where is Photoshop mentioned?

In the article which you responded to, or more precisely, quoted in the
article you responded to!

No, the implication is you are making editing decision based on a
limited subset of data and using a limited subset of tools.

As you might have gathered from the little task I set you, that limited
subset of data is actually all that is necessary fro the purpose, and
using a limited set of tools does not make their use wrong, especially
if the alternative is to use similar tools with known deficiencies.

Again, no mention of Photoshop.

Didn't you read the article you responded to?

No, simply a clarification of something I thought was self-evident and
didn't need clarification.

However, if you undertake the prescribed task you will see that it is
not an unsuitable environment for the use of some of those tools at all.
And that is what is at issue here, not (as you have implied several
times) whether all of the tools in the scanner software can be used to
produce an end result, but whether it is actually better to use some of
those tools in the scanner package rather than scan as raw as possible
and process later. As you have already experienced in your multiscan
efforts, the conclusion is not consistent. Consequently, your argument
that "exactly the opposite" of Toby's argument was true is completely
wrong. There are cases where it is clearly better to implement certain
functions and processes in the scanner software.

 

[Hecate]

<snipped out a tremendous amount of arguing about what one person said
and how the other person edited and quoted it>
===================================================

I have read a number of the posts in this thread (but not all) because I
am also interested in getting a Scan Elite 5400. However, I am having a
difficult time ascertaining much relevance most of these answers have to
the original post. In case anyone forgot, here it is:

"I am currently shopping for a new scanner to replace my Minolta Dimage
Scan Elite. I have been looking at both the Minolta 5400 and the Nikon
Coolscan 5000. Can anyone relate to me any experiences using either
scanner? Does anyone have an opinion about how the two compare to one
another? I'd greatly appreciate any input that you can offer. Thanks!"

BTW, there were a few answers of helpful insight. A few.

They are both good. I looked at both and decided that I would
purchase a Minolta. I prefer what the Minolta gives me against what
the Nikon gives me. For that you really need to go to the individual
sites and compare specs.

I haven't been disappointed. Other people have done the same thing
and decided on the Nikon.

Basically, you need to make your own mind up - both are excellent
scanners.

 

[Don]

Thanks Don,

You're most welcome.

However if one
doesn't know the manual possibilites one never can know what might be
missing when leaving everything on automatic.

Exactly! That's very important! By all means, use the automatic help
the software and hardware provides (I do too, whenever possible) but
be aware of what is going on.

So I do appreciate the time you took explaining it all, and hopefully it may
have helped others understand too what is basically not in the user's
manual...

Indeed! I got so much out of this group (especially from Kennedy!) so
I'm more than happy to be able to give at least something back.

BTW, don't be mislead by my current handbag battle with Kennedy. ;o)
That's in no way personal and we both know it. I think very highly of
Kennedy and he puts much more time and knowledge into this group than
I do!

Don.