From: newshound <>
Subject: Re: Scanning 35mm negs and slides
Full headers:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 06:54:59 -0500
Subject: Re: Scanning 35mm negs and slides
References: <>
From: newshound <>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 12:55:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <>
Lines: 38
X-Trace: sv3-wEhzsEeQd6UH9J4QCaeYAsbtaP2lftz1UAZqfxHEcnYCjp6UMxhz9vm1aGKOPjee36wRz9xxMbm2waK!uTfbwThiUHAGdiTs2FXI6PRJU+pi191RrFSpzyj+sv2dPTjnm9EKEopiQneK6pOevJYfs7Foh1V1!71k2JpUylz3m3mKl+kv1STAfexk=
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 3124
Print Article
Forward Article
On 25/10/2017 11:57, android wrote:
> In article<>,
>   newshound<> wrote:
>> On 24/10/2017 20:33, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2017-10-24 09:26, newshound wrote:
>>>> I have an ancient (and almost unused) Dimage Scan Dual IV which I
>>>> believe was well rated in its day. Is it still worth taking the
>>>> trouble to try to get it working on Win 10 (I also have a Macbook Pro
>>>> and a Unix box)? No current drivers from Minolta/Konica I understand,
>>>> should I invest in VueScan, or something else?
>>>> Or would it be easier just to buy something more recent? Not looking
>>>> to spend "professional" money, but not bargain basement either.
>>> I'd get it up and running, but I'm funny that way.  That scanner was a
>>> late model, the last from Minolta being the 5400 (and 5400 II).  I had
>>> the 5400 and it was excellent.  (Sold it and bought a Nikon 9000ED).
>>> Is VueScan worth it?  Sure.  Currently it's about US$90.  Question is:
>>> can you get equivalent (or better) scans of the photos of interest for
>>> less cost (and hassle).
>> Thanks both for the advice on VueScan. I've been burned before with
>> trialware that has great reviews on-line, takes an age to get setup and
>> working, turns out to have the feature I wanted to test crippled, and
>> only then declares its true cost.
>> I'll give it a try.
> I've paid for and use the pro version. You don't need to pay to try. You
> need to pay to get scans without watermarks. I've described my workflow
> in another thread some time ago... You can find two samples in the
> gallery of my blog:
> <>
Thanks. I used to *love* Kodachrome II.