> >Take a look at the Leafscan 45 sample vs. the Nikon ED 4000 about halfway
> >down the page at this site:
> >
> >
>
> One of us is hallucinating, or one of us is blind. I sure
> don't see the "astonishing" difference you're talking about,
> even when these two images are inspected under high magnification
> in Photoshop.
Really? Maybe it's my monitor (a 14" thoroughly uncalibrated notebook LCD).
I don't know what accounts for the difference--maybe the one poster is right
in saying it is contrast--but it is most apparent to me in the girl's face.
The Leafscan image looks clear and _glossy_, while the Nikon image looks
_flat_. To put it differently, the Nikon image looks like a scan, while the
Leafscan image looks like a photograph (to my eyes).
I don't have the vocabulary or the trained eye to articulate what the
difference is or what causes it--but I sure can see it. That's why I was
hoping someone here could tell me what it is, and if it could be addressed
in Photo Shop so that the Nikon scan would end up looking as good as the
Leafscan image after some tweaking. I ask because I'm leaning toward buying
the 4000 now, so I'm hoping there's some way to get it to look as good as
the Leafscan--cuz that's the sort of scan I'm aiming for (yep, I could
always just get a Leafscan 45, but I don't know what I'm doing and figure a
4000 with ICE has a shorter learning curve--and scanning time per image).
Thanks,
Dan
