[filmscanners] Re: Revive this list?!

["James L. Sims" <jlsims@knology.net>]

I, for one, would hate to see this list go by the wayside.  It has 
helped me make choices in a evolution of scanners and, as far as I know, 
scanners are still improving.  Many of the members on this list, and 
they're too numerous to name, have been of invaluable assistance to me. 

I agree with Brad in that widening the the topic to be inclusive to 
digital photography.  While I now use a digital camera regularly, I 
still shoot medium format film and all the image printing and 
distribution is in digital form.  Other lists that are peculiar to a 
manufacturer are very limited in information and narrow in scope.  
Filmscanners has been by far the best information source I have found.  
I even ran across an old Bush & Millimaki customer who also lives in my 
home town of Huntsville, Alabama. 

I know that quite literally thousands of individuals have been informed 
and assisted from this list.  I will do all I can to help revive this 
list, Tony, from my area - just say the word.

Please, keep up the good work,

Jim Sims

Brad Davis wrote:

>Tony,
>
>First, below is a note from Ed Lusby.  I don't know what to make of his
>difficulties communicating, but I thought sending it along to you might be
>useful.
>
>Below Ed's note is something I wrote to John Mahany after he so kindly sent
>me the info re: cleaning an SS4000.  I hate to see this list die, it has
>been too good to just let it disappear - especially when much of the
>expertise that is here (o0r was here) applies all along the process of
>digital photography.  Other lists that are supposed to deal with various
>topics are usually too limited - either to a certain manufacturer, or
>software vendor, or the material they deal with lacks the depth that I know
>I need.  The people here are the only ones I've found that consistently know
>the answers, and more.  Laurie seems to be a treasure in himself, and there
>are several others who are as good and in some cases better.  My suggestion
>is to widen the topic and then try to revive the list.  I would be willing
>to help by shilling for the list on other venues.
>
>Hope we can keep it going.
>
>Brad
>
>
>Hi Brad,
>I haven't been able to post to filmscanners recently because my return
>email address was refused. There is nothing wrong with the return address,
>so I'm not sure what the problem is. I've also tried to contact Tony Sleep
>(the "owner" of filmscanners) but that message is also returned. Would you
>please forward this to filmscanners for me?
>Thanks.
>
>I share your concerns about the group, Brad, and I certainly agree that the
>expertise here is unparalleled. I have been astounded at the responses from
>the experts on the list regarding the amount of time that these people have
>taken to help others. I believe that is part of the problem, however.
>Sooner or later you just can't keep doing it.
>New blood needs to take over, but it takes years to learn what the
>professionals on this list know.
>
>Widening the scope of filmscanners is not a bad idea, but that is up to
>Tony Sleep. I really miss the Epson inkjet group and would like that area
>added as well.
>I'd like to hear from Tony concerning his view of filmscanners and what he
>would like to do with it.
>
>Ed
>
>
>
>I wish we could rejuvenate the list, I learned more here as relates to all
>aspects of digital imaging including Photoshop processing and printing than
>I have found anywhere.  The level of intelligence here has been several
>orders of magnitude above any other imaging list I¹ve been on.
>
>Perhaps if the list were generalized to ³digital image creation², letting it
>grow to include discussions of various software ­ from Lasersoft and Vuescan
>through various programs like PS (I saw a note elsewhere that asserted that
>a Lasersoft product is better than PS ­ I think that was what was claimed)
>through specific printing programs.
>
>There is too much knowledge represented by Laurie, Art, David Littleboy and
>many others (I even come up with some useful stuff now and then) to just let
>it go.  I know that other lists exist, but the chaff is often so thick, and
>the wheat so sparse that I despair.   That wasn¹t true here, even when the
>arguments re: dMax and # of bytes were going on.  Even discussions of
>equipment I will never own (probably), like the Minolta scanners, were
>useful.
>
>Is something like this worth proposing further? Or am I missing something
>and it would be best to just let ³Scanners² die? It is my hope that by
>talking with a few folks, I might refine my idea and have a better chance of
>selling to whoever (I don¹t even know who runs this list ­ I can be
>oblivious on occasion).
>
>Who should this suggestion go to, and how might it be modified to improve
>its chances of succeeding, first in being tried, and second in practice?
>
>If you think this useful to post to  the list, please feel free to do so
>with any modifications you think are useful.  My goal is to find a way to
>get this going again, I¹m aware that I would feel the loss of a tremendous
>resource if this list went away..
>
>Thanks again for the info re: Polaroid.  I¹ve observed the cut off on the
>left of the histogram has been creeping up ­ but I¹ve never cleaned the unit
>and I¹ve had it at least 5 years.  I¹ve also had other difficulties in
>separating highlights that appeared separable on the negative.  I can
>imagine how dirt could affect that too.
>
>
>  
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body