Re: filmscanners: Cleaning slides

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Laurie Solomon wrote:

Arthur Entlich wrote:

>> It really does look like a different image,
>> color is restored and defects are gone.
> 
> 
> You know what they say. "if it looks to good to be true; it probably is."
> They also say something about "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,
> and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."  :-)  You have no way of knowing
> for sure and have to go on trust that there is truth in advertising when it
> comes to things like this.
> 
> I am a cynic and skeptical about these sorts of ads.  There is nothing to
> say that they (a) have not gone through a multitude of images to find the
> one which worked the best and showed what they wanted it to show in a
> dramatic fashion before selecting it for use in the add; (b) they did some
> touching up and retouching after the scanning and prior to its being sent to
> the press for printing and publication; or (c) they had technical experts
> who helped develop the scanner do the scans and tweak the scanner when
> necessary to accomplish the scan in way the ordinary user might not be
> familiar or skilled with.
> 

Are you suggesting that slide scanner companies might bend the truth? 
I'm shocked.  These esteemed companies who stand firmly behind the specs 
on their boxes, and behind their products, who readily admit to 
manufacturing defects and design flaws, not to mention bugs in their 
firmware and software?  These same companies that immediately offer free 
repairs or replacement when a product doesn't meet functionality after 
minimal usage? These same people might be less than forthright in their 
ad campaigns?

Personally, I think Laurie's posting above is sufficient grounds for 
permanent banishment from this list, or worst!  Tony!?

You can never find a cop when you need one!

Quacking and Dripping,

Art