Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by deandadin@aol.com

Hello Randy, I do scanning of med format film up to 6x18 cm. I use the Imacon 
343 scanner. This unit is a superior unit to the nikon for several reasons. 
First it can scan up to 6x18 cm size, the nikon 8000 will only scan to 6x8. The 
Imacon is more expensive but the machine is far superior to the nikon. The 
price for a new 343 imacon is aroung 4995. but it can be had in a refurbished 
condition for abour 4000. I bought a refurb and the machine was hardly used, 
like new. The Imacon is an amazing scanner but what makes it  so is the software. 
The Imacon is a pro unit and its not that much more expensive then the Nikon. 
I would take the Imacon over the nikon any day.Steve


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re[2]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Anthony G. Atkielski

deandadin@... writes:

> The Imacon is a pro unit and its not that much more
> expensive then the Nikon.

The Nikon is a "pro" unit as well.  Many labs use it.  In fact, many
labs use less expensive scanners.

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Ernst Dinkla

>----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Victor Landweber" <victor@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?


Randy, Colin, et. al. --

I also looked at the Minolta when deciding about a scanner
purchase. I read
that the Scan Multi Pro always sharpens a scan, even when it
seems you've
disabled sharpening in software. It may be that  a sharpening
routine is
built into its hardware or into its driver, but it this is the
case it is
so serious a limitation as to eliminate the Minolta from further
consideration. Sharpening should always be applied as the last
step after
image sizing and before printing. Otherwise you will find
yourself
manipulating, and likely exaggerating, the inevitable artifacts
produced by
sharpening -- doubtlessly detrimental to your images.

-- Victor Landweber<

AFAIK, the Imacons have sharpening on as a default. One has to
apply a negative sharpening number (-120) in the software to get
a true scan. That's not known by many Imacon users. That the
Minolta has it too is a surprise.

As a happy Nikon 8000 user with a custom wet mount carrier and
Vuescan as the driver I know that what is scanned isn't sharpened
if I don't want it. And usually no sharpening is used afterwards
either. Grain in negatives becomes too distinctive and there's
enough detail already.

Ernst

Re: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Peter Marquis-Kyle

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Sharpening should always be the last step, for two reasons: (1) it
> degrades image quality; and (2) the degree of sharpening required
> depends on the exact use of the final image (printing or display,
> type 
> of printer or press, reproduction size, dot gain, screen frequency,
> etc.).

In his piece 'A two-pass approach to sharpening in Photoshop' 
[ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189-1.html ]
Bruce Fraser acknowledges that 'sharpening should always be the last
step' is the conventional wisdom, but has some other suggestions.

Well worth reading...

Peter Marquis-Kyle
www.marquis-kyle.com.au

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Colin & Linda McKie

Hi Peter,

Bruce is one of the crew behind of Photokit Sharpener 
(http://www.pixelgenius.com/) and it is a development of these ideas. We 
previously used the 2 pass workflow, and the new system adds automated 
and flexible versions of the familiar edge sharpening methods.

Anthony's statement (1) might be true in some fantasy land with scanners 
which can resolve twice the maximum possible detail/grain frequency, but 
in the real world some careful capture sharpening can compensate for the 
inevitable shortcomings of the scanning process. Practical technology is 
so far from the theoretical ideal that achieving the right 'look' may be 
better than slavish adherence to the theory.

Cheers,

Colin

http://www.travelling-light.com/

Peter Marquis-Kyle wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> 
>>Sharpening should always be the last step, for two reasons: (1) it
>>degrades image quality; and (2) the degree of sharpening required
>>depends on the exact use of the final image (printing or display,
>>type 
>>of printer or press, reproduction size, dot gain, screen frequency,
>>etc.).
> 
> 
> In his piece 'A two-pass approach to sharpening in Photoshop' 
> [ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189-1.html ]
> Bruce Fraser acknowledges that 'sharpening should always be the last
> step' is the conventional wisdom, but has some other suggestions.
> 
> Well worth reading...
> 
> Peter Marquis-Kyle
> www.marquis-kyle.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Re[2]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Colin & Linda McKie writes:

> Anthony's statement (1) might be true in some fantasy land with
> scanners which can resolve twice the maximum possible detail/grain
> frequency, but in the real world some careful capture sharpening can
> compensate for the inevitable shortcomings of the scanning process.

No, it cannot.  No digital manipulation can increase the amount of
information in an image--whatever the scanner produces is all you will
ever get.  Furthermore, all sharpening algorithms produce image
degradation. Essentially, you trade real image information for an
illusion of sharpness: small details are actually destroyed in order to
emphasize larger details, which gives a visual impression of greater
sharpness even though the image is softened in reality.

Additionally, since sharpening must always be done with respect to the
type of output desired (photo printing, ink-jet, offset press, display,
etc.), no sharpening will serve for all purposes equally.

These two facts explain why sharpening must always be the _last_ step
before output of an image, and they also explain why images should not
be sharpened before being archived. Unsharpened scans might look soft to
you, but they contain more information and fewer artifacts than a
sharpened scan.

> Practical technology is so far from the theoretical ideal that
> achieving the right 'look' may be better than slavish adherence to the
> theory.

No, "practical technology" cannot violate the rules of information
theory. There is no sharpening method that does not degrade image
quality. This reality is one of the fundamental things that every
photographer must fully understand in order to get the best out of a
digital workflow.

Re: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Ernst Dinkla

----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "Colin & Linda McKie"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:22 PM
Subject: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Scanners?


Colin & Linda McKie writes:

> Anthony's statement (1) might be true in some fantasy land with
> scanners which can resolve twice the maximum possible
detail/grain
> frequency, but in the real world some careful capture
sharpening can
> compensate for the inevitable shortcomings of the scanning
process.

>No, it cannot.  No digital manipulation can increase the amount
of
information in an image--whatever the scanner produces is all you
will
ever get.  Furthermore, all sharpening algorithms produce image
degradation. Essentially, you trade real image information for an
illusion of sharpness: small details are actually destroyed in
order to
emphasize larger details, which gives a visual impression of
greater
sharpness even though the image is softened in reality.<

No sharpening can increase the amount of information in the
landscape, the film, the scan. But it certainly can rearrange the
information in the scan that it suits the original landscape or
take better. And any manupilation will rearrange or decrease the
amount of information so it is hard to say which manupilation
should be first in the row. That's what Fraser addresses in that
article, a basic sharpening that will allow further manupilations
without too much loss of information and at the end sharpening
that suits the output process. The last can also be done in
Qimage at printing stage.


>No, "practical technology" cannot violate the rules of
information
theory. There is no sharpening method that does not degrade image
quality. This reality is one of the fundamental things that every
photographer must fully understand in order to get the best out
of a
digital workflow.<

It isn't just with sharpening, there's no image manupilation
method that will not rearrange and/or degrade the information. So
the choice is which one will be first. Fraser creates different
sharpening technics for different phases in the process.
The pain is distributed. Seems a sound method. If no other
manupilation is done than both methods become one and the same.

And archiving the raw, highest resolution scan possible at 48
bits is still possible. Takes more space than film though and
will not be up to date with the latest scan hard- and software.
The real raw information is in that film or outdoors. There's no
choice in digital photography but archiving the file or make a
new pic.

Ernst



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or
Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----~->

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and
Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by randyrancier

I'm sure what your saying is correct, But I doubt that I will ever 
go any bigger than 6x7; if I do it will be to 4x5 or 5x7.  I've been 
watching scanners on ebay, and a Nikon 8000 can be had for around 
$1000, which is kind'a spensive for me.  I was hoping to perhaps 
find a older model 4000 dpi machine that will do the job for less 
than that; if there are any???

By the time I could save enough for the Imacon, it will probably be 
a old model and I could get it for less than a $1000; I don't want 
to have to wait years before doing high quality work!
Thanks,
Randy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, deandadin@a... 
wrote:
> Hello Randy, I do scanning of med format film up to 6x18 cm. I use 
the Imacon 
> 343 scanner. This unit is a superior unit to the nikon for several 
reasons. 
> First it can scan up to 6x18 cm size, the nikon 8000 will only 
scan to 6x8. The 
> Imacon is more expensive but the machine is far superior to the 
nikon. The 
> price for a new 343 imacon is aroung 4995. but it can be had in a 
refurbished 
> condition for abour 4000. I bought a refurb and the machine was 
hardly used, 
> like new. The Imacon is an amazing scanner but what makes it  so 
is the software. 
> The Imacon is a pro unit and its not that much more expensive then 
the Nikon. 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I would take the Imacon over the nikon any day.Steve
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Keith R.

> In his piece 'A two-pass approach to sharpening in Photoshop' 
> [ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189-1.html ]
> Bruce Fraser acknowledges that 'sharpening should always be the last
> step' is the conventional wisdom, but has some other suggestions.
> 
> Well worth reading...
> 
> Peter Marquis-Kyle
> www.marquis-kyle.com.au

The artical mentioned above proved a good insight, at the time. It is 
almost 3 years old now, and since then, Mr. Frasier, along with 
others have, developed a workflow, which involves sharpening at 
various places along the image workflow: computer input, creative and 
output. 
[ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html ]. A very good 
read, and a good insight as to the why "waiting till the end to 
sharpen" may not be the best way to go. The workflow program that was 
developed, can be read about in the aformentioned artical, and at 
www.pixelgenious.com 

KeithR

Re: Scanners?

2004-02-19 by px3n120x

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Keith R." <kjrslr@e...> 
wrote:
> > In his piece 'A two-pass approach to sharpening in Photoshop' 
> > [ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12189-1.html ]
> > Bruce Fraser acknowledges that 'sharpening should always be the last
> > step' is the conventional wisdom, but has some other suggestions.
> > 
> > Well worth reading...
> > 
> > Peter Marquis-Kyle
> > www.marquis-kyle.com.au
> 
> The artical mentioned above proved a good insight, at the time. It is 
> almost 3 years old now, and since then, Mr. Frasier, along with 
> others have, developed a workflow, which involves sharpening at 
> various places along the image workflow: computer input, creative and 
> output. 
> [ http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html ]. A very good 
> read, and a good insight as to the why "waiting till the end to 
> sharpen" may not be the best way to go. The workflow program that was 
> developed, can be read about in the aformentioned artical, and at 
> www.pixelgenious.com 
> 
> KeithR

I see the discussion on scanners is now about sharpening and which method is 
better.
I use a CanonScan FS 4000 which does only 35mm at 4000dpi and sells now for 
around $500. I use it with VueScan which allows me to do all the post processing 
manually in photoshop. Images are as sharp as I took them on film (and scanned at 
4000dpi) . I had no success with improving an image using any of the sharpening/
grain reduction software I found a demo for, I improved the grain sometimes with the 
noise filter but that has a price in itself. Worth mentioning that I'm not interested in 
imitating chemically processed prints.

Andu

Re: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Barrett Benton

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
"randyrancier" <randyrancier@y...> wrote:
> I'm sure what your saying is correct, But I doubt that I will ever 
> go any bigger than 6x7; if I do it will be to 4x5 or 5x7.  I've been 
> watching scanners on ebay, and a Nikon 8000 can be had for
> around $1000, which is kind'a spensive for me.  I was hoping
> to perhaps find a older model 4000 dpi machine that will do 
> the job for less than that; if there are any???

Randy, Randy, Randy...whether you have it to spend or not, a 
grand for a Nikon 8000 is *cheap*, especially given its 
multi-format capability.

Having recently gotten a Minolta 5400, I've been fairly busy with 
my own work, but just as importantly, I've scanning the work of 
other photographers as well, which brings me to my other point 
about why a good film scanner can be the smartest investment a 
photographer can make at the moment - it pays for itself even 
faster once other shooters without one find out you have one.  
This is how I fininced my previous scanner, and also how my 
5400 has just about paid for itself in the four months I've had it.  
And I'll bet dollars to Ektachrome I'm not the only one here doing 
this (hell, I'm probably among the last).

As for your subsequent post about whether your PC is up to snuff 
for scanning work: RAM and a big, fast HD (or two for scratch 
disk space for PS) are the main criteria here, with processor 
speed a close third - without a good helping of the first two, the 
fastest chip in the West won't mean much. I'm working with a 
466mHz Power Mac G4 tower with about a gig of RAM and a fast 
160 gig HD, and it manages the 200mb files the 5400 generates 
quite well.  Max the RAM out on that 2.4gHz puppy of yours and I 
don't think the system will sweat much.  

Of course, I'd also suggest a fast DVD burner. ;-)

- Barrett
> 
> By the time I could save enough for the Imacon, it will probably 
be 
> a old model and I could get it for less than a $1000; I don't want 
> to have to wait years before doing high quality work!
> Thanks,
> Randy
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, 
deandadin@a... 
> wrote:
> > Hello Randy, I do scanning of med format film up to 6x18 cm. 
I use 
> the Imacon 
> > 343 scanner. This unit is a superior unit to the nikon for 
several 
> reasons. 
> > First it can scan up to 6x18 cm size, the nikon 8000 will only 
> scan to 6x8. The 
> > Imacon is more expensive but the machine is far superior to 
the 
> nikon. The 
> > price for a new 343 imacon is aroung 4995. but it can be had 
in a 
> refurbished 
> > condition for abour 4000. I bought a refurb and the machine 
was 
> hardly used, 
> > like new. The Imacon is an amazing scanner but what 
makes it  so 
> is the software. 
> > The Imacon is a pro unit and its not that much more 
expensive then 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> the Nikon. 
> > I would take the Imacon over the nikon any day.Steve
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Ernst Dinkla writes:

> It isn't just with sharpening, there's no image manupilation
> method that will not rearrange and/or degrade the information.

Rearranging information doesn't cause anything to be lost.  However,
sharpening and many other manipulations actually destroy information;
they do not simply rearrange it.

> Fraser creates different sharpening technics for different
> phases in the process. The pain is distributed.

But you don't know what kind of sharpening to do until you know the
exact output device you'll be using.

RE: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Austin Franklin

Anthony,

> Rearranging information doesn't cause anything to be lost.

Rearranging information changes the relationship between different elements
of the information, and that relationship is completely lost.  I'm not
saying that's good or bad, but it does cause something to be lost.

Regards,

Austin

Re[6]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Austin Franklin writes:

> Rearranging information changes the relationship between different elements
> of the information, and that relationship is completely lost.  I'm not
> saying that's good or bad, but it does cause something to be lost.

Cryptography is rearrangement at its most extreme, and yet nothing is lost.

RE: Re[6]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-19 by Austin Franklin

Anthony,

> Austin Franklin writes:
>
> > Rearranging information changes the relationship between
> different elements
> > of the information, and that relationship is completely lost.  I'm not
> > saying that's good or bad, but it does cause something to be lost.
>
> Cryptography is rearrangement at its most extreme, and yet
> nothing is lost.

Of course, if the rearranging is deterministic, it can be reconstructed, but
that is NOT the case with the discussion at hand, which is image data.  My
point is still correct in the context it was made.

Austin

Re: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-20 by Ernst Dinkla

----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "Ernst Dinkla" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:22 AM
Subject: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?


>Ernst Dinkla writes:

> It isn't just with sharpening, there's no image manipulation
> method that will not rearrange and/or degrade the information.

Rearranging information doesn't cause anything to be lost.
However,
sharpening and many other manipulations actually destroy
information;
they do not simply rearrange it.

> Fraser creates different sharpening technics for different
> phases in the process. The pain is distributed.

But you don't know what kind of sharpening to do until you know
the
exact output device you'll be using.<


That's what Qimage (on Windows) does for you, it knows the best
input for a given driver/printer and adapts the
sharpening/extrapolation to that output. The file isn't saved
afterwards so you don't save printer specific data. Reading Bruce
Fraser's article I thought at one third that it had an analogy
with ICC colour management then the next alinea contained the
same
observation. Stretching that idea it would be nice to have a kind
of sharpening preview on while using the other tools. It could be
done with an action but that would affect information loss. It
wouldn't include print sharpening.


Ernst

Re: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?

2004-02-20 by Ernst Dinkla

----- Original Message ----- 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:30 AM
Subject: RE: Re[4]: [Digital BW] Scanners?


>Anthony,

> Rearranging information doesn't cause anything to be lost.

Rearranging information changes the relationship between
different elements
of the information, and that relationship is completely lost.
I'm not
saying that's good or bad, but it does cause something to be
lost.

Regards,

Austin<

Depends on what is done. Shifting the data from 8 to 16 bit and
keeping it there could also be called rearranging. I wouldn't
know what is lost then. Keeping black and white at the same spot
and leveling all in between fits your definition of rearranging
better.

Ernst



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or
Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ucIolB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
----~->

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed
from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules
and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the
group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and
Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR
OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER
RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.