lol1

<p>Just in case someone with a D700 comes across this thread it's:</p> <ul type="disc"> <li>f9 - Controls->Customize command dials->Reverse Rotation->On</li> </ul> <ul type="disc"> <li>f12 - Controls->Reverse Indicators->"-0+".</li> </ul>

<p>A fascinating discussion. Many thanks to Eric~ for answering my question. I can well understand that if you are producing a large number of RAW files every week then you don't want to take the additional step of converting them to DNG unless there is a compelling reason to do so. My own situation is different -- a bit like those 'obscure' camera manufacturers -- and to me DNG does appear to offer some advantages. Whether it is more future proof than NEF, CR2 Etc. only time will tell.</p>

<p>"IMHO they are a recipe for disaster."<br> Oops! So sorry for the confusion! I omitted two little words from this: '...for me'. Knowing the way I work, at some point I'll almost certainly delete the XMPs or overlook them when moving my NEFs somewhere else. I already have enough files floating round the place without doubling the number - a single original file per image is enough for me!<br> One thing that I am curious about is Eric~'s assertion that DNG is an 'obscure format that the industry is already forgetting about'. Leaving aside the fact that some manufacturers -- Leica, for example -- are using the format in camera, there is quite a bit on the web about the advantages that DNG offers. For example, the Library of Congress seems to be indirectly funding the promotion of DNG (click <a href="http://www.dpbestflow.org/DNG">here</a> for details) as well as other proponents of the format such as <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/a-plea-for-dng-again">Michael Reichmann</a>. So I'd be interested in hearing the evidence for the format being dropped.</p>

<p>Not sure who you are referring to as being 'afraid' of a file type but it seems to me that there are both pros and cons to converting RAW into DNG. I've read quite a few discussions on the web about this -- <a href="http://laurashoe.com/2012/02/16/to-dng-or-not-to-dng/">here</a> for example -- and on balance it seems to me that the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. However I can see both sides of the argument and don't find either of them baffling.</p>

<p>I so agree with this:</p> <blockquote> <p>Major advantage for me would be having all that metadata written into the DNG file so I could get rid of XMP sidecars.</p> </blockquote> <p>IMHO they are a recipe for disaster. Nice plea for the adoption DNG can be read <a href="https://luminous-landscape.com/rantatorial/a-plea-for-dng-again/">here</a></p> <p> </p>

<p>I purchased an Elite 5400 Version 1 quite recently to use as an alternative to my Canon fs4000 and Epson V750 and I agree with the comment that the depth of focus is extremely narrow. When the stars are aligned everything is wonderful but even a slight curl in the film means an out of focus scan. A great pity as this is in many ways a wonderful scanner. One other thing that I didn't expect was that results would be sharper -- yes, sharper -- using Vuescan than with the Minolta DiMAGE software. But I don't mind Vuescan so it's not really an issue.</p>

<p>I'd like to revive this discussion as I have exactly the same problem and it's really annoying, otherwise I really like Epson Scan. I've tried just about everything I can think of including changing the Registry settings but nothing seems to work. If anyone's found a solution please post it!<br> Lawrence</p>