horst_natter

Don,

Calibrating a digital workflow is as easy as making a decent analog print.

Just like analog, you just have to figure out how it works once, after that you are all set.

Why don't you just use the calibration tool in your system prefs ?

Another pretty good (free) tool for visual calibration is found here : http://

www.bergdesign.com/supercal .

I don't quite agree with John here, I think the costs of chemical processing vs digital

printing are roughly the same. Then again, there is a lot more waste with chemical

printing, if you are really serious about quality.

The hardware for good old analog printing is a lot more expensive, though, and doesn't

allow for a fraction of the manupilation of the outcome like digital does.

I still have a tank processor and 4x5 enlarger which I've been using for a dozen years, it

has become completely vain with the arrival of the R2400; it's print quality is stunning.

Back to topic, I do have something negative to say: after a couple of weeks of light use,

two print heads were clogged and needed 5 cleaning cycles to work properly again.

Hi there ,

FWIW, I recently recovered most of the images from a partly overwritten Scandisk CF with

Picture Rescue and Photorescue, that's shareware for Mac.

More powerfull recovery tools are Norton Utilities , Data Rescue and FileSalvage , again I

used those only on a Mac. These programs recover from all sorts of hard drives; whether

or not Scan disks are supported, I don't know, but it's worth checking out possible trial

versions. In some cases, I recovered files dating years back from heavily used drives.

That said, there is no guarantee for success in file recovery, I'm afraid...

Best

Tom