Hi Neil, Thanks for your interest in my queries, and for your off list explanations. Yes, I noticed that basICColor has had a new licensing process for some time, that can be passed from computer to computer, which I have used already for the screen calibration software. It might be faire from me to mention that on the list, after throwing in the assertion that the licensing is still a pain. My issue of the software is probably more than ten years old now, although I don't use it that often and it stil does it's job. The new input software combined with a special target for digital cameras seems much more polyvalant and is probably worth the upgrade. It is also not a plugin any more, which is a good move. Back to scanners. This used to be the weak link for most photographers in the film to digital transition era. We, proficient amateur photographers who don't quite make a living from it, could afford a MF or even large format set that we purchased bit by bit. There are excellent services out there for high-end drum scans that leave nothing to want. But any photographer who has made his own prints on an enlarger, wants also to master the digital process from slide to print. And that's where it hurts, the prices of scanners capable of delivering high end results being far beyond the reach of individuals. So you see for instance photographers who use an expensive medium format system, and who scan on an Epson V700. Some have purchased a Tango by associating with other photographers. Ten years ago, we did a collaborative scanner test. A nice guy from down under had thrown in a slide taken with the sole purpose of tricking and pushing to it's limits any device. We passed on that slide and the results are still over the internet: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/ part of QT Luong's website http://www.largeformatphotography.info/ . I was in with the Scitex Eversmart and the Quato, with no digital sharpening I must say, for, since not all scanners were calibrated, and some operators had set minimal software sharpening while others had not, the results are not scientific. But they give a fair idea of what can be achieved. If we had done this today, there would probably be a comparative test of cameras inputs as well. But ten years ago, a digital scan back capable of producing sufficient resolution and tonal range would have been an interesting consideration for the future. Today, we start to see professional devices aimed at reproducing slides and art with digital backs. Pentax has also an affordable device for the Pentax D, which can be used with other cameras too. Whether flare is well kept under control or not has yet to be proven by comparative results. Cheers Paul Schilliger Neil Barstow wrote on 21.01.16 09:13: