Sat Dec 13, 2008 9:44 pm
Well, that fits what I've always been told, but one can hope...
My current problem is that I really need both. I shot a lot of black and white in my early days (both to get some film speed with Kodachrome being ASA 25 and later 64 and because I was shooting a lot for publication and most wanted mostly B and W in those days) so I really need a flatbed. I don't really trust my old Minolta to last much longer and I have thousands of slides that should be digitalised so I need a Coolscan.
Unfortunately our masters in Washington and other world capitals have pretty seriously compromised my retirement savings over the last few months so I am, shall we say, somewhat financially challenged at the moment. Maybe I'll just spring for a good flatbed at this time and let the Minolta soldier on for a while. Of course my fear there is that good old Nikon might do something disastrous for photographers like getting out of the scanner business -- I wonder how Coolscan demand is holding up?
Decisions, decisions....
I think I'll go pour myself a glass of Scotch
My current problem is that I really need both. I shot a lot of black and white in my early days (both to get some film speed with Kodachrome being ASA 25 and later 64 and because I was shooting a lot for publication and most wanted mostly B and W in those days) so I really need a flatbed. I don't really trust my old Minolta to last much longer and I have thousands of slides that should be digitalised so I need a Coolscan.
Unfortunately our masters in Washington and other world capitals have pretty seriously compromised my retirement savings over the last few months so I am, shall we say, somewhat financially challenged at the moment. Maybe I'll just spring for a good flatbed at this time and let the Minolta soldier on for a while. Of course my fear there is that good old Nikon might do something disastrous for photographers like getting out of the scanner business -- I wonder how Coolscan demand is holding up?
Decisions, decisions....
I think I'll go pour myself a glass of Scotch
Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:48 am
Not for nothing, but I found the easiset way to do that is simply to get a large screen and project the slides as large as possible in a completely dark room.
Then just simply take a photo of them with a decent digital camera.
It's quick, painless and I'll bet you cant tell the difference between one done like that and one done on a fancy high cost scanner.
KK
Then just simply take a photo of them with a decent digital camera.
It's quick, painless and I'll bet you cant tell the difference between one done like that and one done on a fancy high cost scanner.
KK
Sun Dec 14, 2008 1:01 pm
I would NOT recommend that for any sort of quality results. I suppose, though, that everyone has their own ideas about what quality results are. One problem with photography is that the more you do it and the more you study the subject the higher your standards get as you realise what is possible.
To many a recognisable image that has some resemblance to the original is fine...
Jerry's original post mentioned "quality" results. I guarantee that shooting an image projected on a screen would not qualify. If one is going to spend hundreds of hours scanning or reproducing hundreds of slides or negs or prints, one does not want to find later that the time and energy was wasted and will have to be redone. Much better to do it right to begin with. Thus the discussions of flat bed vs film scanners etc. It also can be difficult to know at the start what you'll eventually need the images for. Some of the posts here would clearly show that a good high-end flatbed will produce absolutely gorgeous web images. If you are SURE that that is all you will ever need from the images, you obviously need go no farther. However, August's post indicates that testing and experience have shown that if you ever want to do an 11x14 inch print that you can be proud of then the flatbed may well not do the job at all.
I guess for me the question boils down to whether it's worth extra money and effort to have a result that gets as much as possible of what I had in the original image. If I put a lot of time money and effort into producing the best posssible original, which I do, then I want the end product that others see to reflect that original effort...
To many a recognisable image that has some resemblance to the original is fine...
Jerry's original post mentioned "quality" results. I guarantee that shooting an image projected on a screen would not qualify. If one is going to spend hundreds of hours scanning or reproducing hundreds of slides or negs or prints, one does not want to find later that the time and energy was wasted and will have to be redone. Much better to do it right to begin with. Thus the discussions of flat bed vs film scanners etc. It also can be difficult to know at the start what you'll eventually need the images for. Some of the posts here would clearly show that a good high-end flatbed will produce absolutely gorgeous web images. If you are SURE that that is all you will ever need from the images, you obviously need go no farther. However, August's post indicates that testing and experience have shown that if you ever want to do an 11x14 inch print that you can be proud of then the flatbed may well not do the job at all.
I guess for me the question boils down to whether it's worth extra money and effort to have a result that gets as much as possible of what I had in the original image. If I put a lot of time money and effort into producing the best posssible original, which I do, then I want the end product that others see to reflect that original effort...
Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:36 pm
100% agree with Neal. My heart jumps every time my Minolta makes a funny noise, and my kids probably wonder why I yell especially loudly when they stick their fingers in there. If that thing goes, I'll be looking at a big investment in a Coolscan and not the low-end ones either, but the ones that can also handle 120 film. Just a few more years, baby ...
And unfortunately the available choices in film scanners are getting poorer all the time, as the electronics companies that used to be camera companies continue their headlong flight from anything having to do with film.
Not everyone needs a good film scanner. Archiving is a dubious purpose because a Kodachrome slide is a more durable and hardy storage medium than a hard disc or CD/DVD; I'm much more worried about not being able to view my digital pics in 30 years than losing my slides. And how many people print a lot of 12x16s? Flatbeds are fine for the web and for those 7-inch digital picture frames. At those resolutions, the quality of the original slide and the care taken in post-processing will matter more than the scanner.
August
And unfortunately the available choices in film scanners are getting poorer all the time, as the electronics companies that used to be camera companies continue their headlong flight from anything having to do with film.
Not everyone needs a good film scanner. Archiving is a dubious purpose because a Kodachrome slide is a more durable and hardy storage medium than a hard disc or CD/DVD; I'm much more worried about not being able to view my digital pics in 30 years than losing my slides. And how many people print a lot of 12x16s? Flatbeds are fine for the web and for those 7-inch digital picture frames. At those resolutions, the quality of the original slide and the care taken in post-processing will matter more than the scanner.
August