Re: [Leica] RE digitizing images for the web

[Francesco <fls@san.rr.com>]

I have owned a Polaroid Sprintscan 35 Plus AND a Nikon LS-1000,
AND I have used PhotoCD over the past year to archive over 2500
slides onto 25 PhotoCDs.  Why do I keep using PhotoCD instead 
of scanning slides myself?

Scanning slides on a home scanner is OK for a web storefront, 
stock photo sample page, or for logos, etc., but for images that you
can SELL to companies and discriminating clients, PhotoCD is the 
ONLY way to go, unless of course your desktop scanner is a
Linotype-Hell desktop DRUM SCANNER!  I doubt any of us have one
of those on our desks.....more like a run-of-the-mill $500 to $2000
film scanner.

If you think you can sell stock images that you run off a Nikon scanner
you're dreaming, unless you target the low-end or web market.  PhotoDisc
or Tony Stone, for example (and probably all the other big names) use
drum scanners for all their images.  You just cannot deliver a 
competitive product with a Nikon or Polaroid film scanner.
PhotoCD is the bare minimum you need to even get a glance.

Francesco








At 02:42 PM 12/30/98 , Rolf Hanson wrote:
>I agree that you have to be careful with PhotoCD labs. 
>In the US, ADI in Colorado (www.adiweb.com) is very good and quite
>inexpensive: $20 for blank CD, $1 per scan, $24 minimum charge.
>Phillip Greenspun at Photo.net has other (US) recommendations at
>http://www.photo.net/photo/labs.html...he also mentions ADI.
>
>It is definately more convienient to have a scanner on hand
>for quick scans. Especially if you do your own darkroom...you
>wouldn't even need to do proof prints!  But...I would still argue
>that PhotoCD is the most economical. At $1 a scan, you would have
>to scan over 1000 images to break even on a good scanner...and scanning
>1000 images would take at least a couple days of pure scanning hell.
>I guess if you scanned an image and sold it to a magazine for $1000,
>you'd break even more quickly. :) 
>
>The other nice thing about photoCD is that you already have a digital
>archive of the images on something other than your HD. At some point
>you'll want to back up your images, and the PhotoCD takes care of that
>for you. 
>
>I'll relax now as I'm starting to sound like a Kodak shill. I mainly
>like photoCD because it seems like one of few technologies that
>actually REDUCES the amount time I have to spend in front of my computer. ;)
>
>-Rolf
>
>
>
>
>----
>Rolf, that is, unless you use one of Nikon's latest slide scanners.
>Especially the Nikon Super Coolscan LS-2000 with ICE dust/scratches 
>control produces outstanding results with minimum hassle. The Nikon 
>Coolscan III (LS-30) has the same ICE mechanism, but at a price of much 
>softer images (at least, that was the finding of a comprehensive test of 
>the LS-30 compared to the LS-2000 in the French magazine Chasseur 
>d'Images).
>I use the Super Coolscan LS-2000 on my Mac and am very satisfied with it. 
>I do think it is much more convenient and handy to be able to scan a 
>couple of slides/negatives on the fly rather than to go for the full 
>Kodak PhotoCD treatment which is uneconomical if you do that in small 
>batches. Moreover, you should be very careful which labo to choose for 
>PhotoCD because all are not born equal...
>
>Pascal
>NO ARCHIVE
>