Re: [Leica] Film scanner advice

[Andrew Schroter <schroter@optonline.net>]

Of course, but it depends what you're using it for.  At 4-5MB. they're way
more than good enough for web photos.  I expect 4x6 and 5x7 should be fine.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Lee, Ken" <ken.lee@hbc.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 5:34 AM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Film scanner advice


> In real terms, how useful are these images?  The files I get from my
> Polaroid scanner are over 100mg. Aren't you losing a lot of something when
> you start off with a file that small?
>
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Schroter [mailto:schroter@optonline.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2001 12:58 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Film scanner advice
>
>
> With slides and PhotoCD, you can pick the slides you want digitized and
> bring up to about 100 slides (Hi Res pics are about 4-5MB) to a photo
> processing retail shop.  My local Ritz camera dealer charges .75/slide.
So,
> about $5.50 for developing a 36 exposure roll (can use A&I mailers - order
> from bandhphoto.com) and out of 10 rolls, say you want to scan 10 slides
per
> roll, thats about $125-130 total.  You may be able to find better prices
for
> scanning than that.
> Regards,
> Andy
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter A. Klein" <pklein@2alpha.net>
> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:56 PM
> Subject: [Leica] Film scanner advice
>
>
> > The more I mess with scanning prints on a mediocre flatbed, the more I
> > realize there is likely to be a film scanner in my future.  The question
> > is, which one?
> >
> > I've been reading reviews online, but I need a quality vs. price reality
> > check. It seems to me that there may be a point of diminishing returns
> > on price/quality where one might scan film for routine small prints and
> > the Web, but might as well go to silver printing for 8x10 or bigger on
> > one's best shots. Still, my demands are higher than what passes for
> > "photo quality" in the mass consumer market.  So let's say the following
> > conditions apply:
> >
> > - 35mm film only.
> >
> > - I don't plan on enlarging digitally more than about 8x10 (standard
> > letter/A4 paper).  How deeply I get into digital printing remains to be
> > seen.
> >
> > - If I really want a top-quality enlargement from a negative or slide,
> > I'll probably take it to a rental darkroom or a custom lab.
> >
> > - I want to see my images without spending bucks for 4x6 prints of
> > everything, and so I can put things on the Web.
> >
> > - I'm primarily interested in doing my own black-and-white. I will want
> > to scan the occasional Kodachrome slide or roll of color neg film.
> >
> > - I do available light, so dynamic range for highlight and shadow detail
> > is important.
> >
> > - I'm not the kind of person who likes to use things for 6 months and
> > then sell them and get something new.
> >
> > - Reasonable ease of use is important, as is reliablity.  I don't want
> > "automatic everything with no options," but I'd also rather not deal
> > with know-to-be problematic hardware or needlessly convoluted software
> > (I guess that means get VueScan if I get a Nikon scanner :-)
> >
> > - I'm computer literate and have done plenty of film developing and wet
> > darkroom work in the past.  I'm not so interested in doing wet printing
> > at home anymore, but I suspect I'll get back to developing B&W film.
> >
> > - There's also the option of not buying a film scanner and getting Photo
> > CDs of my stuff.  According to semi-legible notes I scribbled weeks ago,
> > Kodak will do 1024 x 1536 (1.57 megapixel) "Picture CDs" for $13.75 for
> > developing plus $8.95 for the CD, =22.70 per roll (not sure if this is
> > 24 or 36 exposures). For a 36 exp. roll of color negative or B&W
> > chromagenic at 2048x3072 (6.29 megapixel).  Still, that could add up
> > quickly to the price of a used scanner.
> >
> > Things like the Nikon LS-4000 are way beyond my price-point.  So things
> > like a used Nikon LS-2000 or LS-30 look more promising.  Going down a
> > notch, the Olympus ES-10s seems to have a lot going for it. I've
> > mentioned these brands only because I've read more about them recently,
> > others gladly considered.
> >
> > The floor is open.
> >
> > --Peter Klein
> > Seattle, WA