On 13 Aug 98 at 10:59, Jan Steinman wrote:
> >... is there any advantage to scanning at 2700,
> >and having photoshop scale it down?
>
> I suspect the opposite -- your scanner firmware is working at a greater bit
> depth, and I'll bet its interpolation will be more accurate than
> Photoshop's at a mere 24 bits.
>
> General rule: try to get as much work done where the most information is.
> In your case, I believe your Coolscan works with 30 bits internally, so
> anything you can do in the scanner will be better than what you can do in
> Photoshop, assuming the firmware developers did their job. It may not be
> *detectably* better, but in theory, it should be better.
>
> (It may be worth comparing to make sure it isn't worse -- firmware
> developers don't always do their jobs... :-)
Thanks, makes sense. I will compare again at 1350 and 2700, as the first scan I
did at 1350 was poorly focussed.
> "At a specified dollar value" for what purpose? Resume fodder?
>
> Note that the IRS will not allow you to deduct work you do for charitable
> purposes, although it will allow you to deduct mileage and actual
> incidental expenses incurred while performing charitable work. If your
> purpose was taxes, forget the "typical charge" and keep careful track of
> your mileage and actual out-of-pocket expenses related to the donated work.
Oh well, there goes that hope. Since the shots were taken on campus, and they
paid for the film/processing, my expenses are nil, aside from time... :-(
I'm assuming Canadian tax laws are similar...
========================
Shawn Wright
Computer Systems Manager
Shawnigan Lake School
250-743-6240
swright@xxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|