I've been having my negatives scanned for about a year now, and have
been pretty pleased overall. Sure if you add up the cost, you could
justify buying a scanner, but the time savings by having someone else
do it is tremendous.
Regarding PhotoCD - is this the really hi-res scan (like 12mb+ per
photo)? My CDs have been Photodiscs or I've also had Photoworks do it,
both at a cost as little as $5 or as high as $9. Scans on these are
about 4.5mb per picture, which is fine for my purposes. I've heard
that PhotoCDs cost upwards of $25 per roll of film, and the image
files are huge. (Maybe this was medium format, and not 35mm?)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Acer V
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2000 12:17 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [OM] advice: print or slide, ultimately to go on PhotoCD
Sean said:
>>>More specifically to digital photography, why not look at getting a
film scanner?? I had the impression PhotoCD is a dying standard.<<<
Dying standard? Since when? To my (admittedly mediocre) knowledge, it's
been around since 92 and seems to have been well established.
I don't want to get a film scanner because it's $$$, then there's the
learning curve to get good results.
/Acer V
--
If you can kick it, it's hardware.
If you boot it, it's the OS.
If after you boot it you want to kick it, it's Windows.
<http://student.ucr.edu/~siddim01> proudly hand-coded :)
< 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 >
< 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 >
|