ScottGee1 wrote:
> Given the challenges inherent in slide scanning, I'm wondering it this
> might be a better alternative:
>
> http://www.discountdigitalart.com/slides.html
>
> Truth to tell, only a small percentage of the slides I've shot are
> worth scanning so I'm wondering if it might not be better to let the
> pros do it.
First - Pro simply means doing it for money, and doesn't guarantee how
well it is done. I certainly wouldn't commit to very many without a test
of a few. I'm also not sure I want my very best shots flying off through
the mails and handled by low wage drones - which is the only way they
can manage these prices IMO.
Second - I can't imagine personally finding the results of their
standard options acceptable.
1. The first two "basic" choices aren't high enough resolution and the
no ICE option is hopeless with a slide that has been mailed and sat
around waiting to be canned.
2. Deluxe and Pro adds automated color restoration, shadow "recovery"
and grain reduction, three things I DON'T want. I can always do those
things, if needed, on a case by case basis, but I can't get back to the
original image if they are done efore I get the image.
3. At the file sizes stated, these are compressed images. For example,
an uncompressed TIFF from a 4000 dpi scan would be about 68 mb. Their
quote of at least 15 mb, indicates to me a JPEG. Now I know I'm a fussy
purist, but for my best shots, I want an uncompressed, 16-bit image. To
be fair, compression can be fine if one doesn't want to do any further
work on them. And 8-bit can be just fine IF - the higher tonal
resolution of the scanner is correctly clipped, compressed, curved and
permed - a really big IF in a high speed, automated process. I have
found 8 bit, uncompressed scans from a local pro shop that cost about
$0.45 @ at the time of processing to be more than adequate for
evaluating which are keepers. Sometimes they are good enough for
creating web images I find acceptable, sometimes not. They are certainly
not good enough to be used for presentation versions in almost all cases.
Their custom order page is more than a bit fuzzy. If you can get the
4000 dpi (or even the 2500, if you aren't planning big prints and/or
much cropping) with the $0.15 prescan dusting and ICE as 16 bit TIFFs at
a reasonable price, it might be ok. Compressed TIFFs are ok, as it is
lossless compression, although they are slower to open and save. ICE is
amazing, but if you have big blobs of stuff on a slide with delicate
detail, it isn't going to be the same as when cleaned first.
> That could save me the cost of hardware and time
Yup
> and hopefully provide better results.
>
Nope. I don't believe it at these prices and specs. I'd bet a $350 Canon
9950F will give better results with a modest learning curve.
Their Basic Plus option is the way I might create a library of all my
keeper, but not greatest, shots, rather than the way I'd get my best
work scanned.
The miracle of scanning my old images is that I've found some real gems
that were hidden in so-so looking slides or prints, but come out in post
processing.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|