Well, there's always WCI, though they *are* a bit more expensive even
when they run a 'sale':
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/services/more/specials.htm
Thanks!/ScottGee1
On 6/16/06, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|