"babelfish" <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ss71h.14930$DH5.14839@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In scanning there's no substitute for a real fluid mounted drum scan.
> Allow me to quote my colleague Richard Kenward who runs Precision
Scanning
> Service in the UK:
You mean, "off of some guy who makes his living doing drum scans,"?
>
> "All this talk about what is the best scanner makes me smile! Most pro
> Photographers I know bought the best lenses, the best camera, carefully
> selected the film, went to the lab they thought has the most reliable
> processing, stored their precious film carefully all at considerable
> cost then what. Yes they cheerfully turn their backs on the best
> proven technology for extracting all that wonderful information and
> resort to using less than the best method of scanning.
>
Most pros I know made several compromises along the way. I guess your
friend just knows the elite.
> We moved away from using Imacon scanners some years ago simply because
> they could not extract all the information, the smoothness left a lot to
> be desired, and then there was the digital noise.....not that they were
> that bad, just not really good enough. Really good drum scans offer
> better optical quality, are pin sharp right across the sheet, scans the
> whole frame if required, no pixel smudging or whatever you care to call
> it, and need very little spotting so an undamaged file is the result.
> No problem with any film so you guys with Kodachromes think drum scans.
> OK, so good drum scans do not come for peanuts (not here at any rate)
> but perhaps it is as well to take into account all the time saved, plus
> not having the investment of a scanner, etc."
>
>
> There you have it!
>
>
That's all true, but the dimini****ng return is left out. You pay a lot
more
for a little more. With some research, experience and a decent film
scanner, you can do nearly as well, with every format except for large
format--then you need a drum scanner, but only because it won't fit in the
Nikons.
|
