Richard: I earn my living as a professional photographer... I do not scan for
fun... I scan because I have to have a reliable source of scans that I can
manipulate in Photoshop and be able to hand my clients a CD or photographic
print made from a digital file that matches the iamge I visualized at the moment
I shot the picture.
I do not have the time to wait for PhotoCD Master scans to be made, nor am I
inclined to trust my scans to lab scanner techs who are trying to meet
production schedules. I have my 4x5 film scanned by a custom lab at $29 per
scan...(I plan to buy a Linocolor 1400 very soon) I scan my own 35mm... that is
why I, and a lot of other PROFESSIONALS are buying these Minolta and Nikon and
Polaroid scanners... We must adapt and change in order to survive... I used to
shoot film and leave it at the lab and then go back and explain to the counter
person, who would hopefully explain it properly to the printer (who hopefully
knew what I was trying to achieve, etc) and three or four or five days later, I
would get a print... if it was close to what i wanted, great.. if not, back in
for a redo... I had one lab tech do me the favor of giving me ragged black
borders on what were supposed to be full frame prints from 35, no borders, for
an architectural competition... this all on deadline.. the client was with me at
the lab, he went ballisitic... Now I control this myself... I scan my own negs,
I do the appropriate manipulations, I print out on my Epson or send them to a
lab with a Fuji or Noritsu (for up to 8x12) printer that will spit out real
silver based photographic prints... and I can hand my client a CD with those
same scans as PSD or TIFFS and they can get all the prints they want, that look
like I want them to look, and I can keep shooting...
You may be retired, but I am still in the fray of this digital revolution.. Just
as we saw the computers become smaller and into the hands of the end users, so
we will see more pro photographers take the scanning into their own control...
If you want to see one photographer who has already handled the whole deal, from
taking the photo to making the final scans for his glossy coffee table show
book, check out this link
Mike Moore
Dicky wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Moore" <miguelmas@qwest.net>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??
>
> > I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a
> pro-sumer
> > (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros
> buying
> > these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro..
> > that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't
> use
> > ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong.... I never did a
> get a
> > straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and
> upgrade
> > ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably
> priced
> > scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or
> Scitex
> > or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands...
> >
> > Mike Moore
> >
> > Frank Paris wrote:
> >
> > > > output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is
> avoided.
> > > > The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually
> likes
> > > > their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single
> > > > product.
> > > > This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the
> case.
> > > > He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore
> > > > has little
> > > > need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely
> > > > to have any
> > > > time deadlines to meet.
> > > >
> > > > Richard Corbett
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a
> > > filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that
> saves
> > > time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning.
>
> I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by
> scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing
> industry most certainly does.
>
> The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where
> each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals.
> Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching,
> of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation.
>
> The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4"
> per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically.
> He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite
> image for "the mac" or PC if you will.
> He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere.
>
> The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore
> fascinated by the process itself.
>
> The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money.
>
> Each to his own, that's what I say.
>
> As an Ex professional and now an amateur in retirement I am looking at the
> Nikon 4000 and can't wait for all things to be available on but a single
> piece of equipment.
>
> Now all the Nikon people have to do is to produce an output device that sits
> at the end of the chain Scan-in.....PC/Mac.....Output to film, and hey
> presto we have Professional amateurs who will both have fun and make
> money.....always provided they know how to sell....but that's some thing
> else entirely.
>
> Richard Corbett
