Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??

["Dicky" <corbettr@dircon.co.uk>]

B2 plus my boy, that's the size.

Richard Corbett

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:32 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??


> Why wait!! Polaroid has that already, the ProPalette 8K series film
> recorders are available with 35mm, medium format and/or 4x5 film backs.
> David
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: Dicky [mailto:corbettr@dircon.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:26 PM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120
> ??
>
> ----- 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