I'm currently trying to 'enable' me with the cheapest sort of scanner:
we happen to own a Canon G2 digital camera (fast lens!, that was my
major requirement when bying the digital camera) and it takes filters,
so I'll by a close-up lens for it (49mm thread, so if I want, it can be
used on the Pentax-lenses as well). With a bit of woodworking, I hope to
build a usable frame that will allow me to take pictures of a negative
and convert it on the computer to an image that has enough quality to
use it as a preview to decide whether the image is worth printing and to
publish it somewhere.
This seems to me a money-and-time-efficient workflow, since I will be
developing b&w film myself, but won't be doing the printing.
If that 'scanner' succeeds, I won't be needing a real scanner at all.
Groeten,
Vic
frank theriault wrote:
On 8/7/05, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Frank
As long as you use film, a *good* scanner would be number one on your
enablement list, or not?
Honestly, no. As you saw, it wasn't on my "list of desire". Here's
my thinking:
First, I'll likely end up going digital at some point. Why waste
money on a scanner only to end up not using it when I go digital?
Second, I really don't care that much how things look on a computer
screen. That's why my scans are so dirty (literally - you can see
dust and smudges from the scanner on many of my posts). I'm never
going to get the scans to look as good as the prints anyway (and
actually, my prints look pretty good - ask Bill Robb, Ken Waller,
anyone else who saw my stuff at GFM and was surprised by the print
quality, or ask any of the Toronto guys who've seen my stuff). I take
photos with film to make them into prints. The scanning and posting
part is just for fun. I mean the getting them made into prints is for
fun, too, but a different, more serious kind of fun, if you know what
I mean <g>.
I guess a film scanner might save me some printing costs. But, if I
printed less I wouldn't be as happy.
cheers,
frank
