Well, film scans will either set you back a lot of money, or a lot of time and a little less money (if you buy a film scanner). I just did a shoot for our church that was partly digital, partly film (because I wanted to use my fisheye zoom), and I'll tell ya, the film part of that shoot is a pain in the ass.
I love shooting slides, but geez, the ist D and the digital pix are sure easier to work with. Rick --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hmmm. Good scans are going to set you back a bunch. > The scans you get from a typical mini lab might not > be adequate for professional work. Perhaps it's time > to jump. > Paul > -------------- Original message > ---------------------- > From: "Scott Loveless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So I landed a job doing some interior and exterior > architectural > > shots, plus some staff portraits and candids of > the daily grind for a > > local company. (Actually, it's a national chain, > but I'm only doing > > one branch.) As most of you know, I'm kind of a > Luddite and have > > refused to jump into the digital realm with both > feet. Of course, > > they don't want prints. They want about 50 photos > on CD to use for > > promotional purposes - their own stock photos, > basically. ARRRRGH! > > Looks like I'll be paying the lab to scan the > film. > > > > Such is life. > > > > -- > > Scott (dammit) Loveless > > http://www.twosixteen.com > > > > -- > > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > > > > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
