On Saturday, October 26, 2002, at 07:46 PM, wendy beard wrote:
I know I'm preaching to the converted here, but I thought I'd post the results from some scans I did today.Wendy,
http://www.beard-redfern.com/scantest/index.htm
By the way, the scan of the print is pretty much true to life. That's the sort of quality I'm getting back from the photo lab. Why they can't get it right with equipment costing thousands of dollars and I can get results 10 times better with a film scanner costing $500CDN, I don't know. The three scans are unmanipulated, they are just as they came out of the scanner. Contrast, colour and sharpness haven't been altered.
Now if only it wasn't so tedious scanning negatives..................
Wendy Beard,
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com
I think everyone who has access to a film-scanner pretty much has the same results (I did, at any rate). The Achilles Heel of print film is photofinishing. We get it cheap because there is such great volume, but to get good prints you need someone willing to go one on one with your prints. But no one having to look at hundreds or thousands of prints an hour can take the time to do that (assuming they wanted to or had the aptitude in the first place).
Dan Scott
