alex wrote: > > Keith, > > I found if I scan my slides with a quality film scanner, > Photoshop them slightly and print on a decent Epson > inkjet, I get better results than commercial labs can > (or willing to) do with negatives. > > This could be an indication of my local labs quality :=) > > I suspect that scanning and printing at home is also > cheaper, at least on a long run, than paying for lab > services. > > Alex
Which means I would need to buy a film scanner. I have a document scanner that does top quality documents, but I don't think it's optimized for film... I'll have to check my manual carefully. I know I'd be very unhappy with it if it were only mediochre. I can get that from my film processor now! So that's a bit of an outlay that needs amortizing over a long time. Secondly, I am not prepared for the learning curve on Photoshop! I have paid careful attention to those who have used it for a long time, and in essense they all agree that it is a steep curve, and takes dedicated effort to be facile with it... I think that "ColorIt!" or "GraphicConverter" would do as well, if I took the time to acquire that skill with them. Third, my HP printer is totally out of the question when it comes to good images from photos, so as you say, an Epson is in my future! I'm not making nor do I plan to make any money with my photos, so I can't justify the time and expense to make such a big deal out of doing it myself. All of which goes to say, in spite of my apparent negative attitude regarding going that far personally, your advice has merit and I realize that if I did choose to set up to do it myself I'd be far happier. No question about it, so thanks for the heads up. keith whaley > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith Whaley [mailto:keith_w@;dslextreme.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 4:35 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: sliding away? > > ... > I have yet to find a suitable printer, who will print what I see when > I take the shot. > I get prints back from the printer, look at the prints, then glass the > negatives and see _far_ more detail than is on paper. Subtle shadow > detail lost in the mud. > For the most part, the film I'm using doesn't matter all that much. > Yes, some films reproduce shadow detail better than others, but > ignoring that fine point for the moment, I really hesitate to go to ta > custom lab and pay very high prices just for getting a decent print > from my negatives! > > Exactly as Bruce says. > > Maybe I'm not approaching it right...or I need to find a proper > digital lab? > Anyone know of one in L.A.? > > keith whaley
