On mercredi, juillet 16, 2003, at 10:39 pm, Richard Kenward wrote:
This IMO is more a case for using drum scanning perhaps, but then not everyone needs or can afford drum scans from all their images at $300 for a throw...top grade drum scans in the UK are far, far cheaper than this!
Having just read this article I'd have to agree; drum scans I had from one major London lab were getting worse with each job. One day I opened an image the same lab had scanned onto Kodak PhotoCD many years before: It was much easier to work with than their latest drum scans. I tried another lab but the results made my RZ transparencies look as though they were shot on 35mm, and sharpening them was a nightmare.
Best scans I've ever had from 6x7 were done by Picto in Paris (praise where it's due), €76 for 80Mb. Amazing the difference a good scan can make.
Getting back to the Libraries..... I think they're just trying to provide their clients with a definable level of quality when it comes to digital files - and that is not an easy task! I'm not surprised if they are stumbling in the dark at the moment. At present, defining which cameras are acceptable sounds like a good route to take - but with the pace of change I doubt it will work for long (wonder where they stand on firmware upgrades?)
My 2 Cents William Davies.
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
