>From: "Paul K. Swanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: SPORRS: Re: Slide Scanners >Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 20:00:01 -0600 >MIME-Version: 1.0 > >Jeffrey: > >More of my input to SPORRS...for what it's worth... > >I agree with items 1 and 2. I do not agree with item 3. The key to >quality here, is the ability of the operator to properly manipulate the >scanner software and make proper settings, etc. Some compensation can be >made in Photoshop after the fact of course, again limited by the abilities >of the software operator. I have seen many a drum scan that looks like >crap because it has not been properly done (most common problem is too >much sharpening--too much of a good thing?). My Nikon LS-1000 does an >adequate job for 150lpi halftones in B&W, because it has 36-bit sampling >and a higher density rating. My flatbed Microtek scanner has a density >rating of 3.4, which is higher than the usual 3.0 that you see advertised >on other high-end consumer flatbeds. I have done B&W relflective work >with the flatbed that I feel looks better than drum scanner work, although >I have had to be careful about interpolation. Just because it is drum >scanned doesn't mean it is better. I will agree that many railfan >publications look like hell (including, unfortunately, the one I produce), >but the reasons I believe are many. Much of the color work I see looks >too dark. This can be from many causes. But one fact is this: color >slides must be slightly underexposed to give a good scan for publication. >The reason: dot gain on the printing press. Images will look darker after >they are printed. So a lighter original is preferable. Another reason: >many print companies now are using soy-based inks to protect the >environment. These inks just do not have the quality of previous >oil-based inks. Even with high-tech automated presses, etc. Yet another >reason: the computerization/digitization of the prepress process. There >has been a steep learning curve to get the bugs out of the prepress >process when it comes to making the work flow entirely digital. Employees >must be retrained from their traditional duties of stripping, or using a >graphics camera. So now we come full circle and once again, quality is at >the mercy of the scanner operator. > >Paul Swanson, Editor, North Western Lines > >---------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 1997 4:50 PM >To: Paul K. Swanson >Subject: SPORRS: Re: Slide Scanners > >>Comments: Authenticated sender is <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>From: "Jim Gilley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Organization: Transcrypt International >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 15:38:58 -0600 >>MIME-Version: 1.0 >>Subject: SPORRS: Re: Slide Scanners >>Priority: normal >>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Precedence: bulk >> >>> Does anybody have any suggestions or comments on this or any other >>> slide scanners? >>It all depends on what you plan to do with the scanner output: >> >>1) I want to post my shots on the web. >>In this case, buy the cheapest scanner you can find. I think either >>the Microtek or Minolta would be just fine, and those can be had for >>well under $1K. Let's face it -- it doesn't take much to produce a >>web quality image -- why waste extra money if you don't need to? >>Web publication is probably the only legitimate use of these sorts >>of slide scanners. >> >>2) I want to print my shots in a newsletter. >>You can probably get by with the same scanner as above, since you >>generally don't need a super high quality image for things like >>newsletters. If you want to spend the extra money, you might >>consider one of the Polaroid SprintScans or one of the Nikon >>CoolScans, but that probably isn't necessary. >> >>3) I want to print my shots in National Geographic >>You're screwed. None of the CCD or LED slide scanners out there >>(including the very expensive Leaf35) are capable of producing >>images suitable for this level of use. For these applications, you >>really DO need a PMT drum scanner, no matter what the morons at >>Nikon or Polaroid say. Of course, IF you have about $35K laying >>around, you can buy one, but you also need some degree of skill to >>operate it. >> >>4) I have no real application, but just want to play >>Buy whatever you feel you can afford. Slide scanners ARE great fun >>to play with, but when it comes right down to it, they are really >>nothing more than expensive toys at this point. Sure, you CAN >>publish images scanned with these things, IF you do a hell of a lot >>of clean up in Photoshop, AND you are printing them in a half-assed >>publication. Surprisingly, resolution is NOT the real problem here; >>capturing adequate image density IS. You can always spot a bad scan >>from a mile away because it has NO detail in either the highlights or >>shadows. >> >>Then again, maybe I'm being overly demanding here. Seems to me most >>(not all) railfan oriented publications have gone to hell anyway, so >>half-assed image quality is probably well above what most of them >>can produce. I best drop this topic before I ramble on for hours... >> >>I have owned both the Nikon LS10 Coolscan (which I hated), and the >>Polaroid SprintScan 35 Plus (which I hate to a much lesser degree). >>I totally agree with Dave that the Nikon name alone is a good enough >>reason to stay away from that scanner, but if you go into the deal >>knowing full well there is no such thing as customer service or >>support, then perhaps you will be happy. Polaroid customer service >>is better, but is still not what I would call great. I cannot speak >>of other scanners, as I have not owned them. I WILL caution you to >>listen to none of the lies that are advertised about any of these >>scanners -- remember, the goal of a salesman is to sell something, >>NOT to tell the truth about it -- it's YOUR money, and your decision. >> >>Good luck: >>Grumpy >>Jim Gilley >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://www.eesoft.com/rr >>--> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects >> >
--> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects
