John wrote: > Don't think that these $800-3000 scanner toys we are using > are the best it will get or the best that is out there.
I have a Nikon LS30. It's technology which is what, four years old? There's much better scanners on the market now if one has the money. I don't. Having said that, I get excellent (IMO) results from the LS30 with the right films exposed well. The LS30 is able to produce scans with enough resolution for a magazine cover page at 300dpi, and at the moment, that's all I need. > If you have an image that is that "good" get a drum scan > from Nancy Scans (11,000 dpi?) or somewhere. I suspect the cost of sending the film from Austraila to the States and returning the result on a CDR (if indeed an 11K scan would fit) would be prohibitive. More to the point, I have no need for that sort of resolution, nor does the magazine I'm supplying files to. If I was fortunate enough to be supplying photos to National Geographic however... > I am not saying you can't get good results and sell work > using these scanners but lenses and film are more of a > high quality constant than the digital age we have just > begun to get into. Precisely why I'm looking at getting better glass in front of the film. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
