Hello Brad, If you want quality, direct scanning is much preferable to optical copys. Scanning negatives is also preferable to POP printing, with one exception. That is if the prints are going to be reproduced by a four color press, with color inks (like magazines and most books).
If you simply want access copies, what I do is use a digital camera and a light table. I am able to shoot about 90 negatives in an hour. Those files can be batch processed by PS and give you quality suitable for comps or website. As to POP, we are making reproduction prints from 8x10 negs right now for a photography book, which will be printed in 4 color. The nuances of tone from a drum-scanned POP print are light years better looking than Photoshop sepia. Here is my last book done using these techniques, all contact printed from old 8x10 negatives: http://www.westcliffepublishers.com/books/history/oregon_then_now.htm POP paper is available through Bostick & Sullivan. i suggest you get a flatbed. With only 100 to do, you should be able to borrow one for a week or two. I recommend scanning in 16 bit if you intend to get fine-art results. The reason that I say this is so you can enjoy the full benefit of all the rich detail to be found in your 8x10" negatives. Tom Robinson ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
