> As I contemplate the issues involved with scanning negatives, I wonder if there is a very much better cost solution that offers possibly better results. Please know that I am not being critical of those who do their own scans and prints from film, and that I post my comments purely as informational and in search of some answers. The entire issue arises as I start planning to update my home computer system and think about getting involved with home scans, printing, and Photoshop. Thus far I do not use a digital camera or back, and I direct my remarks to those who, for the time being, are remaining with film media.
Allow me to expand upon my thinking. I can take my film ( either 120 or 35mm ) to my very professional local developer who has the latest Fuji equipment. He can process my color negatives and prints, and at the same time make a digital CD of the prints from his high quality scanner. I would guess that his scan would be far better then any I can do with the more cost effective scanners one can purchase. Of course, I am not thinking about the Imacon or others of that quality. Furthermore, I am not alluding to scanning negatives or transparencies for it appears to me that scanning and then printing from these sources imposes another step between the image and the final print, and that this extra step necessarily adds some degradation to the final print. To continue, I can use that "print" CD to import the images into my computer, and manipulate them as I wish and then print the results with one of the better ink printers now available realizing that whatever prints I make will probably not be the equal of the prints the dealer can make using chemical methods and his Fuji equipment. He can do all of the color corrections that are needed instantaneously, crop, etc., and make a print very quickly and very cost effectively. Indeed, a 4 x6 from a 35mm negative is about 26 cents including the color corrections and basic crops. Obviously a larger print would cost some what more, but very little. Other then doing some more artistic work using PS, why would one desire to do a scan and manipulate the image at home at a cost in time and money that is likely to be much greater then one can obtain at the dealer? Furthermore, the "chemical print" is likely to be superior then the one I can produce at home. If my reasoning is at all valid, I fail to see the advantages of owning and using a home photo scanner and printer other then to enjoy the experience. However, the very fact that so many of my much more learned and experienced colleagues feel that scanning images and manipulating them is effective makes me wonder where and why my logic is flawed. I admit that "enjoying the experience" is a very valid reason to scan and print oneself and I repeat once more that my remarks are not at all meant to be critical.
Elliot
