Amen brother. The only consoling thought is that if I can get this system (film,
scanner,calibration,output) working, it will allow me to have more control over
the final image I hand my client. Problem is, everytime I think I see a light at
the end of the tunnel, it turns out to be another train coming my way!!
Mike Moore
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> >RG> Define "quality". The Nikon IV ED is 4000dpi which is higher resolution
> >RG> than a standard Photo CD.
> >Sorry, but it is 2900dpi. Coolscan 4000 ED is
> >4000dpi, but IV ED unfortunately is not.
>
> Oops. I had it stuck in my head that *all* the new Nikons were 4000dpi.
> Sorry! Anyway, there's arguments for and against doing the scanning yourself
> or using Photo CDs, regardless of the resolution of the scanner. Ultimately
> it's probably most significant how much *time* you can devote to scanning,
> because paying dollars and sending films away to get CDs back requires a
> lot less effort. I've spent enough sleepless nights feeding my scanner
> already!
>
> Rob
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
>
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> >RG> Define "quality". The Nikon IV ED is 4000dpi which is higher resolution
> >RG> than a standard Photo CD.
> >Sorry, but it is 2900dpi. Coolscan 4000 ED is
> >4000dpi, but IV ED unfortunately is not.
>
> Oops. I had it stuck in my head that *all* the new Nikons were 4000dpi.
> Sorry! Anyway, there's arguments for and against doing the scanning yourself
> or using Photo CDs, regardless of the resolution of the scanner. Ultimately
> it's probably most significant how much *time* you can devote to scanning,
> because paying dollars and sending films away to get CDs back requires a
> lot less effort. I've spent enough sleepless nights feeding my scanner
> already!
>
> Rob
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
>
