RE: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??

["Hemingway, David J" <HEMINGD@POLAROID.COM>]

Why wait!! Polaroid has that already, the ProPalette 8K series film
recorders are available with 35mm, medium format and/or 4x5 film backs.
David

 -----Original Message-----
From:   Dicky [mailto:corbettr@dircon.co.uk] 
Sent:   Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:26 PM
To:     filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Subject:        Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120
??

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Moore" <miguelmas@qwest.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Nikon 8000 ED or Polaroid Sprintscan 120 ??


> I don't know where these guys get the idea that everyone that uses a
pro-sumer
> (Minolta Elite, Nikon LS2000, etc.) is an amateur... I see a lot of pros
buying
> these to scan work to give clients... I've tried PhotoCD Master and Pro..
> that's why I am scanning my own 35mm... To say that we don't need or can't
use
> ICE and any other time saver we can get is flat wrong.... I never did a
get a
> straight answer from Jack at ASF on why we can't buy GEM and ROC and
upgrade
> ICE... There is a BIG market out there for a good quality, reasonably
priced
> scanner that will meet pro needs.. I can't afford to buy an Imacon, or
Scitex
> or anything else that sets me back multiple thousands...
>
> Mike Moore
>
> Frank Paris wrote:
>
> > > output levels and therefore anything that slows down output is
avoided.
> > > The amateur, on the other hand, has rarely such a need and usually
likes
> > > their equipment to embrace as many functions as possible in a single
> > > product.
> > > This is seen as good value for money, which I would suggest is the
case.
> > > He is not likely to be selling his scans for profit and therefore
> > > has little
> > > need for high output of digitised images and is also not likely
> > > to have any
> > > time deadlines to meet.
> > >
> > > Richard Corbett
> > >
> >
> > I think this is the wrong message to send to a representative of a
> > filmscanner manufacturer. Amateurs most definitely want a system that
saves
> > time, the moreso the more they have lives outside filmscanning.

I would suggest that a professional photographer does not earn his living by
scanning images. A professional in the repro division of the printing
industry most certainly does.

The pro scanner user operates under a division of labour principle where
each specifically identified skill is carried out by separate individuals.
Thus a scanner operator is looking for facim plus cast removal. Retouching,
of all kinds, is carried out on a separate workstation.

The professional scanner operator is outputting to data storage at around 4"
per min horizontal and drum diameter vertically.
He is also producing CYMK images, usually in TIFF with a low res composite
image for "the mac" or PC if you will.
He is paid to produce volume. The clever tricks are carried out elsewhere.

The Amateur is doing all this for fun, one hopes, and is therefore
fascinated by the process itself.

The amateur therefore has more fun and the professional makes more money.

Each to his own, that's what I say.

As an Ex professional and now an amateur in retirement I am looking at the
Nikon 4000 and can't wait for all things to be available on but a single
piece of equipment.

Now all the Nikon people have to do is to produce an output device that sits
at the end of the chain Scan-in.....PC/Mac.....Output to film, and hey
presto we have Professional amateurs who will both have fun and make
money.....always provided they know how to sell....but that's some thing
else entirely.

Richard Corbett