The lab specified a 50MB scan in their brochure. To me that means a scan
that is a physical size of 50MB. I didn't realise it was common to compress
to jpeg and would have liked to have been told that/given the option.
I haven't looked at the new scan, a quick look at the jpeg scan showed it
was good quality. They did clean my trannie which got a condensation mark
(probably after leaving the lab). Their E6 processing was fine. Not sure if
I would leave any other digital work to them though. If I could justify a
medium format scanner I would prefer to do the job properly myself :-)
From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk [mailto:TonySleep@halftone.co.uk]
Sent: 06 February 2001 13:11
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Re: Scanning problems
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:03:00 -0800 shAf (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
> For example, Julie may want to sell her
> work to a "stock photography" library, who sometimes insist on 50Mb
> files. She would not be able to (honestly) sell an image which had
> been JPEG compressed at any time.
Oh I don't know - I've met more than one photographer who has covertly duped
35mm to 5x4 to meet a client requirement for sheet film ;)
Seems to me this is all a matter of intention. If later manipulation is
intended, high bit TIFF output should be specified.
If it's going more or less straight to press or other output, people will
prefer JPEG. Apart from much shorter wiring time of JPEG, TIFF format is
mutable enough to cause occasional 'aargh I can't read this!' problems which
are not wanted where deadlines are involved (BTDT).
I have to agree with Ed that JPEG at high quality settings is close to TIFF,
close enough that you'd never see any difference in printed output. The
files are much more manageable, so favoured for transmission.
I can see it both ways, and it seems the answer is to know what you want and
specify it clearly. And for the lab to ask, rather than assume. Both
before they do the job:)
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info