Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding

["Alan Tyson" <AlanTyson@bknowl.freeserve.co.uk>]

Just to add an alternative, broader view to the
discussion....

I agree that scanning the negative always has the potential
for a better result, and that's what I always do myself as
first choice. BUT let us not forget that simple flatbed
print scanning has its place, because......

1. It's very quick because much of the decision making on
tonal range has already been done, and one's options are
greatly reduced - you can't preserve detail that isn't
there. However, the print may already be quite satisfactory,
artistically.

2. The negative may have been damaged, or may have
deteriorated more than the print, through abuse (sneezing on
it, or inappropriate cleaning or storage);

3. The dust problem is enormously reduced;

4. With little or no effort, the quick & dirty cheapo
flatbed results will, quite possibly, delight most
non-filmscanning, not-too-critical friends and family, even
at quite excessive degrees of enlargement;

5. The assertion that 'filmscanning is it' will deter many
potential converts to quasi-digital photography. Many people
will never get stuck into filmscanning as we enthusiasts
have done, because of the cost and the blood, sweat & tears
involved. They could revolutionise their photography quite
easily by using a cheap flatbed scanner on their prints.
Some of them *just might* become converts to filmscanning.
 I did this for 9 months, with great satisfaction, before
buying my first filmscanner.) These folk need *gentle*
encouragement to join us, and develop & preserve the
filmscanner market. If we're not careful, mass market
filmscanning will wither in parallel to silver photography
as all-digital systems develop.

Digital cameras have much further to go than we have. We
know that, but the marketeers don't.

Regards to all,

Alan T

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Shomler <bob@shomler.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 11:42 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding


> >There is no doubt in my mind that scanning the negative
is far better > >than scanning the print.