Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

Ten perfect pictures per hour seems an unreasonably high expactation to me,
too--that's as many as I've *ever* done, without correcting for dust or much
of anything else--i.e. not perfect! If I could do that consistently with any
kind of quality, I'd either have an imaging system for sale (having
completed everything I set out to do), or go into the business of scanning
other people's slides & negs for profit. :-)

OTOH, 7.50 per drum-scan is a bit pricey, too. With a somewhat arbitrary
cost of $2500 (US) for a filmscanner, you'd have to do 334 at that price to
win back your money, providing you didn't do it "On The Clock." If your time
is worth anything, you'd have to factor that in, as well. :-|

The math is *interesting*. If you can consistently make $75-100 per hour
(whatever dollar conversion you'd like) in your working hours, the drum
scans are your friend!  Anything more or less would impact on the value of
doing your own scans, cost/profit-wise. Figuring a maximum amorization of 4
years for the cost of the scanner (with 2 being more realistic, IMO), that's
$625-1025 per year. Even if you can only make a $50-per-hour average for a
40/60-hour week without making scans yourself (discounting the cost of
perfect drum scans), it's probably to your advantage to do the drums.

If "control" is a factor for you, OTOH, the drum scans will give you just
exactly what you've shot. Adjustments will then again be up to you and your
time-involved, even though they won't have significant "dust problems."
Sometimes the math doesn't work out quite the way you'd hope it would, IME.

I'd think that a very good digicam would be the answer for photographers
doing "stock" in today's market. That's too glib an answer, and I realize
it's so--it doesn't take into account the hundreds or thousands of good
pictures you've shot with conventional cameras. But I'm addressing the
original question, and that's my take on it.

As a former Art Director, I don't think that "Stock" is an appropriate
medium--it never was for my uses. "Almost" is not good enough in today's
competition to stake one's career on. You
need a photographer you know, who can get the results you need. While stock
*might* be a source of income for starting shooters, I think it's overrated
and overstated. But that's my opinion, and it doesn't cost you more than the
time it took you to read it.

Best regards and good luck--LRA

------Original Message------
From: TonySleep@halftone.co.uk (Tony Sleep)
To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
Sent: May 24, 2001 12:18:00 PM GMT
Subject: Re: filmscanners: What is 4,000 scanner quality like in practice.

On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:51:42 EDT   (TREVITHO@aol.com) wrote:

> If I got a 4000 desktop scanner of my own it would need to produce
> about ten fully finished scans per hour to be worth considering. Is
> this possible considering the amount of time that dust busting might
> take?

IME with the Polaroid 4000, absolutely not. I achieve 1/hr - 4/hr,
depending mostly on the amount of time needed to spot out dust.


Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
info & comparisons

FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com
Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.