[filmscanners] Re: Re:A scanner question

["Preston Earle" <PEarle@triad.rr.com>]

"LAURIE SOLOMON" <laurie@advancenet.net> wrote: "I am inclined to agree
with you on several of your points. . . . However, if you are archiving
the scans for future unknown final uses, to scan at the highest bit
depth and optical resolution for archiving purposes on CDs or DVDs and
the like does make some sense in that it gives you the maximuium
information with which to work with at that future date for the purposes
at hand given what might be the then current requirements and specs of
applications and devices."
-------------------------

I, too, feel like we are more in agreement than disagreement. It is
pretty much a free world, and folks can use as much or as little storage
as they choose for their archived images. Occasionally I feel compelled
to point out that there is no visible difference in printed images (I
assumed Tom was using an inkjet printer to make his "historic photo
archive" prints.) from a medium-compression JPEG files of adequate
resolution and their TIFF brothers, but sometimes it's a lonely battle
<G>.

One reason I advocate smaller, compressed files for archive is that I
think the weak link in today's digital workflow is the scanner. The
original scan is probably the thing that will be improved most in the
future, so saving many gigabytes of original scans doesn't seem so
critical. I don't think we will be rescanning all the thousands of old
slides and negatives we may currently have archived, but we might rescan
the best ones, the "keepers", when desktop filmscanners begin to achieve
significantly better performance, like better shadow-end penetration
with less noise, fewer artifacts, etc.

Preston Earle
PEarle@triad.rr.com


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body