I was the one that brought up the topic, based on a speech I attended by
Jim Sugar. He uses
rather than Getty, but believes you should meet the Getty standards. As
I also mentioned, the EOS-1ds Mark II seems to be THE standard.
Jim also has a website
Cantoo in Berkeley
rents out time on Imacon scanners. That is, you use them on-premises.
[OK, not handy for everyone on this list, but the idea is such places do
exist.] I suppose someday I should spend an hour and generate a scan
using one of their high end machines versus my lowly Minolta 5400 II.
I don't recall if I posted this, but looking at my notes from the
speech, the one thing I thought was useful advice is to shoot vertical.
You need to do this for magazine cover shots, which is good money. I'll
admit it is not a natural thing to do, though my EOS-1HV does have
controls for use in both directions.
Jim said he was making nearly as much money from stock as assignments.
Since he probably doesn't work cheap, this is impressive.
> One of the earlier posts in this thread mentioned that Getty
> Images , a major stock photography company, posted their
> camera/scanner requirements on their website. I went searching
> on their website today, and located their standards. Here are
> their requirements for cameras:
> If you are shooting on a 35mm digital camera it must an approved
> camera from this list: Nikon D200, Nikon D2X, Canon EOS 30D,
> Canon EOS 5D, Canon EOS 1D MK 11, Canon EOS 1Ds, Canon EOS 1Ds MK
> 11. All medium format backs (e.g. backs by Phase One and Leaf
> etc) produce sufficiently high quality images to be accepted by us.
> Here are their requirements for film scanners:
> We only accept digital files from scanned film if they have been
> drum scanned by a professional scanning house or scanned using
> the approved desk top film scanners from the following list:
> Imacon 949, 848, 646, 343; Fuji Lanovia Quattro and Finescan;
> Creo Eversmart Supreme 11, Eversmart Select 11, IQsmart 1,2,3
> I've never heard of any of these scanners and am somewhat shocked
> that not even the high end Nikon scanners are included in the list.
> The first one on the list, the Imacon 949 is a $5000 device,
> which probably explains why I've ever heard of it. I didn't
> check the prices on the other scanners, but if they are equally
> ruinous, then it looks like the cheapest way to take stock
> quality photos is to get a digital camera like Nikon's D200
> (about $1300), rather than use film plus scanning. Is it really
> true, as Getty's requirements would seem to suggest, that the
> Nikon D200 and D2X can produce better images than film plus a
> high end Nikon scanner like the SuperCoolscan 5000? What are the
> prices for having photos professionally drum scanned?
> Dr. Paul Patton
> Life Sciences Building Rm 538A
> work: (419)-372-3858
> home: (419)-352-5523
> Biology Department
> Bowling Green State University
> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403
> "The most beautiful thing we can experience is
> the mysterious. It is the source of all true art
> and science."
> -Albert Einstein
Unsubscribe by mail to firstname.lastname@example.org, with 'unsubscribe
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or