Thank you Stephen and Tom.
I'm thinking I should save my $ and give one of them a try. It'll be a
while though. In the last few months I've spent more $$ on OM stuff than
I had in my entire life up until now...
I understand the printer problem too, but I lucked out on that part. I
have an HP-895 I can use for check prints. One of my clients has a
Tektronix Phaser 850 1200 DPI printer I can use for final output. They
even keep glossy photo paper in stock by the ream because they do a lot
of digital color output work. I do a lot of work for them and much of it
( 15-20 minutes at a time )ends up unbilled. I have a key to the
building and was told "Whenever you want to print anything, go right
ahead. You set it all up you maintain it, you should know how to use
it" :-)
They do small runs of all types of printing and told me if I got a
scanner, they would offer the service at their shop to help me offset
some of my cost. They get the printing biz, I get to help pay for my
scanner...
--
Jim - Who needs to stop buying OM stuff long enough to afford a film
scanner.
Stephen Border wrote:
>
> Jim
>
> Well I recently put my money down on a Scanwit following Tom's comments about
> them (despite the fact that he ended up sending his back I think)
>
> I've been happy with mine, although I've only done prints to A4 size so far,
> and I can't afford a new printer at the moment (had a few little Scalian
> episodes of my own recently, 7 cameras, 3 lenses and 2 winders in 3 weeks).
>
> For a good review of the Acer try www.photoscientia.co.uk/Review.htm
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Stephen
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, you wrote:
> > Tom or anyone -
> >
> > Can anyone tell me how the lower cost scanners like the Acer or Minolta
> > or ? compare to getting a Picture CD done by Kodak?
> >
> > At $8 a pop the money adds up on the picture CD's and I think the
> > quality is so-so.
> >
> > I can see spending $300-400 ( or a bit more...) on a scanner if I can
> > get better quality than the Picture CD's
> >
> > --
> > Jim
> >
> >
> > Tom Scales wrote:
> > >
> > > I suppose 'every one' is too flip. I have several dozen 13x19 prints
> > > hanging around the house. Some are crisper than others, but all look
> > > great.
> > > The macro shots from the 90/2 (my flower shots) look particularly great.
> > >
> > > Tom
> > >
> > > > In a message dated 9/24/00 7:18:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > > tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> > > >
> > > > > One last point. I thought I only wanted 8x10, but then I bought a
> > > > > 13x19
> > > > > capable printer (Epson 1270) and a 2700dpi scanner isn't enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good luck,
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom
> > > >
> > > > Could I query as to how often you can get a sharp looking 13x19 out of
> > > > our
> > > > Zuikos with the Polaroid? It is time to upgrade my PhotoSmart (at least
> > > from
> > > > the point of view of shadow noise) but to what end?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Warren
> > > >
> > > > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > > > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > > > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> > > >
> > >
> > > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|