I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
photoreddi Veteran Member • Posts: 7,849
Re: I think Thom was right, again...

harold1968 wrote:


Thom grossly under estimates the cost of film, development and scanning. It's almost £1 per picture in the UK

Thom made this forum post several years ago. Does it sound like he's unaware of the cost of film, development and scanning?

Roman's example of Galen's work is a good one, and one that I'm personally familiar with. For a long time, Galen thought he had optimized his output (slides-> internegative-> wet print). Then he started doing digital scans and prints and eventually hooked up with Bill Atkinson. His optimized workflow changed (slides-> scan-> photoshop-> digital print). And his prints changed for the better. For a long time in Emeryville he had two prints hanging side by side in his gallery, one done the old way and one the new way (which kept changing for a while). The difference was dramatic.


If that hasn't convinced you that Thom is aware of the high cost of scanning, perhaps this will.

There are literally thousands of film cameras
available for cheap and labs can easily scan film

Every price a good scan? I paid US$75 for my last drum scan. Or are you suggesting that I let some automated machine make some guesses and give me suboptimal scans? I've done that, too, and it's still not cheap.


That's quite a bit more than "£1 per picture in the UK", eh?

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow