Yep, sure you get the same level of control in a scan. I have
thousands of old slides myself that I plan to go through and scan the
best ones. Only, to get a decent scan to even start fine-tuning will
take me up to half an hour (dusting, loading, dusting again, prescan,
crop, scan, adjust levels, save, open in PS, cloning out all the dust
particles that escaped) while a digicam shot is already at that stage
immediately after download. For my old slides I have no choice, but
new ones simply aren´t worth it UNLESS I see the need to project them
(and I seldom do; those snoring sounds in the dark are too
disconcerting).
Also, if you "can always find a particular slide easily", you are a far
better man than me.... For negs, at least I have the contact sheets,
but trying to find a slide drives me NUTS!
Still, this is no attempt to prove that I´m right and you´re wrong.
Probably we would both be uncomfortable if we tried each other´s
workflow...
Per Öfverbeck
http://foto.ofverbeck.se
2005-05-31 kl. 16.23 skrev PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx:
But one gets that feature by scanning slides. I still find slides
easier to manage. I get a roll back from processing it and put into my
20 per page plastic sheet, number the page with year and page which
goes into the notebook binder on the shelf. I can always find a
particular slide easily and can sort thru them at anytime. I only scan
the good ones so there is fewer digital files per film shot. From my
digital camera I get loads of files at full resolution that I might
never use which takes of loads of space and must be numbered in a
different fashion
In a message dated 5/31/2005 5:12:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
elgenper@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
But I gained a lot of equally important things: the
ability to fine-tune pictures to an extent unknown in the wet darkroom
(mind you, I´m NOT talking of "faking" or "compositing" images), the
