| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2008 10:22:45 PM · #1 |
I'm thinking of obtaining a scanner to scan my old (mostly Kodachrome slides) for stock. I'm looking at the Nikon Scanners. The Super COOLSCAN 9000 ED seems rather pricey. The Super COOLSCAN 5000 ED I sure would do a good job.
Then I saw the COOLSCAN V ED at a much more reasonable price. Would it be of sufficient quality to scan slides for stock agency submissions?
Anyone have any experience with these? Any other suggestions? |
|
|
|
06/03/2008 11:33:24 PM · #2 |
Depends on the Agency.
Getty for instance, have a list of approved scanners that they will accept submissions from.
On the other hand, Microstock sites pay much less attention to quality.
bazz. |
|
|
|
06/04/2008 05:06:06 PM · #3 |
| I can't find anything about scanners on the Getty site. Do you already have to be a Getty photographer to see the list? |
|
|
|
06/04/2008 05:21:14 PM · #4 |
From the Getty site:
* 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 get mine done on an Imacon 949. Scans from 645 film at 4000ppi end up around 380mb in size and are just under 10000pixels on the long side.
cheers,
bazz. |
|
|
|
06/04/2008 05:21:56 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by sir_bazz:
On the other hand, Microstock sites pay much less attention to quality.
bazz. |
That is utter rubbish actually. Like it or not, almost all microstock sites demand as much quality as possible (and pay as little as possible). Even the lowly micro sites are going to look darned carefully at film grain and any noise issues related to scanning. Considering all the expense, unless the stock is newsworthy and unique, it is not nearly as easy to sell as photos from a new digital DSLR. |
|
|
|
06/04/2008 05:27:51 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by pineapple:
That is utter rubbish actually. Like it or not, almost all microstock sites demand as much quality as possible (and pay as little as possible). |
Your suggesting micro and macro stock sites have the same quality guidelines ?
bazz. |
|
|
|
06/04/2008 06:22:42 PM · #7 |
I remember loving this movie as a teen.
But to answer your question.....
The two scanners that you mention the Coolscan 5000 and the Coolscan V are slightly different, although those slight differences are anything but trivial. The big difference is in the features- the Coolscan 5000 is equipped with digital ice (dust and scratch removal), faster scan speed- I think the 5000 is almost twice as fast for the same res. I own the Nikon 8000 (medium format) scanner. I love it, color accuracy is excellent. No real complaints with it.
Message edited by author 2008-06-04 18:29:35.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 05:20:09 AM EST.
