What is the best way to get high quality digital images? Is it better to scan slides or prints or is it better to purchase a high quality digital camera? The options that I have seen are: a)scan slides with a slide scanner b)scan slides with a drum scanner c)scan prints with a drum scanner d)direct digital images from a digital camera

-- phillip wayne (gptnd5@uswest.net), January 06, 2000

Answers

I have a minolta dimage scanspeed that can import 48 bit tiff files into photoshop. It has a dynamic range of 3.6. The software I use can take advantage of multipass scanning to minimize shadow noise. the price of this scanner is $849 at B&H. There is no 35mm equivalent digital camera that will produce a 30Mbit file. You need to go to a medium format or scanning back thhe cheapest of which is in the $20K-30K range. The dynamic range of a print between 2.6 to 2.8 so even a drum scan is not going to give you a great deal of definiition other than the paper structure. If you follow some of the discussion threads regarding the exposure latitude of digital cameras, you find that they are limited by the bit depth that they capture in terms of exposure latitude and dynamic range. the price of a drum scanner is similar to that of a multi-format digital back. Granted scanning images is an acquired skill, but as it stands a film scanner seems to be the most econonmical choice for getting images into digital form that I know of.

-- Jonathan Ratzlaff (jonathanr@clrtech.bc.ca), January 06, 2000.

Scanning film will give you the best quality and at a reasonable price. PhotoCD scans are also not too bad at about $.90 each. I've made a lot of good scans of film in various ways, including my Nikon ls 1000. That said, I'm having an absolute *blast* with my Nikon 950 digital camera. I haven't had so much fun with photography for years. I know that ultimately the quality isn't as high as I could get in other ways, but mostly that isn't bothering me.

-- John Lehet (justme@well.com), January 06, 2000.

well,

I have both and digital camera at 1600*1200 is much better than a scanner, not because of the scanner itself, but because you will get blurry and noisy pictures depending of the photo paper support quality.

If you take it directly with a digital camera, it will be cleaner because of direct digital storage.

But if you look at the price...a scanner is much cheaper but takes much longer work/time to do it.

Regards.

-- Dod (dodfr@yahoo.com), January 10, 2000.

Of the options you listed, drum scanned slides will give you the best image quality by far. West Coast Imaging in Oakhurst, CA, will give you the best drum scans possible.

The best method I've found is to use an inexpensive scanner or Kodak PhotoCD for proofing your work. After you decide which images are worth the money send them out for drum scans.

Anyone who says a digital camera will give you better quality than a film scanner has never seen a good scan.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), January 13, 2000.