I’m openly going back on my ‘word’ about Photo Depot. They’re still a great deal ($10 for processing and scanning to 2240x3360 jpeg files) and he probably doesn’t realize the work is undervalued when the same thing would cost $20-25 anywhere else; however, I contemplate does the photographer value it? and the answer is no.
On my flickr account I’m seeing a trend of posting 6-8 photos per 24 exposure roll and they’re nothing out of the ordinary – I mean I haven’t vested money in visiting locations or bribing waitresses for photos – so it’s difficult to justify spending $10 on top of the cost of film unless it’s something absolutely stunning and thoughtful I know I’ve taken. When I used my 6mp Fuji S6000fd I could enlarge my photos up to 11x14” and still have them look pretty good. Now if I’m getting scans back at 7.5mp resolution that wouldn’t help me make a larger print. That’s only about 500 pixels extra on each side - it would make better looking 11x14”s. This puts those scans in a predicament of looking marvellous for web usage or small print sizes (8x10” and 11x14” are perhaps fine for black & white). Annnnnd why even start with a lossy jpeg file when I should be editing a tiff? If this were a gallery submission, I could have an individual frame scanned on an Imacon and would get a tiff back without question.
My current thinking on this would be to get an Epson V600 (just announced) to see if it rivals Shoppers Drug Mart. If not, it’s quite disturbing that there is no middle ground for relatively high quality and affordable film scanning. All I hear about after flatbed scanners like the Epson are dedicated machines costing at least $1,000
