Photo CD’s? Scanner? What?

So I want to get my own future images into my computer and keep learning/using Photoshop.

My digital Kodak camera, as nice as it is, is easily beat by my old vanilla Nikon, plus I can use the variety of lenses with it too. And focusing, etc., is so much better with an SLR than using goofy LCD screens.

So: Is there a better alternative than buying a film scanner in order to use this Nikon gear with Photoshop?

I’m pretty poor these days (thanks for the "help", George), and want to be economically efficient, so buying a digital SLR would be great but can’t yet be justified.

As a parallel, I have a couple of tiny APS cameras too (doesn’t matter how good the Nikon is if it’s not around!), so getting those images into the machine with the same solution would be great too.
Please share your experiences & opinions!

To scan prints, today’s affordable flatbed scanners are fine. If you notice the difference between your Kodak and the Nikon, you’ll notice even more how badly they work with negatives and slides. You need a proper slide scanner, not an attachment to a flat-bed.

Which is likely to be best (technically & economically) for low-volume numbers: My doing film scans (Coolscan IV?) or an automated production-line? Or is there another combination of tricks that I’m not considering?

I didn’t clarify a major point: I want to avoid prints & flatbed scanners since so much gets lost in the transfer.

So I’m thinking that my chemical SLR and either a film scanner or "Photo CD"-type arrangement will be a more-than-adequate replacement to my current flatbed and my consumer digital camera. And far cheaper than a high-end digital SLR.

Which is likely to be best (technically & economically) for low-volume numbers: My doing film scans (Coolscan IV?) or an automated production-line? Or is there another combination of tricks that I’m not considering?

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:13:49 -0500, Wayne R.
wrote:

I didn’t clarify a major point: I want to avoid prints & flatbed scanners since so much gets lost in the transfer.

So I’m thinking that my chemical SLR and either a film scanner or "Photo CD"-type arrangement will be a more-than-adequate replacement to my current flatbed and my consumer digital camera. And far cheaper than a high-end digital SLR.

Which is likely to be best (technically & economically) for low-volume numbers: My doing film scans (Coolscan IV?) or an automated production-line? Or is there another combination of tricks that I’m not considering?

Try looking at the Minolta Dimage III. It doesn’t have ICE, but you can use Photoshop to do your own dust and scratches. And you’ll find it’s a lot cheaper but gives excellent results.

OTO, check out how much it costs per image to have a Photo CD made (which you can add to). If you’;re not using the facility often, then it may be a more economic solution in the short term. BTW, make sure that it’s Photo CD and NOT Picture Cd which is just medium res jpgs.
—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Excellent info, thanks! That Dimage III gets top reviews and is amazingly inexpensive. Puts a new spin on Photo CD economics….