Poll to guage demand for scanning

I can see a clear difference on my (decent but not spectacular) monitor, the drum scan is much sharper.

The comparison I would like to see though would be against a good film scanner rather than a flatbed.

Have you compared a high end dedicated film scanner rather than a flat bed to the drum scanner? If the costs of the scanners are close then fair enough but probably not worth paying a huge amount more given those comparison shots. There really is little to choose between them.

Flat beds are primarily designed to scan paper documents rather than film whereas a dedicated film scanner on the other hand is designed to scan, er films, like the drum scanner!

John K

I doubt if anyone who invested the considerable amount on a good film scanner, will feel the need to get a drum scan, unless they need to scan something bigger than their scanner was designed for.
I'm guessing there's a whole load of people who use flatbeads to quickly ascertain the quality of their pictures and for web or small printing, but when they find a good shot, they go to a lab - they are the people I'm targeting, when I ask what would make them change; it's almost certainly money.

Drum scanners are at the top of the tree when it comes to scanning.

Just remember that Joe public or most non-commercial clients won't even be looking for DR and the nth degree of quality. They can't even tell if I shot Nikon, Pentax or film when they get a digital image from me.

However, if you’re selling to a commercial client who wants the best, you may consider DMF as most professionals use them for such work. I have heard it said that even FF DSLR's and Leica S2's manage such quality results.

There is pleasure in using film and it's good to be able to scan it. For that good shot, if on film and if I was asked to sell it in digital format, I would consider a drum scan after doing my own scans and getting customer feedback on the "proof" scan. I would not divulge that it was as good as I could personally scan thus leaving my options open and the customer happy.

Drum scanners, like good cameras, do not automatically mean great results.

Best regards

The close up does illustrate noticeable differences, my preference being for drum scan - it produces a better quality images if the published results are anything to go by. I also prefer the quality and depth of colour in the drum scan in the final pair of images, but wonder if this difference can be achieved in post processing.

The ideal scenario would be to have film developed and scanned by a lab that offered drum scans, but this would be expensive. If cost for drum scans is high, the preferred route would be to have good quality flatbed scans from the developer, then to identify the images that deserved the additional expense and to have these selected images scanned in a drum. I think this is most likely to be the scenario that would lead to business if you do take the leap.

But firstly, I need to take better photographs - I am the weakest link! A significant factor is the status of the photographer - for an amateur like myself, it's earnings spent on a hoby, for a professional, a high quality image should be an investment that pays for itself. K10d makes the point I am getting at very succinctly. Perhaps it would be worth testing results from different scan labs before committing?

Hope this helps, Mark. Look forward to hearing the outcome.

Thanks folks!
I think we can consider this closed. It looks like offering high-end scanning is dead in the water.
This sort of thing needs someone with more interest in quality than profits, which would be me, but I think I'll buy a kayak and and a waterproof bag instead
I think you lot may have just saved me from a further 10 years of servitude

Your poll also doesn't allow for yes to all three!

At the moment I get low res scans done when they are developed, and do higher res scans for 35mm myself on a Minolta film scanner. For 120 and 5x4 I'm stuck at the moment, although we are getting an Epson V750 Pro at work.

Cheers, Kris.