On 2021-02-19 23:43, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 19 February 2021 at 08:32:47 UTC-5, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2021-02-17 16:34, -hh wrote:

Exactly, and I'm already on my second film scanner that's been grossly
underutilized because my soul's already been crushed - twice - by the amount
of time it eats up to "do it right".
Two thoughts,

1) If you're scanning images from the past, then the workflow is
important. Pre-scan, settings, scan. Tedious, but it will get you
there. If you capture the full range of exposure over the widest range
of bits, then you have all you need to do colour/tone etc. in Photoslop
or whatever environment.

2) If you're scanning 'current work' and your technical abilities with
shooting film are decent, then the scanning work is far less due to
consistency (same film types used often, proper exposure, etc.).

The crush here is less time for photography and that's mostly digital in
any case...
--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens

Get a light table and magnifier or projector so you can vet the junk from the quality first.
Avoiding scanning stuff not worth scanning is a good idea.

I did forget to put that in. It's such a habit with me to not scan
crud, that I assume everyone is the same.

A pro photog I know has a program to very rapidly go through his digital
take. He can 'reject' a 100 photos per minute - and that program
completely erases them as if it never happened.


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens