Digital BW, The Print

Those are some big scans that Martin is talking about and I assume that once they are adjusted, they are
knocked way down due to conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit.  So unless one archives the raw scans it's only half
the problem, but yes....Scans are storage hogs.

Technology is partially solving the problem.  When we got our Mac G4 we went from 240 mgs to 27 gigs, which we
thought was Nirvana.  Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently bought into a new Iomega
system called the 'Peerless'.  It's similar in function to a Zip Disk system, except it's Firewire transfer
(very fast) and each disk holds 20 gigs.  These disks are really IBM hard drives that have been made
interchangeable and shock (like from falling) protected.

The initial cost is around $400 and extra 20 gig disks are around @200 each.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

rbollini@... wrote:

> Martin,
> These monster files are very intimidating to me as I start to reckon
> up storage needs for a new system. Carol Steele, familiar to many as
> a PShop guru, and active on the Adobe forums, was jubilant last week
> as she began assembling a system with two new 60G drives plus her old
> 20G. She also will include a DVD writer, with its 4G platters.
> Judging from your experiences, she won't need a new system for at
> least a couple of weeks. But she's a pro, and as I remember, you
> don't draw an income from your photography, as is the case with many
> of us on the list. I suppose amateurs have a certain advantage in
> that they can simply throw away files rather than archiving them after
> printing; however, digital photography promises a flood of new
> visualizations. The problem of storing even a fraction of them is
> enough to make your head swim. How do you handle it now, and can you
> comment on yourplans over time?
> Bob Bollini
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I agree 100%. Get the best scanner you can afford and run it
> > yourself. I have gotten much better results from Polaroid
> Sprintscans
> > 4000 and 120 then the drum scans I have had made. Not because their
> > equipment isn't better but there are key creative choices that the
> > photographer needs to make.
> >
> > If you could get true raw scans from an out side source (something
> I
> > wonder about) that would be fine but since my raw scans off the
> SS120
> > are 550MB I would quickly be over budget.
> >
> > Martin





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]