Digital BW, The Print

> At 01:32 PM 12/25/2007, Peter De Smidt wrote:
>
> >It takes awhile to learn the idiosyncrasies of scanning. Having worked
> >in two consumer labs . . .
>
> and with the broad sweep of an irresponsible pen, damn all labs.
>
> There are, of course, excellent professional solutions out
> there. Nancy Scans is certainly one, but most pro labs are well set
> up to scan negatives and produce fine results. And not all
> photographers who scan "on the side" should be written off.
>
> Free free to criticize or praise individual providers, but, please,
> no such broad sweep of the pen.
>
> A r t h u r . F i n k . P h o t o g r a p h y

I didn't say or imply "damn all labs."  I did generalize about consumer 
labs, but furthermore I pointed out the sample size and presented 
reasoning as to some of the issues with film scanning as a business. If 
some of those points are wrong, I'd be in your dept if you pointed them 
out. A generalization is nothing more than something that is claimed to 
be generally true.  Hence, exceptions are perfectly compatible with the 
truth of a generalization. Are there some really good consumer labs out 
there? I hope so, and maybe you'd point some out?  You do mention 
Nancy.scans, but I've read too many horror stories about them to trust 
them with my negatives.  And I didn't say that photographer's who scan 
on the side should be written off. (I happen to be a photographer who 
scans on the side for friends.  I do charge them money, but not nearly 
what it'd cost to make it a viable business.) All I did was point out 
some possible issues with dealing with them, issues that I've 
experienced first hand.

I won't spend any more time today dealing with ad hominems, e.g. 
"irresponsible",  or straw man arguments. It's time for some cookies.