Dear all,

As a professional, with 40 years of experience in both art and
photography, I feel I can say without any hesitation that the only
thing scanners are good for is scanning flat documents. When digital
cameras cost over $2,000 for a unit that could barely deliver 512k of
resolution, then yes, scanners were a viable alternative. But even the
most modest digital camera has a built-in flash and thus no special
lighting is required -- unless you want a professional quality image,
of course. As one of the earliest users of scanners to image my shells
to share over the internet (great for trading back then), it was a
wonderful thing to see an image in a matter of seconds or maybe
minutes. The little 4 megapixel Nikon my wife carries in her purse
shoots amazing quality images that no scanner, regardless of its age
or price, can possibly compete with. Let's find something more
interesting to quibble over.

Respectfully,
Jim

On Feb 22, 2010, at 5:38 PM, George Sangiouloglou wrote:

> Dear Thomas & friends,
> I agree with you, for many applications a scanner is better.
> I make all my shell images with scanner HP scanjet 4500c even the
> large shells
> like Charonia variegata 255 mm. also the very small with very good
> result and
> without depth problem, I use to scan 720 dpi, for many reasons I
> prefer it than
> the digital cameras.
> Warm regards.
> George
>
>
>>
>> Thomas Eichhorst wrote:
>>
>>> Oh yeah.  It is a big time problem that is getting worse.  The old
>>> original
>>> scanners had a depth of field of almost an inch.  I scanned a Lambis
>>> truncatus once, worked great.  These early scanners worker pretty
>>> much like
>>> old cameras with a pin hole aperture.  As higher resolutions were
>>> demanded
>>> for photographs and such, they had to install lenses.  The higher
>>> the
>>> magnification available through the lens, the shorter the depth of
>>> field.  I
>>> have been through five scanners in the last decade and can really
>>> see the
>>> difference.  A digital camera works great, but for many
>>> applications a
>>> scanner was better.  No special lighting required, shells are all
>>> imaged in
>>> the same position, immediate hook up to computer photo programs,
>>> etc.  The
>>> older scanners are still sometimes available, but need an older
>>> computer
>>> operating system to match the out-of-date drivers.
>>>
>
>
>
> --
> _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/ _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/ _/  _/  _/
> _/  _/   _/
>
>
> George Sangiouloglou         http://www.george-shells.com/
> Ygias 2                                Phone +30 210 8955241
> Paleo Faliro 17564              Modem Fax +30 210 8954507
> Athens Greece                    mailto:[log in to unmask]
>                                            mailto:[log in to unmask]
>
>
> _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/ _/  _/  _/  _/  _/  _/ _/ _/  _/  _/  _/
> _/  _/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on
> molluscs
> To leave this list, click on the following web link:
> http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
> Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
> click leave the list.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------