I would be interested in seeing cost figures comparing electronic
images of reasonable quality with Polaroid images ditto.
THere are several variables, including how many Polaroid images one
throws away before getting one that is satisfactory to send, and
whether one feels it is necessary to archive the images. Personally
I don't, but if I did I wouldn't put them on floppies.
With an electronic image one's only increased cost in amking several
tries, or indeed taking several pictures instead of just one, are
only the skilled usertime involved, IE lots, whereas the Polaroid is
quite expensive per sheet.
The benefits of rapid transit to the dermatologist are only marginal
- our post takes about 3 days maximum, and it takes a lot longr than
that before the patient would be seen.
but I think larger advantages come from reduced handling costs if
one can e-mail the image, or place the image on a protected page on
one's website and e-mail the URL to it included in a text message.
Apart from reducing the difficulty of a specialist being in one
place with his mail at another, it should facilitate fitting one
sort of work in with another, in the gaps.
The question is, how much can be saved, and what is the value of any
improvements in service? Does anyne have some proper figures, or a
framework for examining such matters - it would apply to some work I
am doing in a slightly different field as well.
--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|