On Wed 01 Apr, Adrian Midgley wrote:
> 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
>
>
I have been taking clinical photos in surgery for the last 20 years or
so and now have a collection of 3000+ or so. I have used standard 35mm
slide film because the quality is consistent and it is cheap. A decent
macro set up with ring flash as well as angled flash covers most
eventualities; I can go from standard views to 2x life size easily.
The real problem is that you have to be obsessive about cataloguing and
keep the images in archival materials to avoid degredation.
I have been considering the Olympus 1400L which seems the best in terms
of quality. Just as well that memory is cheap these days.
An alternative approach is to use a 35mm scanner, aka Epson, Nikon, Minolta
where you can set the quality to suit the use the image will be put to
and produce huge files if that is what is needed. (25Mb for top quality.)
Slide banks at present prefer 35mm but I don't know how long that will
continue.
You could store images on CD ROM / PhotoCD which would have the advantage
of 'permanence'.
--
Allan Harris, GP, Haxby, York YO3 3PH
tel 01904-768666
work 01904-760125, fax 750168
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|