USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
I currently use the Kodak PictureDisk to use my photos on the computer, as I don't have a color scanner, should I use the PictureCD or PhotoCD instead?
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1474 times:
Thanks...will give it a try
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
Luftaom From Australia, joined May 1999, 423 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1453 times:
all my shots on here are via the KodakCD. If you want to see the quality search on lancentre@ozemail.com.au
They appear to just meet the minimum requirements for this site. Any zooming and or cropping will end up in them being rejected but oh well it isn't the end of the world.
TomH From United States of America, joined May 1999, 960 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
All of the images I have contributed to this site have been from PhotoCD. You can have B&W and color negs as well as color slides put on PhotoCD. I have been able to crop some images considerably and still have a high-quality end result. Rejection messages from this site often contain statements about scanner settings. Working from PhotoCD makes these statements irrelevant. Also, recent virus threats have affected JPEG files. If your work is on a PhotoCD, it is on a read-only device in PCD filepack format, immune to viruses. The PCD filepack contains the image in five different sizes. I commonly use the two largest sizes (LARGE=1536 X 1024, and POSTER=3072 X 2048) for the work I have submitted to this site. Nearly all of my color work is from transparencies, consequently you will not find the white marks in the skies of my pictures that are so prevalent in the work of color print shooters.
PhotoCDs are multi-session products with a storage capacity of 100 images of 35mm size. The more sessions on a PhotoCD, the more storage space is lost to overhead. If you visit your developer and submit four 24-exposure rolls of film, you will get all 96 images on one CD. If you bring in 100 slides or mounted negatives, you will get all 100 on one CD. If you have a four-session PhotoCD, each session being 24 images, you may not get all 96 images on the CD because of the overhead. The first session will cost more than the others because you pay for the CD media at that time. The capacities shown above are minimums. It is possible to get around 120 images on a single-session CD, but the operators of the equipment won’t often exceed the published figure of 100 images. PhotoCDs are available for medium-format shooters. If you can afford medium format, you can probably afford the much higher cost of the associated PhotoCD.
On the downside, the employees at many stores know very little about PhotoCD. They will likely be confused with PhotoCD/PictureCD/and other photo diskette products their store handles. If you go to a legitimate camera shop, you should find more competent workers and higher fees. If you go to the local drug store you will be on your own when issues arise. At present, I can gain access to Kodak’s PhotoCD service through a national drug store chain for about USD 1.85/each. It takes about 15 days to get the work back from Kodak. No matter who does the work, you must be sure to submit dust-free source material.
Dazed767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 5447 posts, RR: 53 Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
I hate them both, but maybe it was my camera, I haven't tried it on my new and way better one. The CD is better quality in my opinion. But I'd rather scan it myself.
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1423 times:
I would scan but I don't have a scanner As far as proccessing & developing goes, I use a Kodak proccessing shop local to me.
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
USAir_757 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1417 times:
Well thanks guys, I just ordered a PhotoCD today. We'll see if it works!
-Cullen Wassell @ MSL | Pentax *istDL, Sigma 28-80 AL DG Macro II, Sigma 70-300 DG Macro
Gocaps16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, RR: 23 Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 20 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
I just taken my pictures to get them developed today and I'm trying out the Kodak PhotoCD. I heard good news about it. I have tried the Picture Disk and the images were small. 2 out of 24 pictures were accepted in this site with a warning and the rest didn't make it. I hope all goes well with the CD for this site.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 994 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined May 1999, 5542 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 1999, 423 posts, 
As far as proccessing & developing goes, I use a Kodak proccessing shop local to me.
From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4298 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
