Which Original? Print or negative?

We run a photo scanning service and we get asked many, many questions. There are a few we get asked time and again, one being "Which should I scan, my negatives or my prints?" This is what I normally say. Technically, negative scanning gives a better result. We can use Digital ICE to remove dust and scratches, plus Kodak's ROC and GEM to boost faded colours and manage grain problems. If we scan your photos we don't have access to these tools. Additionally negative scanning generates a digital file more suitable to extensive editing and enlargement. But .... photo scanning costs 10p while negative scanning starts at 75p. Is it 7.5 times better? For most holiday snapshots I'm afraid the answer has to be "No". Talking to a software supplier he made an interesting point. Who made the photo prints? It could be that the print shop had access to image enhancement tools at least as good as ROC and GEM, so in fact the margin between the two results are reduced even further. I shall bear that in mind next time we're asked this question.