--- Steve Ramm <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I was one of those who only took
> slides cause they were cheaper than prints. I have thousands.
I'm one of those who takes slides because they're better than
prints. I also have thousands which I'm slowly digitizing
but with the knowledge that the digitized copies are a last
ditch preservation in case something happens to the originals
(fire, flood, war, whatever). The slides themselves are
still far more archivally stable than the digital copies.
> If you do it yourself
> it will take at least 3 minutes per slide to scan and save PLUS
> the cost of a $100. scanner.
Holy cats! If you know of a $100 slide scanner pass that
information on. I'm using a Konica/Minolta DiMage scanner
I bought right before Sony bought out their line. It was
about $500. It will do mounted slides and unmounted film,
but will not accommodate stereo slides unless you remove them
from the mounts. And I'm still looking for something
affordable than can do 120 slides and negatives.
David Breneman [log in to unmask]
Looking for earth-friendly autos?
Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.