Slides scan OK but not as good as a Nikon negative/slide scanner in the adapter for my Epson 3170
scanner (one of the best bargains I ever got at $49 refurb'd direct from Epson). It's a PITA to put
them in the adapter and it takes some tinkering to make it work. My family has discussed going in
together for a Nikon so as to ingest all the slides in all of our various collections (probably
several thousand all told). That solution is somewhere north of $1K including auto-feed but it is
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Breneman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Anyone familiar with "Spin It Again" Software to convert Lps a...
> --- 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.