All good info, Mike!
I appreciate all these fresh (to me) points of view. Stuff I didn't know
until now.
I'll add that good stuff to my list of "How to prepare and view slides
in the 21st Century."  <g>

keith

Michael Perham wrote:
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: August 10, 2003 11:45 AM
> ....Anyhow, the one reason I don't shoot slides today is the heavy
> inconvenience. One just doesn't show slides anymore (well, I don't anyhow.)
> "Hey! C'mon over tonight, Gerri and I are going to be showing our Hawaii
> pictures!"Uh huh..."Uhhh, what do you mean, 'showing?'"You can't take your
> slide projector to a restaurant or a bar.
> 
> Response: But nothing competes with that big, bright projected image.  Well
> maybe a 36"  HDTV image from a j-peg file.
> All of which (maybe) points to needing a way to view slides different from
> what I have. At least that comes to mind as a potential solution.
>         Response: Software to make a slide show on to a CD that you can play on
> your DVD player and view on your TV is cheap.
> Also, unless slides are the desired end product, what about prints, for
> sharing or particularly sending to family out of state? Is printing from
> slides as costly as it once was? Very time consuming, waiting for the photo
> shop to send them to a Kodak place...
>         Response: My local "digital" one hour lab does a fantastic job of prints
> and does up to 8" X  12" on site and very reasonably.
> How about converting to digital? I know nothing at all about costs or the
> inconvenience factors associated therewith.
> 
> Response: I find I get better quality scanning slides than I do negatives...
> perhaps just my scanner.  But now I use my Optio 430RS for all the
> snapshots, so much easier to store and file (read locate) and I shoot
> transparency film almost exclusively in my MZ-S.  Perhaps if I attend a
> wedding etc., I would load up with Portra 160.  Also I think It  costs about
> $1.00 a shot plus the cost of your CD to have slides scanned... I wouldn't
> go the Kodak route though, most labs will do that in j-peg format.
> Cheers!   Mike.

Reply via email to