Markus, The sad part of these scans being too dark is that I sent them out for a professional scan to a Kodak CD. I paid about $1.75 each to have 50 slides put to a CD. I was underwhelmed by what Helix did for me here in Chicago. Next time I'm going elsewhere. Perhaps somebody on the pdml can recommend a good service.
I agree that a good scanner is expensive. The cost plus the time involved in physically doing the scans have kept me from buying one. I don't want to do the post processing but have been disappointed by this last batch of slides. I spent serious time with PSP7.0 in lightening the results. The post processing idea is what is keeping me away from digital. I don't want more hours in front of a computer screen processing RAW images. I was interested in what Cotty said about shooting jpegs and just leaving it at that. But for the time being, I'm sticking to slide film. Regards, Bob S. On 5/31/05, Markus Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Bob > I like the second one :-) > > What scanner are you using for the slides and do you like it? > I just read some reviews and most of the cheaper film scanners seem to scan > too dark. > > > I'm just wondering because my scanner starts to add nasty yellow/brown lines > along the edges of the scans > and I wonder whether it's now the time to switch to a digital body. A new, > well enough scanner cost about > 50% of the Pentax DS here. > greetings > Markus > > > >>http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/Tulip3.jpg > >> > >>Both with the MZ-S, A200/4 Macro, and scanned from Kodachrome 64. > >>(Generally, the slides are coming back too dark and scan too dark. > >>Some repairs were in order.) > > >
