RE: posting pictures (was new to the list)
You can get film scanners pretty cheap. I have an Epson flatbed with a film attachment that works great for web purposes. If you are just going to scan prints for web you can get a decent flatbed for under $100. Dave -Original Message- From: David Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: posting pictures (was new to the list) BL Do post some PUGs, some PAWs and some OTs... g Well, funny you should mention that... grin My current set up is a Pentax Super Program and an Olympus digital. I would be happy to post pictures from the Pentax, but they are all, of course, in 35mm. I found a place by me that will convert the 35mm to digital, but they want $18 for 1, something like $24/2, and some sliding scale like that by scanning the negative. This is not really cost effective (read: possible) for me. Is there a way to get the 35mm to digital cheaper than that? Or, is a scanner the way to go, and I should just be scanning the pictures? I don't HAVE a scanner, but hey, that's what excuses are for aren't they? david --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
Re: posting pictures (was new to the list)
My film scanner admittedly a rather in expensive one cost $300 a few years ago. There are a few of similar quality available today for less that $200. (That's US dollars). At the rate these people are charging you'd pay for the scanner in about 10-20 conversions. I'd get the scanner. You make no mention of resolution. Unless they are giving you scans of greater that 9MP you would do better with even the least expensive film scanner, or flat bed with a film adapter. David Schneider wrote: BL Do post some PUGs, some PAWs and some OTs... g Well, funny you should mention that... grin My current set up is a Pentax Super Program and an Olympus digital. I would be happy to post pictures from the Pentax, but they are all, of course, in 35mm. I found a place by me that will convert the 35mm to digital, but they want $18 for 1, something like $24/2, and some sliding scale like that by scanning the negative. This is not really cost effective (read: possible) for me. Is there a way to get the 35mm to digital cheaper than that? Or, is a scanner the way to go, and I should just be scanning the pictures? I don't HAVE a scanner, but hey, that's what excuses are for aren't they? david --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
RE: posting pictures (was new to the list)
Oh! I should have mentioned that the scans are a nice spiffy 18M. I was certainly pleased with that resolution. But! I shall investigate scanners! Certainly they will do well for the web, which will allow me to put a few pictures up! Thank you! david -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: posting pictures (was new to the list) My film scanner admittedly a rather in expensive one cost $300 a few years ago. There are a few of similar quality available today for less that $200. (That's US dollars). At the rate these people are charging you'd pay for the scanner in about 10-20 conversions. I'd get the scanner. You make no mention of resolution. Unless they are giving you scans of greater that 9MP you would do better with even the least expensive film scanner, or flat bed with a film adapter. David Schneider wrote: BL Do post some PUGs, some PAWs and some OTs... g Well, funny you should mention that... grin My current set up is a Pentax Super Program and an Olympus digital. I would be happy to post pictures from the Pentax, but they are all, of course, in 35mm. I found a place by me that will convert the 35mm to digital, but they want $18 for 1, something like $24/2, and some sliding scale like that by scanning the negative. This is not really cost effective (read: possible) for me. Is there a way to get the 35mm to digital cheaper than that? Or, is a scanner the way to go, and I should just be scanning the pictures? I don't HAVE a scanner, but hey, that's what excuses are for aren't they? david --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.732 / Virus Database: 486 - Release Date: 7/29/2004
RE: posting pictures (was new to the list)
Hi David first welcome! a lot of people seem to sell only slightly used scanners now on www.ebay.com for ex. or here in Switzerland I use www.ricardo.ch. I got an Epson 1240U Photo plus flatbed scanner with photo unit for $35 (was $200 new) nearly new in the last days and I am very pleased with the print scans, even negative scans look good at 1200 dpi averaged. Even the cheapest scanner would do the job, of course it may be loud and mechanically not well build then. My old SCSi scanner was better built, bit it is the scan result that counts at the end and at *that* price :-) It does take a lot of time to scan and you need plentiful hard disk space and a decent memory/cpu configuration to manipulate the pictures after the scan. ~12MB for a 35mm negative at 1200dpi, from 80-280MB for a scan of a printed photograph. You will not regret buying a flatbed scanner, if you already have a capable PC, there is some good freeware software to manipulate the scans too. greetings Markus From: David Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 6:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: posting pictures (was new to the list) Oh! I should have mentioned that the scans are a nice spiffy 18M. I was certainly pleased with that resolution. But! I shall investigate scanners! Certainly they will do well for the web, which will allow me to put a few pictures up! Thank you! david
