Martin Walters wrote:
>I suppose that one day I might buy my own scanner. However, I take
>photos (from time to time) for pleasure and to record places I visit. I
>would have to decide whether the cost of a good scanner would be
>justified.
>
What one needs in a scanner depends a lot on what you want to do with
it. Nobody doing prints up to 8x10, web images, etc. really needs more
than a decent 25-3000 dpi scanner. Really, I'm not so sure I could tell
a difference at 11x17 between 2700 and 4000.
New or used, these modest dpi film scanners aren't very expensive.
>I also have a large number of slides
>
The issue with scanning lots of old film can become more one of time and
effort than scanner resolution characteristics. Film scanners that have
stack loaders for slides and roll handlers for rolls are expensive, as
are the loaders. Even with film scanners that have holders for four
slides at once and strips of six negs, most old negs are in strips of
four, so either way, you have to feed the beast quite often.
High end flatbeds can do a good job and the best of them will do many
more scans unattended. The best in that regard is the Can*n 9950F, which
will do 12 slides or 5 neg strips at once.
>(mostly Kodakchrome,
>though I have Agfa, Perutz and some others brands) going back 30 years
>that I may want to do something with. I haven't looked for quite a
>while, and maybe some are starting to degrade.
>
These that I posted the other day are all from a roll of 1968
Agfachrome, 37 years old. The film is still fine, and scanned nicely
<http://moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Analog/>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|