--- Steve Ramm <Stevramm@xxxxxxx> 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 david_breneman@xxxxxxxxx
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/