Was in the back room tonight. Really have GOT to get back there
more. Anyway, retieving my Nam slides to see if they're still viewable
- sotored in those plastic boxes, used on a B&H lide projector. I'd
been worried they were bac, because I'd found some that were totally
blank - apprently caused by the plastic outgassing, so I was worried.
But, so far, they're all good. However, I'm still going to store them
elsewhere, and get prints made of them all. And, no, no pictures of
bodies. I don't do things like that.
And, under the slide boxes, lo and behold. A book I'd been trying
to find for several years. It's got plans for how to make a child's
rocking horse. A rocking hourse you say? So what? Well, the what is,
it show how to make a hollow-body carousel type rocking horse - the real
deal. The only parts you actually need to carve are the eyes, ears, and
nose. This one is'n't painted like a carousel horse, but that would be
easy enough if that's what you wanted. It's made with poplar, with a
walnut stain. Looks like something that'd sell in a place like New Yawk
City, or Hollywood, for about a gazillion bucks. It's a minor gloat
that I bought the book in the first place, finally found it again, and
hadn't gotten rid of it somewhere along the line.
It's been a bit hard getting in and out of there for awhile,
because the younger kid has stuff a bunch of junk in there, and
generally made a large mess. I've been tossing trash lately tho, so I
can a least get in. Glad too. I ran across my N guage setup, that I
'll dig out as soon as I get something made to set it up on. Plus
theres a batch of woodworking books, including some on boatbuilding, and
misc other books, I'd forgotten even having. I'ts great to save stuff.
If you want to try to find a copy, it's in the Popular Science
Woodworking Proujects, 1986 Yearbook. It may be out of print now. It's
got some pretty damn neat stuff in there.
I could probably be convinced to sell my copy, "after" I copiy the
rocking horse plans, of course. $30, and I pay postage. If you're
serious,you can e-mail me. First come, first served.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
"Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>J T wrote:
>
>> Was in the back room tonight. Really have GOT to get back there
>> more. Anyway, retieving my Nam slides to see if they're still viewable
>> - sotored in those plastic boxes, used on a B&H lide projector. I'd
>> been worried they were bac, because I'd found some that were totally
>> blank - apprently caused by the plastic outgassing, so I was worried.
>> But, so far, they're all good. However, I'm still going to store them
>> elsewhere, and get prints made of them all. And, no, no pictures of
>> bodies. I don't do things like that.
> I finally dug out all my pictures and slides and scanned them. Quite a
> production, but now the whole batch will fit on a single DVD disk, or a
> couple of CD's. Gave copies to the kids and can print out what I want to
> hang. And digital pictures won't fade.
>
If I remember right, JOAT doesn't have a computer, but he can, if he wants
to spend the money, get a camera store to scan them in. Expensive, though.
With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and an
old computer.
A note on CDs/DVDSs: lots of chatter right now about the lack of durability
of those media for long term storage. I think it's mostly posturing, but
will plan to re-do those I want to really keep about once a decade. It's
easy enough to copy either one, and the cost is now low.
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 1:56pm (EST+5) [email protected]
(Charles=A0Self) doth writeth:
If I remember right, JOAT doesn't have a computer, but he can, if he
wants to spend the money, get a camera store to scan them in. Expensive,
though. With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a
scanner and an old computer. <snip>
Yep, computer nope. But, if it comes down to that, the older son
has one. Not sure just how I'll go about it, but I'm thinking get
negatives made, and then prints. Negatives should keep forever, same
with the prints. I'll be doing a bit of checking, then decide which way
I'll do it.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:37:12 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 1:56pm (EST+5) [email protected]
>(Charles Self) doth writeth:
>If I remember right, JOAT doesn't have a computer, but he can, if he
>wants to spend the money, get a camera store to scan them in. Expensive,
>though. With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a
>scanner and an old computer. <snip>
>
> Yep, computer nope. But, if it comes down to that, the older son
>has one. Not sure just how I'll go about it, but I'm thinking get
>negatives made, and then prints. Negatives should keep forever, same
>with the prints. I'll be doing a bit of checking, then decide which way
>I'll do it.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
>What do you "know"?
>- Granny Weatherwax
Hey bro... if you have a Kinko's or something like it nearby, they can do the
job fairly inexpensively.. I had some done a few years ago the they fed them
into a slide scanner a stack at a time and got jpg files on a cd out the other
end.. pretty trick setup..
Mac... remembering the crazy lady he lived with that burned over 1,000 slides of
Nam..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 9:47am (EST-3) [email protected]
(mac davis) doth suggest:
Hey bro... if you have a Kinko's or something like it nearby, they can
do the job fairly inexpensively.. I had some done a few years ago the
they fed them into a slide scanner a stack at a time and got jpg files
on a cd out the other end.. pretty trick setup..
Mac... remembering the crazy lady he lived with that burned over 1,000
slides of
Nam..
Hah, yeah, Raleigh's got one or two. I'll have to give 'em a call,
and see what they can do for me. Thanks.
I think I'd cry if someone had done that to me.
Life did that to me. I had a fire in '66, lost everything, no insurance.
Agian, in '84--I had bought a new camera for work instead of paying the
frigging insurance. '03, we had a basement fire, insured this time, but the
stuff lost made me gag emotionally.
I wonder if I spent some time putting together an article on the most
effective/cheapest ways of scanning slides and stuck it on either my blog or
website it would be of interest? I've got some of the gear, some is too
expensive to add to what I have, but some would be neat to have. It might
take a few weeks to do (more like 10-12, because I'm literally up to my ears
right now), but if it has some value for enough others, it would be worth
posting, and it might just be fun to do. I've got some old slides that made
it through the fire, so maybe an instruction on clean-up and remounting
might help, too.
Jeez, that's two months' work there. I'll put it up piecemeal, though.
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 12:50am (EST+5) [email protected]
(Charles=A0Self) sends the bad news:
Life did that to me. I had a fire in '66, lost everything, no insurance.
Agian, in '84--I had bought a new camera for work instead of paying the
frigging insurance. '03, we had a basement fire, insured this time, but
the stuff lost made me gag emotionally. <snip>
Yeah, that would be bad. But, emotionally, I'd prefer that over
somone destroying them deliberately.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 9:47am (EST-3) [email protected]
(mac=A0davis) doth suggest:
Hey bro... if you have a Kinko's or something like it nearby, they can
do the job fairly inexpensively.. I had some done a few years ago the
they fed them into a slide scanner a stack at a time and got jpg files
on a cd out the other end.. pretty trick setup..
Mac... remembering the crazy lady he lived with that burned over 1,000
slides of
Nam..
Hah, yeah, Raleigh's got one or two. I'll have to give 'em a call,
and see what they can do for me. Thanks.
I think I'd cry if someone had done that to me.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
"Charles Self" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:0%[email protected]:
> I wonder if I spent some time putting together an article on the most
> effective/cheapest ways of scanning slides and stuck it on either my
> blog or website it would be of interest? I've got some of the gear,
> some is too expensive to add to what I have, but some would be neat to
> have. It might take a few weeks to do (more like 10-12, because I'm
> literally up to my ears right now), but if it has some value for
> enough others, it would be worth posting, and it might just be fun to
> do. I've got some old slides that made it through the fire, so maybe
> an instruction on clean-up and remounting might help, too.
>
> Jeez, that's two months' work there. I'll put it up piecemeal, though.
>
Charlie,
Yes, please do this as you have time ...
--
Regards,
JT
Speaking only for myself....
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 19:02:11 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 9:47am (EST-3) [email protected]
>(mac davis) doth suggest:
>Hey bro... if you have a Kinko's or something like it nearby, they can
>do the job fairly inexpensively.. I had some done a few years ago the
>they fed them into a slide scanner a stack at a time and got jpg files
>on a cd out the other end.. pretty trick setup..
>Mac... remembering the crazy lady he lived with that burned over 1,000
>slides of
>Nam..
>
> Hah, yeah, Raleigh's got one or two. I'll have to give 'em a call,
>and see what they can do for me. Thanks.
>
> I think I'd cry if someone had done that to me.
>
that was one of the options... and since I don't ever want to hit a woman, the
best action at the time was to "un-ass the area and drive on"..
(damn.. words that I haven't thought about in about in over 35 years come back
way to easy)
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 10:01am (EST-3) [email protected]
(mac=A0davis) is over his memory loss:
<snip> (damn.. words that I haven't thought about in about in over 35
years come back way to easy)
Words like that pop up in my speech every once in awhile.
Generally to the confusion of whoever hears them. Kinda amazing tho,
how a word or two brings back stuff you lived with every day, but
haven't thought about in years. I think maybe because the time'b been
spent with people who never went thru any of it, and wouldn't
understand. I think it's good to occassionaly remember those things -
some because they were good - and some because they were bad, but are
over.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
"J T" wrote in message
Words like that pop up in my speech every once in awhile.
Generally to the confusion of whoever hears them. Kinda amazing tho,
how a word or two brings back stuff you lived with every day, but
haven't thought about in years.
Remember being "short" and taking No chances in injun country cuz you were
close to DEROS, had it dicked, and before you didi mau'd outta there you
didn't want no numbah ten dinky dau fucking with you?
Or marking the days off a calendar in your wallet/cutting those last 30
links off your dog tags, one at a time?
Chao Co, dude.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 4:02pm (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) doth sayeth
it:
Remember being "short" and taking No chances in injun country cuz you
were close to DEROS, had it dicked, and before you didi mau'd outta
there you didn't want no numbah ten dinky dau fucking with you?
Or marking the days off a calendar in your wallet/cutting those last 30
links off your dog tags, one at a time?
Chao Co, dude.
Oh yes. And R&R. And hollering WORKING, while talking on the land
line. C-rats in the messhall. LRP-rats - if you could sawp for them..
MREs. And, all the really lousy beer that was all that was available,
because all the good stuff was kept in Saigon.
I babysat some equipment to Saigon once. Got in the NCO mess and
they had lobster and steak. First off, couldn't believe it, then
couldn't make up my mind, so the cook said I could have both. In our
mess it was regular C-rats, and really old roast beef - seldom steak,
and never, ever, anything as exotic as lobster. Saigon warriors.
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
"J T" wrote in message
> Thought it was Korea where they ate dogs, and cats in Nam.
The ARVN Ranger unit I FO'ed for found it easier to have their dinner come
when whistled ... besides, cats won't follow you around.
> No
> water buffalo?
We used those as targets to test our latest firing parameters.
> I don't know if I've ever eaten dog. I learned long ago, don't ask
> what you're eating - because you may not want to know.
I didn't want to, but it was apparent the first time, even to a wooddorker,
why all those dogs we left with didn't come back with us .... they were part
and parcel of an elegant solution to the refrigeration problem inherent in
feeding 400 troops for 30 days.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 11:42am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) sayeth:
<snip> We used those as targets to test our latest firing parameters.
<snip>
If you didn't retrieve any, you missed out on some good eats. Same
as regular beef, to my taste, just a tad coarser.
I think I ate baby mice wrapped in dough once, so it wouldn't be
much of a big deal, eating dog.
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
Mon, Jan 16, 2006, 6:29am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) doth recall:
I was authorized - ate little else but 'lurps' for 7 months ... it was
either that or dog. (Remembering how getting down to "1 and a wakeup"
was the high point/main goal of your life)
Thought it was Korea where they ate dogs, and cats in Nam. No
water buffalo?
I don't know if I've ever eaten dog. I learned long ago, don't ask
what you're eating - because you may not want to know.
Ah yes. One and a wakeup. Haven't thought of that one for many
years. That's "definitely" one of those, "You had to be there", things.
What a warm fuzzy feeling that was. Damn, thinking of that makes me
still feel good. LMAO
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
J T wrote:
> Was in the back room tonight. Really have GOT to get back there
> more. Anyway, retieving my Nam slides to see if they're still viewable
> - sotored in those plastic boxes, used on a B&H lide projector. I'd
> been worried they were bac, because I'd found some that were totally
> blank - apprently caused by the plastic outgassing, so I was worried.
> But, so far, they're all good. However, I'm still going to store them
> elsewhere, and get prints made of them all. And, no, no pictures of
> bodies. I don't do things like that.
>
I finally dug out all my pictures and slides and scanned them. Quite a
production, but now the whole batch will fit on a single DVD disk, or a
couple of CD's. Gave copies to the kids and can print out what I want to
hang. And digital pictures won't fade.
Snippers
> JOAT
> You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
> What do you "know"?
> - Granny Weatherwax
>
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
He ended the job as he began it; fired
with enthusiasm.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 7:46am [email protected] (Gerald=A0Ross) doth
sayeth:
I finally dug out all my pictures and slides and scanned them. Quite a
production, but now the whole batch will fit on a single DVD disk, or a
couple of CD's. Gave copies to the kids and can print out what I want to
hang. And digital pictures won't fade.
I'm gonna go thru mine and get negatives made, prints of some, then
put 'em in a picture book. I prefer that to the hassle of projecting,
or whatever. I've got one of me in there somewhere that I may just make
a large poster of. LMAO It's me, ready to go on an inspection trip -
obligatory handlebar moustache, flak vest, .45, not sure if I had the
M79 and M14 in the picture or not. I've been told I looked like a
walking APC. LOL Great times with great guys. I'm too old for that
crap anymore.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:32:23 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 7:46am [email protected] (Gerald Ross) doth
>sayeth:
>I finally dug out all my pictures and slides and scanned them. Quite a
>production, but now the whole batch will fit on a single DVD disk, or a
>couple of CD's. Gave copies to the kids and can print out what I want to
>hang. And digital pictures won't fade.
>
> I'm gonna go thru mine and get negatives made, prints of some, then
>put 'em in a picture book. I prefer that to the hassle of projecting,
>or whatever. I've got one of me in there somewhere that I may just make
>a large poster of. LMAO It's me, ready to go on an inspection trip -
>obligatory handlebar moustache, flak vest, .45, not sure if I had the
>M79 and M14 in the picture or not. I've been told I looked like a
>walking APC. LOL Great times with great guys. I'm too old for that
>crap anymore.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
>What do you "know"?
>- Granny Weatherwax
damn.. the macho pictures...
borrow everyone's shit, hang it on your 150 pound teenage body and take the
picture before you collaspe..lol
I have one that I look about 12 years old in... m-60 in assault belt, several
belts of ammo, etc... shit, was I really ever that dumb? yep.. must have been..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 9:50am (EST-3) [email protected]
(mac=A0davis) cracks me up:
damn.. the macho pictures...
borrow everyone's shit, hang it on your 150 pound teenage body and take
the picture before you collaspe..lol
I have one that I look about 12 years old in... m-60 in assault belt,
several belts of ammo, etc... shit, was I really ever that dumb? yep..
must have been..
LMAO Not exactly. I was 26-27 at the time, a SSG, a little more
than 150, but sill under 200, and that was pretty standard for me,
except most of the time I couldn't get the M79.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
"J T" wrote in message
>>a large poster of. LMAO It's me, ready to go on an inspection trip -
obligatory handlebar moustache, flak vest, .45, not sure if I had the
M79 <<
LOL ... I've got a couple of those somewhere also. While it wasn't for
inspection, the M79, with buckshot round, was my weapon of choice in the
boonies. You could wear it under your arm commando style, and no matter
which way you were facing, it was too.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 10:56am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) doth
remember too:
LOL ... I've got a couple of those somewhere also. While it wasn't for
inspection, the M79, with buckshot round, was my weapon of choice in the
boonies. You could wear it under your arm commando style, and no matter
which way you were facing, it was too.
It always kinda cracks me up, trying to convince people they go
"bloop" when you fire one. They're always convinced it makes a big
BOOM, and kicks like Hell, because the barrel is so big, and I'm just
lying to them. Neat piece.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:57:44 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sat, Jan 14, 2006, 10:56am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) doth
>remember too:
>LOL ... I've got a couple of those somewhere also. While it wasn't for
>inspection, the M79, with buckshot round, was my weapon of choice in the
>boonies. You could wear it under your arm commando style, and no matter
>which way you were facing, it was too.
>
> It always kinda cracks me up, trying to convince people they go
>"bloop" when you fire one. They're always convinced it makes a big
>BOOM, and kicks like Hell, because the barrel is so big, and I'm just
>lying to them. Neat piece.
>
>
>
>JOAT
>You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
>What do you "know"?
>- Granny Weatherwax
Show them almost any book about Nam.. there's at least one reference to the
"blooper" or "blooper guy" in most of them...
Same goes for mortars... people think that they explode out of the tube AND when
they hit... that would be a neat trick..
mac
Please remove splinters before emailing
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 9:59am (EST-3) [email protected]
(mac=A0davis) doth remindeth me:
<snip> Same goes for mortars... people think that they explode out of
the tube AND when they hit... that would be a neat trick.
Oh, I don't know. LOL I was driving past an infantry outpst
somewhere between Anh Khe and Pleiku, when a 4.2" went off. Startled
the Hell out of me, and I proceeded to slam on the brakes. My boss,
very patronizingly says, "Don't worry, they're not shooting at us". I
just looked at him, and said, "I 'know' that, but I want to see where'
they're shooting before I go further". Took a few seconds for it to
sink in for him, and by that time the round had hit, a mile or so, to
our left. We then, speedily, went on. LMAO
Another time, we had radio traffic saying a bridge outpost was
being hit a mile or so down the road from us - rockets, small arms,
mortars. I wasn't driving this time. We pulled over in a pump station
to wait it all out. Then the LTC got antsy, probably with visitions of
a Meal of Honor, or at least a Silver Star, and told the driver to
proceed. All this with the bridge still under attack. And, me in the
back, saying the standard mantra to the War Gods, "Oh, shit, this
idiot's gonna get me killed". "Oh, shit, this idiot's gonna get me
killed". "Oh, shit, this idiot's gonna get me killed". Luckily the
driver wasn't in any great hurry, the LTC didn't get on him to go
faster, and it was all over before we got. Fortunately, the War Gods
answered my praryer. LMAO May the Gods protect us from the Custers in
our lives.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 15:37:26 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 9:59am (EST-3) [email protected]
>(mac davis) doth remindeth me:
><snip> Same goes for mortars... people think that they explode out of
>the tube AND when they hit... that would be a neat trick.
>
> Oh, I don't know. LOL I was driving past an infantry outpst
>somewhere between Anh Khe and Pleiku, when a 4.2" went off. Startled
>the Hell out of me, and I proceeded to slam on the brakes. My boss,
>very patronizingly says, "Don't worry, they're not shooting at us". I
>just looked at him, and said, "I 'know' that, but I want to see where'
>they're shooting before I go further". Took a few seconds for it to
>sink in for him, and by that time the round had hit, a mile or so, to
>our left. We then, speedily, went on. LMAO
>
> Another time, we had radio traffic saying a bridge outpost was
>being hit a mile or so down the road from us - rockets, small arms,
>mortars. I wasn't driving this time. We pulled over in a pump station
>to wait it all out. Then the LTC got antsy, probably with visitions of
>a Meal of Honor, or at least a Silver Star, and told the driver to
>proceed. All this with the bridge still under attack. And, me in the
>back, saying the standard mantra to the War Gods, "Oh, shit, this
>idiot's gonna get me killed". "Oh, shit, this idiot's gonna get me
>killed". "Oh, shit, this idiot's gonna get me killed". Luckily the
>driver wasn't in any great hurry, the LTC didn't get on him to go
>faster, and it was all over before we got. Fortunately, the War Gods
>answered my praryer. LMAO May the Gods protect us from the Custers in
>our lives.
>
I suspect that those who survived are the ones who retired and now are
those who slow down and stop while in the fast lane to observe the accident
on the oncoming side of the road.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 2:23pm (EST-2) [email protected]
(Mark=A0&=A0Juanita) apparently has been smoking his sawdust again, and
says:
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0I suspect that those who survived are the ones who
retired and now are those who slow down and stop while in the fast lane
to observe the accident on the oncoming side of the road.
And, what's the Hell that supposed to mean? You're not making any
sense at all, with some statement like that.
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 22:44:00 -0500, [email protected] (J T) wrote:
>Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 2:23pm (EST-2) [email protected]
>(Mark & Juanita) apparently has been smoking his sawdust again, and
>says:
> I suspect that those who survived are the ones who
>retired and now are those who slow down and stop while in the fast lane
>to observe the accident on the oncoming side of the road.
>
> And, what's the Hell that supposed to mean? You're not making any
>sense at all, with some statement like that.
>
Well, since you cut out the context around it, no wonder you don't know
what I was saying.
My point was, those emulators of Custer who survived their
self-destructive behavior in combat situations probably wound up retiring,
mustering out, and now engage in equally self-destructive and dangerous to
others behaviors in civilian life. One of those behaviors being
rubbernecking activities in places that don't affect them while, in so
doing, both annoying those around them and endangering others by creating
dangerous situations in areas where they should be paying attention.
HTH
>
>
>JOAT
>If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
>Hilary Clinton.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 9:20pm (EST-2) [email protected]
(Mark=A0&=A0Juanita) doth sayeth:
=A0=A0=A0=A0Well, since you cut out the context around it, no wonder you
don't know what I was saying.
=A0=A0=A0=A0My point was, those emulators of Custer who survived their
self-destructive behavior in combat situations probably wound up
retiring, mustering out, and now engage in equally self-destructive and
dangerous to others behaviors in civilian life. One of those behaviors
being rubbernecking activities in places that don't affect them while,
in so doing, both annoying those around them and endangering others by
creating dangerous situations in areas where they should be paying
attention.
I consider "myself" a survivor. Since you made no mention of
"Custer" types, I wouldn't have understood what you meant, no matter
what I did, or didn't, cut out. I don't consider "Custer" types
self-destructive at all, but do consider them a huge danger to those
they have command over. Unfortunately, when they do go, they tend to
take a lot of people with them.
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
Swingman wrote:
> "New Wave Dave" wrote in message
>
>> > What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
>> > got
>> > tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>
>> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
>> printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
>> does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
>> PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
>> might do a more professional job.
>
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying to
> visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on the
> scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
> high enough resolution to view/print?
>
> It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I missing?
>
Actually mine has a backlit slide holder, but I scan at 400 dpi and get
pretty good pictures.
--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA
He ended the job as he began it; fired
with enthusiasm.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>
> > With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and an
> > old computer.
>
> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've got
> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
I just got this Canon scanner over the holidays:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002U40NG/qid=1137267460/sr=8-1/ref=pd
_bbs_1/104-7906515-2766342?n=507846&s=electronics&v=glance
I was not expecting much in the way of slide/negative
scanning, but I was wrong. For about $130, this is a pretty
amazing scanner. It will do mounted 35mm, 4 at a time
and automatically save each as a separate file. It will
also do negs and 120 (2 1/4 x 2 1/4) size (not mounted
tho). It has a built in light source in the lid.
You place the slides in the provided holders to scan.
Nice resolution too.
Of course it does a great job with regular scanning too.
Comes with some nice software, including Photoshop
Elements which would cost about $75 by itself IIRC.
It is not a fax machine, but does have a one
button copy function where it will copy to the
printer directly. Nice for occasional copies.
A dedicated slide scanner would be better, but I was
impressed by this scanner.
Scanning slides I took from the 60's (like everyone else!).
Lou
In article
<[email protected]>, Charles
Self <[email protected]> wrote:
> Argh, choke, gasp. I just checked and the cheapest drum scanner at B&H Photo
> is $4995. A bit of my class. Good film scanners can be had for under $300.
It depends on what you want in scan quality. To reproduce at National
Geo quality without having to much in the way of correction in PShop,
you want drum scan with an operator who know what they're doing.
If you're willing to settle for a mediocre to decent scan that will
require significant effort to get to a quality level that can be
published in a magazine with any quality standards whatsoever, the
sub-$300 scanners are for you.
djb
--
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier
accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he
is a member. The civilian does not. Robert A. Heinlein
In article <[email protected]>, Mark & Juanita
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Again, he's not scanning in 3x5 pictures, but 35 mm slides. Totally
> different issue.
Yup.
A good slide/neg scanner will be at 4000 pixels per inch res (for a
desktop model).
The Nikon Coolscan 9000 is 4000x4000 optical res, 48-bit color depth,
firewire, and just under $2000.
The Konica Minolta Dimage 5400 II claims 5400x5400, 16 bit, USB for
$575.
If I was seriously looking for a slide scanner I'd lean to the Nikon
for the color depth and firewire.
djb
--
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier
accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he
is a member. The civilian does not. Robert A. Heinlein
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> I was aware that there were "services" that would do this for a fee, but
> that fee has always appeared a bit steep for what I wanted to do ...
> starting to think it may be actually be a bargain.
I haven't looked at for a number of years, but we were appproached a
number of years ago by a local fellow who had just bought the (then
new) Kodak Photo CD setup. He offered to scan our photo orchaive of a
period of a couple of years at a cost of between $1 and $1.50 per
image.
Of course, he was looking at 10s of thousands of pics, negs and slides
with a very open timeframe.
We sent some negs out for scanning in November when our big scanner
went down, and paid (IIRC) $8.50 CDN each.
djb
--
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier
accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he
is a member. The civilian does not. Robert A. Heinlein
In article <[email protected]>, Swingman
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Ouch! ... thought I saw someone offering to do slides for .12 cents each
> recently. That wouldn't be too bad as I only have a couple of thousand or
> so, but after what I am reading here, I'm starting to suspect the quality at
> that price.
I sure would...
In order of quality and cost:
Oil-mount on drum scanner (IOW, carrier is torn open, transparency is
removed)
Dedicated slide scanner
Combo slide/neg scanner
Desktop scanner with light hood and slide "adapter".
djb
--
The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier
accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he
is a member. The civilian does not. Robert A. Heinlein
Swingman wrote:
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>>With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and an
>>old computer.
>
> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've got
> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
I got a Nikon Coolscan II off eBay for about $50 (and a new SCSI card to
connect it for about $50 more); it's a dedicated slide scanner, and does
a _much_ better job of scanning than a flatbed scanner with a slide
adapter will do.
(Computers are finally getting to the point that woodworking tools are,
where it's better and cheaper to get a used top-of-the-line model from a
few years ago than it is to get something new, unless you really need to
have the fastest and flashiest.)
Also, the people over at the comp.scanners newsgroup are pretty good
with advice (even for newbies) -- if you've got tons of slides, it may
be worth paying a fair bit more and getting something with an
autofeeder, and they're probably the people who'd know which autofeeders
work and which are junk.
- Brooks
--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.
"Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I finally dug out all my pictures and slides and scanned them. Quite a
> production, but now the whole batch will fit on a single DVD disk, or a
> couple of CD's. Gave copies to the kids and can print out what I want to
> hang. And digital pictures won't fade.
>
I did all ours, then gave a disk to each kid. Did mom and dad's and sent to
my siblings. The old Kodak contact prints (Velox paper) don't appear to
have faded too badly.
Noticed dad carried a Thompson on his way through France. Scary.
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:04:16 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Swingman wrote:
>> "New Wave Dave" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>>What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
>>>>got
>>>>tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>>
>>> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
>>>printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
>>>does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
>>>PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
>>>might do a more professional job.
>>
>>
>> Howdy Dave,
>>
>> Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying to
>> visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on the
>> scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
>> high enough resolution to view/print?
>>
>> It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I missing?
>>
>
>He didn't say he was enlarging pictures.
He also didn't say he was scanning *pictures*, but was wanting to scan in
35 mm slides (transparencies).
> Scan at
>300 dpi and print same size as original and just
>about any scanner should do a good job.
If the only thing one wants is 35 mm thumbnails, that might work.
> Scan at
>300 dpi and a 3x5 will require 900 pixels by 1500
>pixels to display on a screen.
Again, he's not scanning in 3x5 pictures, but 35 mm slides. Totally
different issue.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Swingman wrote:
> "New Wave Dave" wrote in message
>
>
>>>What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
>>>got
>>>tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>
>> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
>>printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
>>does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
>>PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
>>might do a more professional job.
>
>
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying to
> visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on the
> scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
> high enough resolution to view/print?
>
> It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I missing?
>
He didn't say he was enlarging pictures. Scan at
300 dpi and print same size as original and just
about any scanner should do a good job. Scan at
300 dpi and a 3x5 will require 900 pixels by 1500
pixels to display on a screen.
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:04:16 GMT, "George E. Cawthon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ((snipped))
>>He didn't say he was enlarging pictures.
>
>
> He also didn't say he was scanning *pictures*, but was wanting to scan in
> 35 mm slides (transparencies).
>
>
>>Scan at
>>300 dpi and print same size as original and just
>>about any scanner should do a good job.
>
>
> If the only thing one wants is 35 mm thumbnails, that might work.
>
>
>>Scan at
>>300 dpi and a 3x5 will require 900 pixels by 1500
>>pixels to display on a screen.
>
>
> Again, he's not scanning in 3x5 pictures, but 35 mm slides. Totally
> different issue.
>
You are right but it depends on who "he" is; I
missed the slides. The who, by the way, that I
was replying to is Gerald Ross, but probably
appeared to be Swingman. Get's complicated when
the thread keeps evolving and being hijacked.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>
>> With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and
>> an
>> old computer.
>
> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've got
> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>
Argh, choke, gasp. I just checked and the cheapest drum scanner at B&H Photo
is $4995. A bit of my class. Good film scanners can be had for under $300.
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>
>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
>> > Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still
> trying
>> > to
>> > visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides
>> > on
>> > the
>> > scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would
> be
>> > high enough resolution to view/print?
>> >
>> > It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I
>> > missing?
>> >
>>
>> There is a light above the scanning bed, too, and the slides fit into a
>> frame that positions them properly, but there is still NO way to adjust
> for
>> possible film warp over the years until you get to a film scanner.
>
> Finally, some useful information!
>
> Although I have never tried it, I couldn't imagine that simply laying 35mm
> slides on the type of flatbed scanner under discussion would be the
> complete
> process to obtain something useful.
>
> I was aware that there were "services" that would do this for a fee, but
> that fee has always appeared a bit steep for what I wanted to do ...
> starting to think it may be actually be a bargain.
>
> Thanks for the insight.
>
Glad it helped. It is costly to hire it done. In fact, at today's prices, if
you have some spare time and loose change, you can do it yourself at a far
lower cost, even if you have to buy a new scanner. But, as I noted, I am
interested in trying the cheap front lens element digital copiers to see how
they do. My basic problem is having to wait for cash flow in to equal lens
buying cash flow out. I have been a wee bit over-enthusiastic about buying
lenses for the Pentax in the past six weeks or so (not a lens a week, but
four in that period).
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
> got
> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
might do a more professional job.
Get you some canned air though and remove as much of the 40 years of
dust as you can (that's where the PhotoShop comes in handy).
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
"New Wave Dave" wrote in message
> > What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
> > got
> > tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>
> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
> printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
> does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
> PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
> might do a more professional job.
Howdy Dave,
Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying to
visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on the
scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
high enough resolution to view/print?
It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I missing?
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
> You are right but it depends on who "he" is; I
> missed the slides. The who, by the way, that I
> was replying to is Gerald Ross, but probably
> appeared to be Swingman. Get's complicated when
> the thread keeps evolving and being hijacked.
Actually, you replied to my post directly, as the thread, and your quoting,
clearly shows ... and the sub-thread I started was clearly marked "OT" to
differentiate it from the original thread, which also happened to be about
"slides".
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "New Wave Dave" wrote in message
>
>> > What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
>> > got
>> > tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>
>> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
>> printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
>> does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
>> PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
>> might do a more professional job.
>
> Howdy Dave,
>
> Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying
> to
> visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on
> the
> scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
> high enough resolution to view/print?
>
> It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I
> missing?
>
There is a light above the scanning bed, too, and the slides fit into a
frame that positions them properly, but there is still NO way to adjust for
possible film warp over the years until you get to a film scanner.
> "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>>
>>> > Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still
>>> > trying to visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard
>>> > framed slides on the scanning bed and coming out with a usable
>>> > sized picture/jpg that would be high enough resolution to
>>> > view/print?
>>> >
>>> > It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I
>>> > missing?
>>> There is a light above the scanning bed, too, and the slides fit
>>> into a frame that positions them properly, but there is still NO way
>>> to adjust
>> for possible film warp over the years until you get to a film
>> scanner.
http://www.photo.net There is a scanner primer under the EQUIPMENT
menu. I would post the complete link if they weren't "down" for
maintenance this morning.
--
"New Wave" Dave In Houston
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:38:58 GMT, "Charles Self"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>>
>>> With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and
>>> an
>>> old computer.
>>
>> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've got
>> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>
>
>Argh, choke, gasp. I just checked and the cheapest drum scanner at B&H Photo
>is $4995. A bit of my class. Good film scanners can be had for under $300.
>
About 9 years ago, we had an issue at work that required us to get 35 mm
film processed to negatives and then generate the needed output from the
negatives ourselves. I found and rented a Kodak scanner that could scan
either slides or negatives (and process the negatives electronically to
correct color) into digital format. I don't recall the Kodak model right
now, I'm sure it's been superseded by at least 5 generations of improvement
by now anyway. The OP might check various local high-end digital photo
suppliers to determine whether they have something like that available for
rental. Might be a good way to get to use a high-quality unit without
having to buy it.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Charles Self" wrote in message
>
>> With more than a few boxes of slides, it's cheaper to buy a scanner and
>> an
>> old computer.
>
> What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've got
> tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>
I'm told that slides and negatives are best done on a high res drum scanner,
but from what I've seen, prices for decent ones start at about a grand.
I have what is now an old Epson here that came with a slide/neg scanning set
up. It's fairly high res and will do more than one at a time (IIRC, about
4), with halfway decent results.
I think the best way is one of the slide duplicators that you find on Ebay.
Most seem to run about $65-$80, attach to the front of the camera lens, and
let you adjust, fiddle and otherwise play with the various camera settings
and lighting schemes until you get pretty much what you want, at which point
you just run a bunch through. If I didn't have studio flash, I'd use a
halogen 250 watt light, adjust white balance and try it. I'd also shoot in
RAW format if the camera had it, because that makes things much more easily
adjusted, but RAW is a feature of DSLRs and higher end prosumer cameras
mostly, and requires special readers for many programs.
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 10:46:24 -0600, "Swingman" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...snip...]
>Howdy Dave,
>
>Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying to
>visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on the
>scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
>high enough resolution to view/print?
>
>It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I missing?
I have a scanner that has a holder for negatives and slides, and
backlights them during scanning. That said, I think for "good quality"
you might also want a scanner with a high optical resolution, which
mine does not. The lower resolution limits the size you can blow the
35mm image up to before the pixels are obvious.
>> Jim
"Charles Self" wrote in message
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> > Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still
trying
> > to
> > visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on
> > the
> > scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would
be
> > high enough resolution to view/print?
> >
> > It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I
> > missing?
> >
>
> There is a light above the scanning bed, too, and the slides fit into a
> frame that positions them properly, but there is still NO way to adjust
for
> possible film warp over the years until you get to a film scanner.
Finally, some useful information!
Although I have never tried it, I couldn't imagine that simply laying 35mm
slides on the type of flatbed scanner under discussion would be the complete
process to obtain something useful.
I was aware that there were "services" that would do this for a fee, but
that fee has always appeared a bit steep for what I wanted to do ...
starting to think it may be actually be a bargain.
Thanks for the insight.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 7:26am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) sagely
states:
<snip> I was aware that there were "services" that would do this for a
fee, but that fee has always appeared a bit steep for what I wanted to
do ... starting to think it may be actually be a bargain. <snip>
I'm going that route, getting someone else to do it. For me, it'll
be a one-time shot, getting negatives made from slides, then prints
made. I don't see any reason to sink money into equipment I'd only use
once.
JOAT
You'll never get anywhere if you believe what you "hear".
What do you "know"?
- Granny Weatherwax
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 7:26am (EST-1) [email protected] (Swingman) sagely
> states:
> <snip> I was aware that there were "services" that would do this for a
> fee, but that fee has always appeared a bit steep for what I wanted to
> do ... starting to think it may be actually be a bargain. <snip>
>
> I'm going that route, getting someone else to do it. For me, it'll
> be a one-time shot, getting negatives made from slides, then prints
> made. I don't see any reason to sink money into equipment I'd only use
> once.
>
Depends on the cost of the gear. I've found a couple really cheap slide
duplicators/copiers on Ebay, so I stuck a bid in on one. I've got way too
many slides around here to duplicate to even think I'm going to do them all,
not to mention a pee pot full of black and white negs, but I can pick and
choose the best and see what happens, and the gear shouldn't cost me more
than $35 or so, unless bidding stalls at its present point, when cost would
be 10 bucks.
It does help to have studio flash units (though other lights work just as
well with digital cameras), and a DSLR.
Sun, Jan 15, 2006, 9:24pm (EST+5) [email protected]
(Charles=A0Self) says:
Depends on the cost of the gear. <snip>
I ran acoss some of my old camera gear in the back room. Still
need to go thru it. But, I may just already have a slide
duplicatorcopier. Even so, I've got a LOT of slides, and don't really
think I want to mess with it. I think it probably won't wind up costing
so much more for someone to do it for me, and I won't be months in
getting it done. Unless it's gonna be really expensive, I think I'll
just pay.
JOAT
If you can't say anything nice about someone, you must be talking about
Hilary Clinton.
"Gerald Ross" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Swingman wrote:
>> "New Wave Dave" wrote in message
>>
>>> > What's the best way to go about scanning those old 35mm slides? I've
>>> > got
>>> > tons of them from 40 years ago I'd like to archive.
>>>
>>> I've got an Epson Stylus PHOTO RX600, one of those all-in-one
>>> printer, copier, scanner, fax, [coffee maker, and electric shaver]. It
>>> does a passable job on scans and I can trick them out somewhat with
>>> PhotoShop. But, certainly there are more task-specific scanners that
>>> might do a more professional job.
>>
>> Howdy Dave,
>>
>> Color me obtuse, but I have a similar HP can-opener and I am still trying
>> to
>> visualize putting one or more of these small, cardboard framed slides on
>> the
>> scanning bed and coming out with a usable sized picture/jpg that would be
>> high enough resolution to view/print?
>>
>> It could be because I have never attempted doing it, but what am I
>> missing?
>>
> Actually mine has a backlit slide holder, but I scan at 400 dpi and get
> pretty good pictures.
>
The backlighting is imperative. It can be cobbled up on a non-backlit
scanner, but it's easier to get one that is built right. Even then, it isn't
perfect. Perfection in this kind of thing seems to be about $550, plus six
months' practice.
"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
> I haven't looked at for a number of years, but we were appproached a
> number of years ago by a local fellow who had just bought the (then
> new) Kodak Photo CD setup. He offered to scan our photo orchaive of a
> period of a couple of years at a cost of between $1 and $1.50 per
> image.
>
> Of course, he was looking at 10s of thousands of pics, negs and slides
> with a very open timeframe.
>
> We sent some negs out for scanning in November when our big scanner
> went down, and paid (IIRC) $8.50 CDN each.
Ouch! ... thought I saw someone offering to do slides for .12 cents each
recently. That wouldn't be too bad as I only have a couple of thousand or
so, but after what I am reading here, I'm starting to suspect the quality at
that price.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/13/05