Adrian Rothery

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Adrian Rothery writes:
    > > But you would have to scan them the day they
    > > were printed, and even then there would be a
    > > loss of quality.
    > Why would there be a loss of quality?
You appear to have missed out the statement that I replied to:

'You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...'

Therefore a scan of a photograph will not be of such good quality. You will
of course know this won't you?

-It's impossible to do serious scanning with a flatbed. That may explain
your "bad luck."-

Adrian.

Erilar

In article , [email protected]
(Carole Allen) wrote:

    > You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...
    >
    > On Thu, 29 May 2003 16:46:31 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >But with digital, you can just copy them to a new CD every 10 or 20
    > >years
    > >and they'll remain as good as they started, as long as you carry out
    > >that
    > >minimal maintenance.
    > >
    > >With film, there is no possible maintenance you could carry out to
    > >preserve
    > >them indefinitely at their original quality.
    > >
    >
    >

Quite true. I have a scanner. I don't need a camera I have to make
individual prints from to put them in a foto album. Quite apart from the
fact that to get a good action picture you need a film camera anyway,
not one that waits before taking the picture 8-)

--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)


Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

Erilar

In article , "Adrian
Rothery" wrote:

    > "Carole Allen" wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...
    >
    > But you would have to scan them the day they were printed, and even then
    > there would be a loss of quality.

Why scan them the same day? What's the rush? And yes, loss of quality
compared to film. So?

--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)


Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

Adrian Rothery

"erilar" wrote in message
news:erilarloFRY-6E5E07.134619300520...streamcomm.net...
    > In article , "Adrian
    > Rothery" wrote:
    > > "Carole Allen" wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...
    > >
    > > But you would have to scan them the day they were printed, and even then
    > > there would be a loss of quality.
    > Why scan them the same day? What's the rush? And yes, loss of quality
    > compared to film. So?
    > --
    > Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Leave them in your bag, in the car glovebox, on the window ledge or coffee
table, let your friends finger them to death, and THEN scan them.
The day they (and 'they' includes negatives) fade, get scratched, ripped,
creased or damaged through any other reason, means you will not get your
original picture back. Ever again.

But this doesn't effect me. Anybody else is obviously free to do as they
wish. OK?

Adrian.

Mxsmanic

Adrian Rothery writes:

    > Leave them in your bag, in the car glovebox, on
    > the window ledge or coffee table, let your friends
    > finger them to death, and THEN scan them.

Why would you be doing this with negatives?

    > The day they (and 'they' includes negatives) fade ...

Nobody scans prints. If that is what you are suggesting, that's your
first mistake.

    > But this doesn't effect me. Anybody else is obviously
    > free to do as they wish. OK?

Done.


--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Bob

Well, for a long trip, there is always the option of getting the film
developed and then mailing the negs/slides home. I've done that on several
occasions when I really didn't want to lug around hundreds of slides for
months on end, the pile growing every week. If you send them by
fancy-shmancy mail or a courier company, they'll almost certainly make it
home intact.
Digicams are great, and the quality vs. price ratio is getting better all
the time, but they still won't match ASA 50 film. I've been using one
recently for astrophotos, but I'm not sure I'd take it on a long trip. I'd
have to bring a charger and/or extra batteries, extra memory cards, and then
have to go somewhere to dump the pix onto a cd. If I can email the photos
home, then they're way too small for the quality that I'd want. The biggest
drawback is that I like to bring at least a couple of lenses, and I'm not
about to fork out for a digital SLR.
For a short trip however, I wouldn't hesitate to bring it along for the
sheer coolness of being able to delete and re-take pictures.

Bob

--
Travel and Astonomy Photos
http://www3.sympatico.ca/bomo


"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Carole Allen wrote:
    > > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    > >> With film, there is no possible maintenance you could carry out to
    > >> preserve them indefinitely at their original quality.
    > >
    > > You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...
    > I've had really bad luck with scanning (I'm picky about quality). It's
    > almost impossible to get the full light range with a flatbed, and only
    > really expensive film scanners seem to have the real (vs interpolated)
    > resolution to actually capture detail. I end up spending all this money to
    > have them scanned at a service bureau. Actually that's what pushed me to
    > digital.
    > miguel
    > --
    > Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
    > Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam

Miguel Cruz

erilar wrote:
    > Quite true. I have a scanner. I don't need a camera I have to make
    > individual prints from to put them in a foto album. Quite apart from the
    > fact that to get a good action picture you need a film camera anyway,
    > not one that waits before taking the picture 8-)

http://travel.u.nu/pics/mv/mar-2003/index.php?pic=3018

The trick is to use the pre-focus.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Latest photos: Maldives, Dubai and Vietnam

Adrian Rothery

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Adrian Rothery writes:
    > > Leave them in your bag, in the car glovebox, on
    > > the window ledge or coffee table, let your friends
    > > finger them to death, and THEN scan them.
    > Why would you be doing this with negatives?

Because in the majority of cases they come in the same paper envelope. That
is where most people leave them, in the same envelope as the pictures.

    > > The day they (and 'they' includes negatives) fade ...
    > Nobody scans prints. If that is what you are suggesting, that's your
    > first mistake.

You appear to have missed out the statement that I replied to:

'You can scan photos to CD...decent scanners are inexpensive...'

Ones with neg scanners aren't inexpensive.

    > > But this doesn't effect me. Anybody else is obviously
    > > free to do as they wish. OK?
    > Done.
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Traveler

Obviously this is a personal decision. I almost never look at any pictures I
have taken, although friends and family seem to appreciate them. I hate the
feeling of having to worry about losing or protecting a highly valuable
object while traveling. It's bad enough to worry about passports and money.
The itty-bitty camera will not have an itty-bitty cost.

In the "olden days," obviously no one took pictures but there was some
spectacular travel writing from that period. How about keeping a journal or
going to an Internet cafe and emailing your recollections while they are
fresh?

Traveler

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On 25 May 2003 15:45:10 -0700, [email protected] (GM) wrote:
    > >That is the question. If I don't take it, I might be sorry many years
    > >from now. However, I'm concerned that it will hamper my enjoyment of
    > >the trip (hostel/backpacking thing).
    > >
    > >Is it a worthwhile burden? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
    > Yes, absolutely, positively. Get an itty bitty digital cameral, carry a
small
    > battery recharger, and figure out how to upload you photos to a website
from a
    > netcafe if you don't want to pay for a lot of storage cards.
    > --
    > "If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please
bring me some coffee."
    > - Abraham Lincoln

Ff

GM wrote:

    >That is the question. If I don't take it, I might be sorry many years
    >from now. However, I'm concerned that it will hamper my enjoyment of
    >the trip (hostel/backpacking thing).
    >Is it a worthwhile burden? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
    >
I bring a camera to get friends and myself in the picture. If you don't
feel that necessary,
just buy postcards. They are usually better photographers :-)

ff

barney

In article ,
[email protected] (Traveler) wrote:


    > In the "olden days," obviously no one took pictures

Often, though, they would sketch or paint -- eg on the Grand Tour.

Pltrgyst

GM wrote:

    >That is the question. If I don't take it, I might be sorry many years
    >from now. However, I'm concerned that it will hamper my enjoyment of
    >the trip (hostel/backpacking thing).
    >Is it a worthwhile burden? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Don't discount those memories -- a lot of people do, and they end up
regretting it later.

I carry the smallest Canon digital, the S-400 -- it's literally the
size of a pack of cigarettes. Not much of a burden there.

Regards,
Larry