Hello List, I would like to first mention that I really like this list. I have been carefully reading all of the postings and have learned a lot already. In addition to reading the posts on this list, I have bought and studied several books on the subject of scanning and have searched the web for information relative to proper scanning resolution. Either this subject is extremely difficult or I am extremely dense (probably the latter) but I still don't feel confident that I know how to do what I want to do. Like several others, my interest is in scanning old family photographs, negatives and slides and archiving them for future use. I want to compile specific collections on CDs and share them with relatives. I also want to be able to print some copies for handouts at reunions and possibly prepare booklets to give away. I have hundreds/thousands (haven't counted them) of my own items but am mostly concerned about copying the collections of older relatives. I may never see those items again and want to scan them with such quality that I won't ever need to see the original again. At this time I have no plans to post on web sites but some will be e-mailed. I have the following hardware: Self built P/Cs with enough horsepower to handle the applications 70GB of HDD space to start with HP 7400C Scanner2400 X 2400 (optical) resolution with transparency adapter and using SCSI interface HP 9510i CD-RW Lexmark Optra R+ Laser Printer with 1200dpi Photo capability As I understand it, If I want to scan an 8X10 B&W and print it at 8X10 then I should scan at 300dpi. To allow someone at some future date to print an enlargement then I would need to scan at a higher resolution now. The HP user guide says that if a the photo will be printed at a larger size then it should be scanned at the larger size rather than at a higher resolution. How does this work. What is the scanner actually doing differently when scanning to a larger output size vs. a straight scan? Example: A cousin has a small collection of 2 1/4" X 3" photographs that his father took in the South Pacific in WW-II. They contain a lot of sharp detail. Should I scan them at an output size of 8X10 300dpi or actual size at 1200dpi or 5X7 at 1200 or ??. The books say that scanning resolution depends on how the item is to be printed and proceed to give examples based on printer capabilities that were common two or three years ago. I want to try to be prepared for what may become available in the future. However there is a financial limitation. :-( I can't afford a commercial quality drum scanner and a commercial quality film scanner, etc. I chose the flatbed with transparency adapter because most film scanners are 35MM and a lot of my old negatives were from box cameras of the 1920s/30s. I thought that the large negative size combined with scanning resolutions of up to 2400 X 2400 would cover my needs. Perhaps I should have consulted the list before I bought. Another aspect of the problem. When I scan a picture at a higher resolution then display it in an editing program it is either displayed a lot bigger than the screen or the size is shown to be, for example, 10% of the image size. Must I save a copy sized to the screen at 72dpi in order for it to be easily displayed? I started saving files in the .TIF format (too big to transfer before I could burn CDs) so changed to .JPG (didn't know that there is loss EVERY time it is saved, not just the first time) then .PNG (now I find that some/many image programs don't recognize this format but it may, someday, be the standard.) The suggestions on the list to save in multiple formats is definitely the way to go. Wish I had thought of that. Is the collective wisdom to use .TIF & .JPG or is .PNG & .JPG OK? I have PhotoShop but have never really used it very much. Would .PSD & .JPG be the best combo? Note #1: In past years, I had several old photos commercially copied. Verified that good quality is expensive - Inexpensive copies aren't very good. You get what you pay for and I can't afford good except in very special cases. Sometimes expensive wasn't very good either. Note #2: I bought a copy stand and a good macro lens for copying old photos. It is fairly expensive to have labs do the processing and far too time consuming for me to do my own darkroom work. The quality was not what I wanted either. For handling a lot of pictures it just didn't seem to be the way to go. Note #3: In 1994 I bought the then new HP IICx Scanner ($1,000.00+) 300 X 300 dpi resolution. I scanned a good many pictures with it but I wasn't getting the quality that I wanted so I quit using it. It was fine for scanning and printing a sharp 8X10 original and I didn't understand then that scanning a 2 1/4" X 3" original at 300dpi and printing it at 2X or larger just wasn't ever going to work very well. Now I don't know if I will ever be able to get another chance to copy some of those prints. I have spent a fair amount of money and a lot of time on this project so far with little to show for it but a lot of frustration so any and all instructive messages to the list will be read closely. I have lots more questions but will cut it off here for now. Thank You, Dennis Smith