At 10:04 PM 12/7/01 -0500, you wrote: >opinions. I have had recognized experts disagree on basic issues, >for example on the question of what dpi to scan archive copies. >One told me that it was pointless to do anything less than 2400 >dpi, another told me I was wasting resources if I went over 200 dpi. >Personally I think they are both wrong. At this point my expert >opinion is my own eyes. I'm redoing a whole project of 500+ images with three objectives in mind: 1. To provide relatives with a CD of the photos that are mostly B&W and go back between 50 and 120 years so they can be viewed on a computer. Because the photos range in size mostly from 1"x2" to 2"x3" and up to 6"x8", I will use a variety of settings from about 100-300 dpi. I will also enlarge some details of photos for "head & shoulder" images to use in printing family trees. These will have to be done probably 600 dpi if they are really small segments of a photo. My current scanner will do a maximum of 600 dpi. 2. The CDs will have a second scan of each image that can be printed by a photo developer on regular photographic paper. I had scanned at about 300 dpi, but have now been told (by Japan Photo) that I should scan them as high as I possibly can. Of course, that means a true scan and not one that is beefed up by software pixillation (filling in the gaps with dots of colour of the area around it, ending up with a fuzzy image). 3. There may even be a third scan of each image that can be printed at home on a good computer printer, with or without special inks and papers and produce a clear picture that is not muddy. The settings here depend on the capability of a printer. I'm still running an old Canon BJ 210, and finally figured out it is my weak link, so have put a new one on my Christmas list! Without figuring in the cost of acquiring a new printer, printing at home, even with special papers and inks appears to be a cheaper alternative to mass printing from CD to photographic paper in a photo store. I agree that one's eyes have to be the judge, and it is trial and error all down the line. Somewhere, I saw a formula to calculate the best starting point for setting dpi based on the size of the original and the desired size of the scan, but lost the link and hadn't quite figured it out anyway. I'm also looking for a dedicated slide scanner that will also do negatives up to 3"x4" and not cost three mortgage payments. Linda <http://www.king.igs.net/~bdmlhm/>

Microtek 5700 flatbed has a good negative scanner (up to 4x5) lid that lifts off, FireWire or USB connection, also good for roll of microfilm. Elizabeth ----- Original Message ----- > I'm also looking for a dedicated slide scanner that will also do negatives > up to 3"x4" and not cost three mortgage payments. > Linda