The prints are so bad that I can't tell which ones are keepers and
which ones aren't, so I'm going to scan all the negatives to
the "preview" stage, eight at a time (they're cut into strips of
four) on my Epson 3200. If I save a dozen to a TIFF file, I'll be
happy. But 100 keepers? I'm good, but not THAT good.
And actually it's 114 negatives. I get 38 shots on a 36-exp. roll.
Walt
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists
elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact
us." -- Hobbes
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 16:53:27 -0500
>There's only one thing I find somewhat puzzling about this story -
>tragic and typical as it is:
>I assume that you're world class photographer - but even so, how
>can you possibly have 100 images out of a total of 108 (3 rolls
>of 36) worth scanning, much less printing? Perhaps six out of
>three rolls; maybe 12 - or being really generous, an assuming six
>keepers per roll, 18. But 100?
>Wow!
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|