> Moose wrote:
> [...]So I started over again, scanning all 200+ frames on the rolls
> with Yosemite on them. Good idea too, if it kept me out of some
> questionable threads the last few days. :-)[...]
G'day Moose,
Just a quick question. I've a flatbed scanner (Epson 4990), and I'm
going to embark on a scan of all my old 35mm stuff, mostly negative
rather than slides (as opposed to my current willy-nilly way of
"looking for and scanning a frame as needed" approach I've taken so
far).
I'm thinking of:
- scanning at a reduced resolution (let's say 1600 on the long side?)
- indexing the results and marking the filed negatives accordingly
- using that index to then, "as needed", rescan stuff I want to work
more seriously on (noting that my hit-ratio, particularly on my
older stuff, is rather low).
Would you (or anyone else) suggest that I'm not saving much time, and
should scan higher (though perhaps not "full", as I believe that you're
not getting much more at 4800 than you are at 2800)?
It would be nice to have those old shots not only indexed and readily
available, but not sitting in a bag in the spare room.
Anyway, any thoughts would be appreciated (particularly practical
experience). I'm also wondering about Vuescan (noting the comments
re: raw) over the Epson software...but that's a whole other story.
Cheers,
Marc
Sydney, Oz
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|