Brammy,
Thanks for your input on the Scanza.
I don’t have a digital 35mm camera and the cost of one is probably more than I can afford or be willing to spend. I need something very easy to use as my knowledge of computer stuff is pretty limited.
I have about 20K slides and I know this will take a lot of time and energy to accomplish so I need some method that’s low tech and reliable.
oldline1
One other observation about scanning slides - and a reason why slide-by-slide scanning or re-photographing is the way I want to go, not doing it in bulk or farming it out to others.
In my experience with my low end Wolverine scanner, I have learned that it can take multiple attempts to get a satisfactory end result. Sometimes the slide is off center and you get a black line on one side, and missing stuff on the other. Sometimes the scan is perfect but you finally see on the laptop screen that there was a spot of dirt or a hair that had not been blown off the slide surface before scanning (and I am aware there are computer programs that claim to be able to eliminate those for you). Sometimes it seems the scanning “crops” the slide in such a way that you get more of the information you want on the scan by having the slide upside down and then rotating it afterwards on the computer. Sometimes the scan looks blurred for reasons I do not entirely understand.
And yeah sometimes you do one reversed.
When I scan a slide I tend to make several scans of the same slide, moving the slide holder around just a bit, and often out of four such repeated scans, when I finally look at the end result on the laptop screen, only one might be satisfactory. Or maybe even none and I do it over again.
I have taken to writing “scanned” on the cardstock slide mount. But I do not dispose of the slide, and am glad I did not because I do intend to get something better than the Wolverine scanner. I am particularly dissatisfied with the way it scans 35mm “print” film negatives.
Dave Nelson