Hmm. I must be doing something wrong. I jus' keep getting older, not richer...
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Mustarde wrote:
>Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of
>archiving your old photos.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
On Mon, 19 Nov 2001, aimcompute wrote:
> Personally, if I had a large number that I wanted to archive I would
> take prints, negatives and slides to a lab and pay to get them scanned
> to some Photo CD or even regular CD. Time is money.
The only problem with this is that PhotoNet CD (the standa
> Dan Scott wrote:
> >
> > I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be
simplist
> > thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or
> > slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of
images.
> > A flatbed for prints? Still pretty
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 21:23:13 -0600, you wrote:
>I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist
>thing for most people in the same situation to do?
Spend a few years getting really rich, then hire out the job of
archiving your old photos.
Voila, you'll spend your ti
Not sure I agree with you about the no "media that came next" (that'll
happen in the future, not the past), but you're right about the
tapes. I'm old enough to remember wondering whether or not I should dump
my tapes and buy into this new-fangled CD technology. :)
chris
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001, S
Hi ...
I'm far from an expert on these matters, having only used a scanner
twice. However, my "scanning mentor" pointed out that some of the Nikon
scanners, and other brands as well, allow for automatic scanning, and
have either attachments or accessories, or built-in features, that allow
them t
I realize this is a Mafud/Robb wrestling match, but what would be simplist
thing for most people in the same situation to do? Scanning negatives or
slides would be the optimal, but time consuming for large numbers of images.
A flatbed for prints? Still pretty time consuming, right? Would the quick
In a message dated 11/18/01 9:56:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "Fortunately, the bulk of the pictures that will be lost don't
> matter, even to the people who have taken them."
Exactly.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-D
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Businesses who have a vested interest in maintaining access to their
>> products, (music, radio, television, video and movies, businesses)
>> regularly and readily transfer property to new storage technology. Ted
>> Turner is the Guru of the genre
On Sun, 18 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can we say: "affordability"? The gist of the "data transfer" thread
> assumes (mightily), that tens of millions of folks are going to buy
> the latest storage medium then transfer again every time the storage
> medium changes.
Huh? Go back and read
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] did not write, but I am used to being
misquoted:
>
>
> > How hard is it really to s
In a message dated 11/18/01 4:08:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> How hard is it really to spend a few
> hours (or even
> > an entire day if you have a huge collection) every 20-30 years
> > transferring your data? Doesn't sound too unreasonable to me.
>
Can we say: "
My gosh, Bob is at a loss for words.
HAR!
WW
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
In a message dated 11/14/01 5:59:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Last Friday I finally got all my 78 rpm records transferred to 8-track
> tapes. So what's next?
>
Oh, let's see John: small format tape*t* Cassette, then CD.
*t* about 14 years ago (1987), I had all my fav
Ha ha hh...! (Like John Lennon)
Tom C
- Original Message -
From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST
John Mustarde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost
>>> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make?
>>
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 01:00:16 -0600 (CST), you wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > Of course the question comes to mind, if a digital file has an almost
>> > infinate data life, what difference does digital print life make?
>>
>> I can see one: my CD-R/RW disks may not be
- Original Message -
From: "Chris Brogden"
Subject: WARNING: OT: Re: Points of Order
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
>
> > I assume that important images will be transfered to the new
media
> > technology when necessary. And contrary to what I
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Tom Rittenhouse wrote:
> I assume that important images will be transfered to the new media
> technology when necessary. And contrary to what I know someone is
> going to say about who will have the time, that transfer is easily
> automated.
Agreed. And the nice thing about
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> But...but: you overlook the simple truth: you ~can~ (CAN) ~actually~
> make new (if poor) photographs of those 100 year old photographs from
> those 100 year-old negatives.
> And I'd like to see someone in 20 years dig out a CD from
> under their be
21 matches
Mail list logo
