i have about a gazillion negatives from my pre-digital days. does scanning the actual negatives give better quality than scanning the prints? i would like to preserve them either way, since i've seen what happens to 20 yo prints. advice on an affordable slide scanner anyone?
I just got the epson 4490 about a month ago and I have been scanning in my negatives. It does a great job...just takes some time. Scanning in negs is a lot slower than actually scanning in the photos
I am currently scanning in negatives and prints from My husbands 30+ year career as a firefighter. I am making him one of those books from shutterfly as a retirement gift. The negatives are great because you can get really good color on them, (most of the prints from that age are faded or brown) but I am finding that the biggest size that I can go on my scanner results in a smaller image than if I scanned in the photo. Maybe your scanner has higher settings? The negatives take more time, but I think it is worth it to preserve for the future. I am also scanning in photo prints (some of them from the same as the negatives). If the print is still in good color condition, I am able to scan in at 600 or 800 dpi to get a big shot for a page in an 11 x 8-1/2 book. If the picture is not crisp, I screen it back (opacity) and use it as a background the same way you would use a piece of background paper! I am finding that since I am taking the time, I might as well scan them in as big as possible. I can always make them smaller, but once you scan them in small (like 100 or 200 dpi), you can never make them bigger! Good luck!