And a photo.

[kyrielle]

For now, although we're out of January, I'm still trying to take a photo a day when I can. (Probably not tomorrow: the batteries just gave out on the smaller, easier-to-carry-along camera, and I haven't time or inclination to charge them yet.) Today's is of a mountain (which, sadly, I'm not sure I've correctly identified...) taken while I was driving to the place that is scanning the negatives and slides.

Comments

[canyoncat.livejournal.com]

I think the mountain is more likely Mount Hood which is a heck of a lot closer to Portland than Mount Rainier.

I'm curious as to how much it is costing you get scan slides/negatives. I've got a TON of old slides from my dad that I would love to have done. I can scan some of them myself but it is a very time consuming process. What kind of resolution are you supposed to be getting back?

[kyrielle]

Except the road is running north there, and Mt. Hood is to our east. Otherwise that is what I would have identified it as, as well.

They are charging $18 per roll to scan the negatives (which are not 35mm - that would have been $16 a roll - these are the predecessor to that, I forget what it is now). They are charging I want to say $2 or $2.50 per slide, I think.

[canyoncat.livejournal.com]

I don't know, I just think Mt. Rainier is a bit far away. I know it's big, but... :)

You sure the northbound road doesn't have any curves to the east. What time of day was it?

[kyrielle]

It may be, but I don't think I was facing east. You're right that Rainier's a bit far off, I can never remember what's close. Maybe it was east. It was morning. Anyway, it's a mountain.

[canyoncat.livejournal.com]

It is a pretty mountain regardless. :)

[kyrielle]

I hate it when I hit post too soon. I am getting 2000 x 3000. I could get lower-res for cheaper, and for the negatives it might be sufficient (they're grainy at this size), but I'd rather get as much data out of them as I can.