Rufus... so the question on converters is the quality of the conversion. For example, if I "copy" a negative on my printer, the copy is only the size of the negative - so the number of pixels are limited to that size. So, if I could reverse the image, the quality would be poor, just because the negative is so small.

What about with the converters? Are you pleased with the quality and now large have you blown them up to look at them?

Thanks for your opinions.

Thanks, Randy. I'll have to check them out. Really hate to process to get prints, especially when you can't remember what they were, but some are really old family pics. Skipping the middle step would really make a difference.

(Oh, and been to your School... learned some of my best skills there!)

I've been converting a lifetime of prints to JPEGs using my HP printer. Been scanning them at the highest settings and making headway, but...

I've got a lot of negatives for which I don't have the matching prints. Other than getting them developed, does anyone know of a way of using a printer to convert them? Am I better off biting the bullet and getting them printed in "analog" so I can optimize when they get converted to digital?

Thanks for any help... and I just LOVE THIS SITE!