I have Photoshop Elements 14 but am intrigued with Exposure X2 from AlienSkin. I squandered a free trial and now wonder if any of you have looked closely at the Exposure program and compared it to Photoshop relative to power and ease of use. I did tinker with the Snap Art program from the same company and found I liked parts of it better than Photoshop Elements, other parts not so much.

I like a viewfinder but have grown more comfortable without, except in very bright conditions. My 'bridge' camera from Sony has a pretty decent viewfinder and my pocket model from Sony doesn't have anything but the LCD. If you have or obtain a camera with only the LCD finder but is acceptable in every other way, consider the Clearview attachment. http://www.clearviewer.com/Products.html

Several brands of "bridge" cameras (Sony, Nikon, several others) offer astonishing long zooms - 28 to 50x - and many fit the budget, even new. It will be a good thing, though, to try a few out in person since the way a camera is physically laid out and how the menus are configured is a very personal thing, and quite different between brands and models (I went into a store planning on a Nikon and walked out with Sony).

I haven't always bought from Best Buy (generally preferring that local shop) but I also have had really good service and advice from a number of departments at BB, with more knowledgeable and interested staff than I would have expected. Go for it!

When I lost my old Canon compact, I went shopping and ended up with two: a Sony WX 350 that has only modest features but *really* compact and with a 20x zoom. I will not be making any large prints from this little guy, but it is really handy, easy to have along no matter where I am going or how. About the size of a flip phone. For more dedicated photo runs I got a bridge camera, again Sony, since it had many options, an astonishing 50x lens, "felt" more like the old SLR experience, and was also modest in price. This after looking very closely at DSLR (entry cameras not particularly great, others pricey and all on the large side for me) and mirrorless (very nice options, lots of features, larger sensors generally but again more camera than I felt I needed).

The advice of narrowing the field a bit then actually handling the cameras is spot on. I would have chosen differently without handling and noting how the features were organized, and how the menus worked. These kinds of considerations are not necessarily better and worse between brands, but more like how you prefer things to be set up.

So I downloaded software for the V550 (from the Epson website and it seems to work my elderly Photo2400 just fine); recognizes the slides more effectively than the original software and the quality seems, on quick review, to be excellent though I still 'lost' part of one image and focus on one is not what I hoped for. So I expect that in addition to better software, the physical handling of the slides or negatives has improved with newer models.

I just looked at the new Epson scanners. Looks to me like the V600 (and a few even lower cost models) is an update of my 2400 photo, and may suffer from similar problems unless the software is more capable than the older stuff. The V750 is a pro model (and there are several others in the line), and it appears you get what you pay for - much more capacity at once and good quality in the bargain. Looks like I am shopping for the next scanner upgrade...

These Epson models have a light built into the top, and a 'jig' for the negatives and slides so when set up via the software for 'back' light they do a credible job, maybe even an excellent one, for several of the respondents to this post. So they are more than a "standard" flatbed. I need to tinker some more with mine - maybe the software is causing the problem with missing some or all of some of the slides or negatives, and running it through some other scanner software will solve it (my photo 2400 is so old that there is not likely to be any support or updates - though I will check that too).

The problem I have with the older Epson 2400 model I have - perhaps solved as the technology evolved (or maybe a higher quality product that you have) - is that I could set them up for a slow, quality scan, but of the 4 slides at a time (or strip of negatives) it was rare to get a good scan of more than a couple. The others would be only partially scanned, or missed altogether. So it was quite frustrating an time consuming to constantly re-do. I now use it only for the occasional slide that I am not satisfied with the digital version from the Nikon, and film negatives, of which I only have a small number.

I have an old Epson Photo 2400 that does slides, it seems in a similar way to the newer "V" models and my results have been mixed at best, and quite slow. For the main collection of 1000's of slides I was fortunate enough to be able to borrow a Nikon SuperCoolscan (some years ago - not sure what they have on offer now) from a friend doing similar work with his extensive collection. Expensive machine, but fast, efficient and (with a few notable exceptions) effective. Consider working with a buddy on cost, purchasing used, or buying and selling used for a large collection of images.

Good thought - I will contact the local community college, that I know has a photo dep't ... and maybe the local camera shop knows of another similar option in the secondary schools if that doesn't pan out. Thanks

Actually I am looking for someone else who may have a use for it...I also went digital some years ago and have no film cameras anymore...BTW, this is all 35mm

A few years ago the non-prof I worked for, having long ago switched to digital cameras, dumped all of its old film except for a few that I picked out mostly for the canisters. I still have 3 rolls of undoubtedly far out-of-date film and wonder if anyone can suggest whether it can be used and who might want it. One each:

-- Scotch print 200/24
-- Agfacolor Vista 400/27
-- Fugichrome Provia 100/36

The boxes with expiration dates are long gone, so I have no real clue as to age, and they have been stored in a closet (not refrigerated during any of its lifetime).

I looked at Nikon and Sony DSC-H300 (last year's model, now upgraded), finding that, for me, the Sony offered a more 'traditional' feel - focus and zoom - and also, again for me, more intuitive menus and controls. Both had astonishing 50x zooms and similar features for around $450. My point: if at all possible spend a little time handling a few models and brands, since features (and, I believe, reliability) can be very similar but how it works for you may be vary quite a bit.

Except that the google is probably a fox squirrel, yes?