Different Way To Photograph

LD, pictures from both scanning and camera will take up room (sometimes a LOT of it). You could always store your pictures online after you are done processing them, then delete them from your hard drive - there are many free online picture storage/hosting places, like Flickr, Google Picasa, and Photobucket. They all have size limits, but if you ever run out of space at one, you could use another The good thing about them is they are available if you happen to be at a different computer - you don't have to be sitting at your usual one to access a picture - plus you wouldn't have to fill your hard drive up. The bad thing is if your account is inactive for a while, the pictures get deleted.

If your computer has a cd-burner, then yes, you could put them on a CD. Or your zip drive. Depending on the size of your resulting images, you could fit quite a few onto either one.

Do you know how large your hard drive is?

Xshift, thanks for the rteply. Re the computer,. There is neither a "burner, nor a zip drive. It is a Dell, that has been setup as an "Optiplex 755', whatever that is. it is for low-vision operators. It has an application called "Zoom-Text", which allows one to magnify the rtext so it can be read. It needs LOTS of screen space, so it comes with dual monitors.. I asked if I could "work on it", to speed it up. (it is slower than molasses in the Arctic. They said no, because it is maintained by the state, soooo. They did add 2GB of RAM. HD is loaded with software, and special programming, (a lot of which I have no idea as to whator why), anyway the HD is running out of space. I think it is 120GB. To control how much space it taken up with photos, I frequently strip "my documents\my pictures" down to zero, and start over. That seems to work.
I use phohotobucket for uploading to the forums, and have plenty of space there. I also try to keep a standard size of image, no bigger than 600X600mp. That way it doesn't have to use the max width on the page to see it all. I don't process the image after paking the photo, rather I use the magnification for showing details, and the image will only have that info. maybe there is a better way, but, so far It does the job. I usually send them to floppys. I get about 6 on each one, depending on the image size. I use the same thing for storing the RPM's, and RPD's.
Taking a different look at the image, using a scanner, I have mis-placed the info for my Canon scanner, (VA), and can't adjust the size. My camera is a Canon Powershot A590 IS, and works better now, becauseI am learning a bit more about it as I go along.
I do have another computer, which I built, and it does have a "burner", but no blank CD's. It lso has the zip drive, and I have about 15 , 100NB discs, and would like to obtain more. I use them also for images, but they are bit more difficult wi work with, due to size, as is the CDROM disc's. I have had to abandon the computer building, because of being legally blind, I can't see the pin cushions to plug inthe cabling, etc.No drivers license, either, so getting around is tough. When one has driven for over 70 years, it is hard to accept! Same reason I have also left the RPM's. I do see the RPD's, because I am able to see the variety, (except for the MPD's. I use a scope, and camera software to project an image onto a 20" CCTV screen, or a 27' TV screen. It isn't the easiest way, but it is all I have, so I try to make the best of it.
BTW, does anyone know what "Photoscape" is, and where I can download it from? I asked wheatguy, but I don't know if he will see the post.
Thanks for your replies,
Later: I located and downloaded Photoscape. Then tried it out. I couldn't believe how easy it is tio work with! It made my day!
Dick

Steve, that's a great picture at only 88k! That's the one thing I have trouble with is getting the file size down.

I use scanners alot because I have horrible luck with cameras! Anyways here I one of my scans.

I have a legit camera I feel. Its a canon s5is and I bought a macro lens for it. I must jsut be camera retarded. I get decent pictures, but I am hunting for extreme close-ups for die beaks and such. I guess I just can't learn fast enough

w1a9,

If you are anything like me, I always try to push the limit out of any photographic apparatus void of excessive capital expenditures.

My initial attempt into the world of coin photography is well documented in the following CCF thread:

https://goccf.com/t/88598

I would not go as far as suggesting that my featured USB camera in this above thread is capable of 'extreme' closeups in the true sense of the meaning.

However, these USB-derived closeup shots in the above referenced thread are acceptable and adequate enough to discern the differences between the commonly found coin errors and varieties.

This thread also discusses lighting methods with related actual examples intended to preserve the original surface view of the coin during USB photography.

On another note unlike the all-encompassing and traditional 'Cntrl Prnt Scrn' feature that produces the entire screen view, neither excessive file nor picture size has ever been a problem for me since my Windows 7 Snipping Tool allows me to encircle(or make a rectangle) only of just the desired screen section in only one easy step.

Finally, I typically only scan(not USB camera related)colorful currencies using a higher 720 dpi scanner resolution setting which produces very lifelike results which are subsequently snipped with the Windows 7 Snipping Tool and then saved as an economically-sized .jpg file.

fyi,
mdpmedia