On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 13:45:20 -0500, Andy > wrote:

>Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> Andy wrote:
>>>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Assuming you mean a film camera those can be scanned. Even if you
>>>>>> don't have a scanner many photo departments will scan them for
>>>>>> pennies and put them on a disc and/or email them as a file
>>>>>> attachment.
>>>
>>>
>>>You can digital photograph a print potograph. Works very well and as
>>>easy as taking any other digital photo.
>>>
>>>Just keep the camera and photograh in square alignment.
>>>
>>>If you have 20 years of photos, scanning IS the better option.
>>>
>>>Andy
>>
>>
>> I think Jean said she doesn't have a digicam... I think for her the
>> least costly option is to buy an inexpensive digicam, can buy a pretty
>> decent one for under $100. For a newbie this is a great buy... and it
>> has an optical viewfinder, I'd never buy a camera without:
>> http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Powersho.../dp/B004HW73S4
>> /ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1338747501&sr=8-9
>
>
>Sheldon,
>
>I paused using standalone digicams since my cellphone has a 5 megapixel
>camera and 1080p HD video. But that's my kind of high tech playground,
>I'm not selling anything. To each their own.

Pixels just means one can make larger photo enlargements but has very
little to do with image quality... pixels is an over used term. I
haven't seen a picture from a cellphone that produces decent image
quality, they can't focus, heck they don't even have a lens, and when
those images are viewed at full monitor screen size they're awful.
Cellphone cameras are just better than no camera... they're okay to
grab an image at an auto accident but they have no artistic quality
ability.