Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: scanner for large prints  (Read 6084 times)

sceptacon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
scanner for large prints
« on: February 04, 2007, 01:31:06 am »

I have a scanner 3 yrs old CanoScan LiDE 30 it's 1200 x 2400 dpi optical res. does anyone know if this is alright for scanning artwork (that's smaller than A4) which is to be then printed for fine art/giclee. or would I need one of the latest generation scanners models that do 4800 x 9600 dpi.

one example is a piece of art that's small about a third of an A4 in size and I want to scan this and reproduce it significantly bigger than it's original size. am I battling with my current scanner? or will it suffice?

if so could anyone recommend some other scanner to me? are there other important things than resolution?

just checking on Ebay now, and there's an Agfa SnapScan that's 600 x 1200 dpi I remember buying this one - it was my first ever scanner back in '97. eesh!

a lot of the art I will be capturing using photography because it's big but there are a number of pieces that are small and that's where I need to use a simple flatbed scanner but one that's ok enough for it.
Logged

sceptacon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
scanner for large prints
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2007, 01:42:28 am »

would this be alright?

Epson Perfection 4990P Photo 4800 dpi Colour Scanner

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Epson-Perfection-49...1QQcmdZViewItem

auction ends in 2 hours.

another one

BRAND NEW EPSON PERFECTION 4490 PHOTO SCANNER

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/BRAND-NEW-EPSON-PER...1QQcmdZViewItem

AU $425 shipped.

it seems like you don't need to part with wads of cash to get good scanning nowadays, am I right. these are much higher resolution than my canon and only a few years later and a few hundred dollars higher. I had expected to shell a grand or two for a better scanner but based on my research one under AU $500 seems ok. one thing I don't have a need for is film scanning features built into the scanner because I don't have archives of film to put into digital files, and am more or less building up my other equipment from scratch from this point onwards so will direct to digital gear.

also wanted to know: when printing a digital file to output an inkjet print. what resolution should the file be, will 300dpi do? because this will allow me to tell how big the file size is I need to arrive at when scanning and what scanning power I require to achieve the prints I am aiming for.

and when scanning an image (reflective), while keeping resolution the same, is there any benefit to be gained by increasing the image dimensions prior to the scan - ie to 200% instead of 100%, or is this just the same as upsampling the image in photoshop after the scan has been done. so does this get you better quality or is it just a way to get the scanner to produce a bigger image while it scans instead of doing it after in the image editing program?

thanks!
« Last Edit: February 04, 2007, 09:52:29 am by sceptacon »
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
scanner for large prints
« Reply #2 on: February 07, 2007, 12:34:34 pm »

You could also shoot the art with a 4x5 camera to get a transparency and then scan that at the highest dpi you can.   Even tho alot of the scanners out there can do a pretty good job of it, if the art is bigger than the scanner bed, you are better off having it shot and then scan the transy. This saves you all the time of trying to match the sections of the art and make it all seemless.

This is how I do it when an artist brings in work for me to print. It costs about $80 for the shoot and is well worth the time and hassle factor.

The higher end scanners can capture more of the total range from white to black.  I think it is called the Dmax, not sure so anyone can help out here, please.

A friend and I compared our scanners for output. His is an Epson and mine is a Creo. Mine walked all over his scan but then it is about 20 times more expensive than his.  
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

Jonathan Ratzlaff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 203
scanner for large prints
« Reply #3 on: February 09, 2007, 05:51:56 pm »

For anything that is smaller than the scanner bed one of the epson scanners should provide a good result.  Shooting with 4X5 creates another issue which is colour matching and another generation of imaging, whereas the direct scan is one less reproduction.

the dynamic range of the epson scanners far surpasses the dynamic range of your artwork so you should lose very little information from the original.  Just scan so that you do not have to upsample when you make the print.   I have scanned my daughter's artwork and then printed it on fineart paper and the results are difficult to distinguish from the original.
Logged

sceptacon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
scanner for large prints
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2007, 01:05:10 am »

Quote
You could also shoot the art with a 4x5 camera to get a transparency and then scan that at the highest dpi you can. Even tho alot of the scanners out there can do a pretty good job of it, if the art is bigger than the scanner bed, you are better off having it shot and then scan the transy. This saves you all the time of trying to match the sections of the art and make it all seemless.

This is how I do it when an artist brings in work for me to print. It costs about $80 for the shoot and is well worth the time and hassle factor.

Quote
For anything that is smaller than the scanner bed one of the epson scanners should provide a good result. Shooting with 4X5 creates another issue which is colour matching and another generation of imaging, whereas the direct scan is one less reproduction.

here is the crux for me. the art I want to scan most of it are big canvases. now I'm pretty sure I can lay the canvas section at a time on an A4 flatbed scanner and complete the capture this way, even if it takes time.

but I would love some feedback about this process. while I think the art canvases are flat enough, is this a good way to do it. I do know photoshop enough to join the sections of the art post-scan but the big question is do the sections match up correctly generally speaking using this method.

the point is this is finnicky and time consuming but it also seems to me relatively straightforward. it's just that from what I hear capturing using photography is not as simple as point and shoot you have to get a rig to make sure the camera and artwork being photographed are exactly parallel, you have to get the lighting right of which I have no idea, then you have to scan this afterwards and so on. it requires an investment and learning curve. to me (on the surface and this is where I need help) given that capture photography is such a specialist field and has all these variables, and it's easier just to scan, do you recommend I use a small scanner to capture large pieces of art section at a time and then stitch together? I want to get going with my giclee business and before the pieces are framed and sold on.

another option perhaps: hire a professional photographer to complete capture photography for me? (would this be expensive and who should I look for and should I choose a digital photographer?)

thanks very much
Logged

andybuk99

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
scanner for large prints
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2007, 06:42:43 am »

I always photograph large artwork on 5x4 or 10x8 and then get a high end scan made, I suppose you could always scan it yourself if you are competent with colour management  and have the time to do it.
Logged

sceptacon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
scanner for large prints
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2007, 10:13:37 am »

this is starting to make more sense to me you people are helpful.

andybuk99, to do the same do I need to look for a camera that's specifically 4x5 or 10x8 or do cameras tend to handle a range of different film sizes. for example I buy a regular 35mm camera and it can also do 5x4?

one big question I wanted to know is film vs digital. do you think film would be better for me and that it would be the best way to go at the moment in capturing my art. I hear digital has no grain and looks superior as well as being is easier - but I suspect the digital gear is much pricier to purchase, am I correct? and for the small difference (in output quality) should I just invest in a good film camera for main reasons of affordability? on the question of camera backs, do I need one of these or only if I choose the digital route with a DSLR and for example a Betterlight back to pair with it (if that makes sense).

Quote
I suppose you could always scan it yourself if you are competent with colour management and have the time to do it

I could get an epson scanner that scans film. the one in the link does:

35mm x 24 FRAMES STRIPFILM
35mm x 12 SLIDES MOUNTED FILM
MEDIUM FORMAT 120/220 (6 x 12cm) x 3 FRAMES STRIPFILM
4 x 5 INCHES x 2 FRAMES FILM
8 x 10 INCHES x FILM AREA GUIDE

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/p...onv700photo.asp

on the setup - do you hang your art piece and put your camera on a tripod then shoot it. do you set up lighting? if you don't have pro lights what's a good compromise - fluoro lighting? is lens distortion an issue and is it really that hard to get a good eveness between the painting and the camera so the photo is nicely flat.

sorry for the questions but I am an artist who is also a total photographic noob. even if you answer one of the questions that would help me.
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
scanner for large prints
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2007, 04:46:15 pm »

You REALLY need to let a studio photographer shoot a 4x5 MINIMUM size transparency. When you try to scan a large piece in small sections, you seriously increase the chance of the piece not being perfectly flat and that would be just about impossible seeing they are big canvases. Every scan section has to be flat and square for them all to work together.

Just the amount of time you would spend trying to scan it and then then work it in PS, well... your time is better spent on ANYTHING else.  The guy who shoots the art for me gives me 3 shots: one on, one over and one under and they have a gray scale next to the image on the film so I can set my W and B points.. A good photographer can give you a clean shot and I have never had to fiddle with color balance on any of my work.  I scan the 4x5 at as high a dpi as I can so I have enough to work with to give me a really good repro.

Unless you have alot of money to throw around, don't think about buying a 4x5 camera and putting a digital back on it.  Go buy a nice boat or something with all that money!  
You can't put a 4x5 into a 35mm camera. Two different animals!

You questions lead me to say that you will not be able to get what you want using whatever camera you are thinking about getting.

As you say, you are a photo noob so please continue to do what you do best which is paint and let the professional photographers do what they do best. You will really be better off for it.  

Of course, the next question to you is: how are you thinking of printing them and how big?

Or you could send me the art and I'll do it for you.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

sceptacon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 28
scanner for large prints
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2007, 10:41:54 pm »

thankyou framah!

I totally agree with your boat opinion, I had the same feelings when I wanted to borrow 10 thousand from the bank to spend on either a classic merc or a new HP Z printer. I thought to myself I really need the Z printer so that's a given and it will make me money but then I thought '7 grand on a device?' when I could please myself even more with a nice 'new' car! then I decided I want both so as not to dissapoint myself. up to this point I have not borrowed the money and have neither the sedan or the printer because someone else bought the car I was after and there's work to do setting up before I need the printer (ie capture, website) - everything must be ready before a LF comes into my house I don't want I sitting there doing squat.

Quote
You REALLY need to let a studio photographer shoot a 4x5 MINIMUM size transparency.

is transparency another name for film. what will I get from them a filmstrip.

Quote
I scan the 4x5 at as high a dpi as I can so I have enough to work with to give me a really good repro

using film for capture as you say, once I have it can I scan it at any resolution so it's sort of flexible and contains enough information in the film to permit really high resolution scans at whatever rez you desire?

Quote
the next question to you is: how are you thinking of printing them and how big?

I am getting a 24" printer so we will be printing 24" wide by a comparitive length, about 36". however I would also like to be able to have the capture and scan to contain enough for a print size the next printer up - 44" width. maybe if it goes well I'll get this bigger printer down the track.

Quote
do what you do best which is paint and let the professional photographers do what they do best. You will really be better off for it

we could book a studio session for all our artwork to date capturing all our pieces in one go, then as more pieces are created we can book another photography session. this rather than shooting one painting at a time I would imagine. If the photographer costs $100/hr and it takes a day then this is $1000 which in my mind is what I have to pay and is relatively affordable. then I have the capture for life. I wonder how many photos of paintings the photographer can achieve in a given time frame like once they are set up can they work through them quickly or is there lots of tweaking for each photo.

Quote
Or you could send me the art and I'll do it for you

thanks for the offer, I live in Australia so it might be pricy and risky to send them depending on your address. maybe I should utilise a local photographer so I can deliver and pickup in person?

you know the epson scanner I mentioned a few posts back in the link, it scans 4x5 film. would you be able to suggest to me if this would be suitable to scan in the photographers captures and secondly would the quality this would produce would be pretty close to a lab scan because then I could invest in the epson and be able to scan my own photos from then on.
Logged

ddolde

  • Guest
scanner for large prints
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2007, 11:22:59 pm »

I find my Epson 4990 ONLY adequate for proofing.  Anything thats a keeper I pay for a drum scan or Imacon 949 scan.
Logged

framah

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1418
scanner for large prints
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2007, 12:20:46 pm »

It only takes my photographer about 15 minutes to do a piece and he is already set up with his lights and camera in place.  

For me, instead of buying more equipment last year, I went and bought a 1960 Nash Metropolitan.  Definitely one of those "I need it like a hole in a head"  purchases but it is a fun little car.

I found my old prosumer flatbed scanners to be only adequate for pretty much anything but the basic stuff. That is why I went and got a Creo scanner. This flatbed scanner is one of the best out there.    Still, a good drum scanner is the way to go.

Transparency is the term for a positive image type of film. Think slide shows and you are using transparencies.  You would get a single piece of positive film in a 4x5 size or in my case 3 pieces.
Logged
"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
scanner for large prints
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2007, 01:55:49 am »

Quote
I have a scanner 3 yrs old CanoScan LiDE 30 it's 1200 x 2400 dpi optical res. does anyone know if this is alright for scanning artwork (that's smaller than A4) which is to be then printed for fine art/giclee. or would I need one of the latest generation scanners models that do 4800 x 9600 dpi.

one example is a piece of art that's small about a third of an A4 in size and I want to scan this and reproduce it significantly bigger than it's original size. am I battling with my current scanner? or will it suffice?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99112\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



My view is your current scanner will suffice. You have a digital camera there far superior to a drum-scanned piece of 4x5 film. When I bought my first flatbed scanner, the Epson Perfection 1200 many years ago, I tried scanning a few natural objects such as a leaf, that could be held flat. I was amazed at the crystal clarity of the scan. Every vein and pore of the leaf was revealed in exquisite detail.

A scan of an 8x10" art work at 1200 dpi would produce a 9,600x12,000 pixel image. That would be far more detailed than any image from a high end digital back such as the P45 or any scan of a 4x5 transparency which is inevitably going to introduce grain.

If you are doubtful as to whether the dynamic range will be sufficient, the Epson 4990 has not only higher resolution but a higher Dmax. However, Dmax seems to be more important when scanning film. Dedicated film scanners are therefore usually more successful than flatbeds for film scanning purposes. I shouldn't think you'd have a Dmax problem scanning a reflective surface.

If the art work is larger than 8x10, then you'd be into a stitching situation. There are many stitching programs that can handle a mosaic of images in vertical and horizontal rows. I shouldn't think you'd have much problem there since there will be no parallax errors, which are usually the bane of stitching projects.

However, with canvases larger than 8x10", there might be practical problems. You would need to remove the canvas from the frame to do a good scanning job, and keep the canvas flat as far out to the edges of the scanner as possible.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up