Best way to scan 11x14 prints?

[analoguey]

How about microtek 900? Anyone has experience with that?

Or the Epson 836 or such older model large format scanners

[Larry Kellogg]

I live in a small apartment, I don't have any desk space for a large scanner. I replaced the space taken by my Epson 3880 with photo books, a much better use of that space, and more satisfying. ;-) Thanks for the suggestions, though.

[ROL]

Larry, I am with you entirely, in spirit and in deed. It is your decision on how you wish to present your work – and scanning a negative is a far cry from scanning a finished piece. Whether that difference is significant enough to be judged by the casual viewer of your digital presentations is another matter. The internet being the pre-eminent form of communication at this point in time, and within the foreseeable future, this is an important decision.

My smallest fine art prints are 11"x14" – going much, much larger. I only show scanned prints as a matter of principle to support darkroom work (appreciated or not), so I am in the same boat as you. After I complete an edition, the last thing I do before moving on to another negative is to make an 8x10 "fine art proof", which is as close to the other editions as humanly (me, anyway) possible, solely for the purpose of scanning on my E-4990. You are welcome to go to my site, where you can see examples of print scanning in every gallery. Be aware, and this is not generally known, that my practice of making fine art proofs is not complete, some of the representations were made before I adopted the practice, and are actual proofs made before an edition was ever begun. Sorry, I wasn't able to offer a more direct solution to the issue, but there it is, as I am best able to handle it. A scanner capable of handling 11"x14" would be much preferable – as would winning the lottery.

[Larry Kellogg]

ROL,
Thanks for understanding. Nice work on your website! I can see the evidence of your skill in the darkroom, and the beauty of silver prints, in the scans of your 8x10 fine art proofs. I suppose I could go that route for the sake of getting something up there. Yes, scanning the 11x14 final print would be preferable. I was avoiding the topic of 16x20 prints, or even 20x24. ;-)

I suppose I could farm out the work, but if the prints were lost or damaged, I would have to cry. I suppose some people have no idea how much work goes into making a fibre print, and that the prints are at risk of being ruined at every step of the process, in developing, toning, drying, and flattening. It's not just pressing the print button. Still, I wouldn't have it any other way because there is something magical about the quality of silver gelatin prints.

Larry

[Vaughn]

Consider the museum approach for flat artwork - a good copy stand setup. It is not hard to get even illumination across flat art if you know how to read a light meter.

And with most alt process prints, this is the easiest way to go (textured surfaces can be difficult to manage). I did have access to a flatbed scanner that could handle 11x14, but found re-photographing the work with a digital camera a better way to go...though I have read of some work-arounds that others have figured out to deal with the paper/print texture. I have not explored these.

[jbenedict]

R
I suppose I could farm out the work, but if the prints were lost or damaged, I would have to cry. I suppose some people have no idea how much work goes into making a fibre print, and that the prints are at risk of being ruined at every step of the process, in developing, toning, drying, and flattening. It's not just pressing the print button. Still, I wouldn't have it any other way because there is something magical about the quality of silver gelatin prints.

You do make more than one copy of a final print, don't you? I am very familiar with what goes into making a fine print. I work on one particular print until I have it the way I want it and then I try to repeat it. I take good notes as I go and have developed standard procedures. I make three or four prints which are essentially identical. I sometimes decide after the fact to make some kind of change to the print and the process starts again.

I'm having a hard time understanding your existential turmoil regarding your silver prints and yet you are willing to show your work online in a way that will not come close to what you have created. In order to make them so viewers can see them without waiting two or three minutes for the pictures to load, you will have to make them smaller and that will cut the quality of the image. You will have to copyright them also so your photographs won't be stolen or, at the very least, you can identify the thief.

[Kirk Gittings]

Didn't see this above. Just do it in 4 pieces on an Epson flatbed and stitch them in PS-very easy.

[jhogan]

Lenny is right on above.

It can be done very inexpensively for prints this size: get yourself an easel or cork board, and a couple of 250w photo floods (both same brand/age/etc) screwed into hardware store clip-on fixtures. You'll need a digital camera with a reasonably good flat-field lens. You already have a tripod.

Set things up as described here: http://cuart.colorado.edu/resources/...tographing-2d/

Even illumination across the print is most important; you can use a DSLR in spot-meter mode if necessary. Use a tape measure to verify that both lights are equidistant from the work.

A few more things:

-make sure to include a color correction/white balance card within the camera's view but not touching your print. You will crop it out once you're done making corrections in PS or whichever editor you use.
-work on a properly profiled monitor.
-convert the files you wish to display on the web to sRGB colorspace once you're done editing.

One more important thing: No matter what you do, you will never get the digital versions of your prints to look identical to the physical versions for the simple reason that one is expressed to your eyes via a transmissive light source, versus the other which is expressed via reflected light. With some work, however, one can usually capture the "feel" of a print fairly well.

Good luck. ~J

[ROL]

I'm having a hard time understanding your existential turmoil regarding your silver prints and yet you are willing to show your work online in a way that will not come close to what you have created. In order to make them so viewers can see them without waiting two or three minutes for the pictures to load, you will have to make them smaller and that will cut the quality of the image. You will have to copyright them also so your photographs won't be stolen or, at the very least, you can identify the thief.

That just isn't true. Although the transmissive digital representation will never look just like a reflective fine art print, the goal is to get on most users' device screens in the most representational way possible. That means 72 DPI (320, if you're super anal about hi-res retina screen technology – which few have) at anything far less than 11"x14", probably less than 800 px on a side. At a resulting file size of less than 300 Kb per image, a whole page full should load almost instantaneously at common DSL speeds. Posting any larger file than this, anywhere on the internet is an invitation to copyright infringement. My images average around 100 Kb – including those (sometimes the same) posted here.


Regarding PS stitching, that is an option I have not investigated as it seems just as easy to make a scan print while in the DR, and I no longer use PS. I use Pixelmator and Aperture and am unaware of stitching functions available in those programs. DSLR copying is also a reasonable, if you have that facility/ability.

[Light Guru]

Didn't see this above. Just do it in 4 pieces on an Epson flatbed and stitch them in PS-very easy.

Multiple scans and stitching them I'm photoshop was actually talked about in the first few responses. The OP does not seem to like that idea.