Best Way to Send the Most Accurate Copies of Fine Prints to Publishers?

[christopherf]

I am 72 years old and finally completed a photography project; editing my entire black and white life to one hundred potential images from 6 x 9 and 35mm negatives.

From those I selected and printed 81; kept 79, printing three of each.

There is a specialty store in Trondheim, Norway that I found quite by chance and what they undertook was extraordinary.

They took almost every black and white film and then processed them with almost every black and white developer.

Ironically, from all of the results, I preferred the combination I always used; Tri-X and D-76 1:1 despite the hype around newer developers.

These results were simply not available 40 years ago; artist photographers had to ask friends what they were using and look at the results.

Of course it was difficult to decide since there were so many variables.

Here, it was same image; same camera; the test was run with 135 film, scanned with a Hasselblad scanner with 3F scan in 6300 ppi.

Differences were easily discernable.

I was so impressed with the results I called around Madison to find a store that is using this scanner and came up empty.

From Hasselblad’s description this scanner seems quite different from anything else out there; here are the details:

https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/how...olutionary-pro-scanning-system-by-hasselblad/

I made calls to local stores and the ppi of their scanners is a fraction of 6300.

My intention is to put the 79 images on a memory stick and send to publishers for possible interest in a book.

There is one publisher in Hamburg that I would love to work with; needless to say I do not want to ship original prints overseas for review.

That is why I am seeking the Hasselblad 3F system, as it will bring me as close as possible to the original print.

Does anyone use this system?

Update:

I spoke with Hasselblad yesterday and they informed me that 3F scanning system was discontinued 3 years ago.

They had another scanner called the Flex-tight X-5 and they stopped selling it too. Why?

“We ran out of parts; to create new parts too costly.”

The retail price for the first scanner was $22,000

You would think even if they manufactured new parts they would recover the costs.

Other than sending hard copy original prints to publishers, is there any other way, other than taking pictures of the prints with a cell phone or scanning the prints?

This scanner costs $4,000 https://shop.fotoimport.no/digital-avdeling/scannere/epson-expression-12000-xl-pro

SCANNER TEST

We have tested the Epson V750 scanner against the Hasselblad 646 and Nikon 8000ED on scanning black and white film. The image shows reasonably well the differences in what comes out of the scanner.

Hasselblad 646 is the sharpest, while Nikon 8000 ED appears sharper due to high contrast, but is a notch behind Hasselblad on detail reproduction. In addition, the shadow details grow completely on the Nikon scan. The Epson V750 is definitely usable.

Any practical ideas are appreciated; a local store wanted $50 per scan of each image! Times 80 = $4,000


In your experience, outside of in-person visits, how do photographers present copies of their non-digital prints to publishers for consideration?223581


Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

[Willie]

If you are sending digital files of the prints it is basic Copy work. Set up and use a good quality digital camera for the job.

[bob carnie]

I am 72 years old and finally completed a photography project; editing my entire black and white life to one hundred potential images from 6 x 9 and 35mm negatives.

From those I selected and printed 81; kept 79, printing three of each.

There is a specialty store in Trondheim, Norway that I found quite by chance and what they undertook was extraordinary.

They took almost every black and white film and then processed them with almost every black and white developer.

Ironically, from all of the results, I preferred the combination I always used; Tri-X and D-76 1:1 despite the hype around newer developers.

These results were simply not available 40 years ago; artist photographers had to ask friends what they were using and look at the results.

Of course it was difficult to decide since there were so many variables.

Here, it was same image; same camera; the test was run with 135 film, scanned with a Hasselblad scanner with 3F scan in 6300 ppi.

Differences were easily discernable.

I was so impressed with the results I called around Madison to find a store that is using this scanner and came up empty.

From Hasselblad’s description this scanner seems quite different from anything else out there; here are the details:

https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/how...olutionary-pro-scanning-system-by-hasselblad/

I made calls to local stores and the ppi of their scanners is a fraction of 6300.

My intention is to put the 79 images on a memory stick and send to publishers for possible interest in a book.

There is one publisher in Hamburg that I would love to work with; needless to say I do not want to ship original prints overseas for review.

That is why I am seeking the Hasselblad 3F system, as it will bring me as close as possible to the original print.

Does anyone use this system?

Update:

I spoke with Hasselblad yesterday and they informed me that 3F scanning system was discontinued 3 years ago.

They had another scanner called the Flex-tight X-5 and they stopped selling it too. Why?

“We ran out of parts; to create new parts too costly.”

The retail price for the first scanner was $22,000

You would think even if they manufactured new parts they would recover the costs.

Other than sending hard copy original prints to publishers, is there any other way, other than taking pictures of the prints with a cell phone or scanning the prints?

This scanner costs $4,000 https://shop.fotoimport.no/digital-avdeling/scannere/epson-expression-12000-xl-pro

SCANNER TEST

We have tested the Epson V750 scanner against the Hasselblad 646 and Nikon 8000ED on scanning black and white film. The image shows reasonably well the differences in what comes out of the scanner.

Hasselblad 646 is the sharpest, while Nikon 8000 ED appears sharper due to high contrast, but is a notch behind Hasselblad on detail reproduction. In addition, the shadow details grow completely on the Nikon scan. The Epson V750 is definitely usable.

Any practical ideas are appreciated; a local store wanted $50 per scan of each image! Times 80 = $4,000


In your experience, outside of in-person visits, how do photographers present copies of their non-digital prints to publishers for consideration?223581


Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

I own a gallery and print shop, I have Imocan Flextight and Creo Eversmart .. my 2 cents are that the publisher at first look will not care which scanner you use. If they want to work with you then you can go to the Flextight
These scanners are rentable by the hour in most cities. Otherwise you find a local service with a high end scanner and get a bulk rate for high end scans. I would imagine you can get them done for $20 CAD if they do bulk. Or the
publisher probably has sources to high rez , or if they are work with you may indeed want to scan from your original prints ( this is coming back ) . Good luck, fyi I own a Epson 850 and I would use this scanner for your purpose or
as someone above posted copy stand the work in good light.

[Neal Chaves]

Indie Film Lab in Montgomery Alabama has one of those Hasselblad scanners and can make you a beautiful hi-res scan, ready for printing at a very reasonable price. They can also scan your 6X9s on a Nortitsu and make a file big enough for11X14. These scans are very inexpensive. Indie Film Lab has several youTube videos up about their operation and capabilities.
https://www.indiefilmlab.com/services
Now that I look at their services, I see they no longer list FlexTight scans. They did some beautiful 6X9 and 4X5 Flextight scans for me just a few years ago. You will have to ask them. They never answer the phone and communicate only by email.

[Peter De Smidt]

You're sending copies of prints, right? Since you have the prints, there's no need to scan negatives. Scan the prints. 600spi is plenty for scanning a print, and you can do it with any quality flatbed. You could also do this with a dslr copy stand.

Brooks Jensen used to make super high quality copies (with permission) of prints. He'd scan an original print at 600 spi, and then he'd make an imagesetter negative and contact print that onto regular BW FB paper. He'd process and tone it .... I have a few of these. They are exquisite. I doubt I could tell them by eye from originals if the test was done well.

Brooks found that scanning prints above 600spi didn't lead to any advantages for the project, which was to make a same-sized copy.

[Jim Becia]

Not sure I totally understand the issue here, but, if you are looking for a company that uses the Hasselblad X5, AgX Imaging in Sault Ste Marie, MI still scans using this scanner. I had about 20 pieces of 4x5 film scanned and his results were excellent.

[Pieter]

What you seem to be asking is at cross-purposes. The scanners you mention are for scanning negatives, yet you state that you have prints. I will assume you did some darkroom work on these prints and that they are printed to your satisfaction. If you were to go back and scan the negatives, you would have to reproduce that darkroom work on the digital files. You are much better off either scanning your prints on a flat-bed scanner or if they are large prints, copying them on a copy stand with a digital camera. As a side note, publishers get a lot of submissions and yours might not get looked at for a while. Some publishers in fact do not accept unsolicited submissions.

[Bernard_L]

Seconding the two points made by Pieter.
1 - Scanning a print does not require extraordinary performance from the scanner. The critical resolution step was performed by the enlarger lens. And the dynamic range of a print is less than a slide. So any decent flatbed scanner should be adequate.
2 - You expect a publisher to select your work among many other submissions, then invest his/her money in a printing run, advertising, distributing... They would, I guess, expect to see a résumé with the shows you've made (none, I guess, as you say you just completed printing your pictures).

I've seen remarkable (in my eyes) books produced by amateur (or pro??) photographers. They were their own publisher: paid a printer to print a run of (20?? 150??) copies of their book, then advertised their work through their own website or photo forums as this one, and mailed individual copies to buyers. One example is the Estonian photographer who goes by the pseudo tsiklonaut on rangefinderforum. See:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/160852
also:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/171112/page6
and following pages
I bought two copies of "From Estonia with love", direct from Margus.

[Ethan]

Seconding the two points made by Pieter.
1 - Scanning a print does not require extraordinary performance from the scanner. The critical resolution step was performed by the enlarger lens. And the dynamic range of a print is less than a slide. So any decent flatbed scanner should be adequate.
2 - You expect a publisher to select your work among many other submissions, then invest his/her money in a printing run, advertising, distributing... They would, I guess, expect to see a résumé with the shows you've made (none, I guess, as you say you just completed printing your pictures).

I've seen remarkable (in my eyes) books produced by amateur (or pro??) photographers. They were their own publisher: paid a printer to print a run of (20?? 150??) copies of their book, then advertised their work through their own website or photo forums as this one, and mailed individual copies to buyers. One example is the Estonian photographer who goes by the pseudo tsiklonaut on rangefinderforum. See:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/160852
also:
https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/171112/page6
and following pages
I bought two copies of "From Estonia with love", direct from Margus.

Expanding on the second point about self publishing.

Self publishing is very difficult and can be very expensive, but is sadly the only way to publish photo books these days. I'm currently working towards a degree in photography, and last year I took a class on photography business with Henry Horenstein, who has had numerous books published. The disappointing reality I learned from him is that unless you're already a big name whose books are a sure sell out, no one will publish your work for you. The reason for this is that photo books just don't make any money these days. With the advent of the internet, the printing industry saw a huge decline in sales, and as a result publishing houses will no longer take chances on publishing an art book (which is much more expensive than publishing text) unless it is a sure fire sell out. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't publish your work, though you'll have to pay the up front costs yourself and do most of the work yourself, publishing a book will still help a lot with getting noticed, getting into exhibitions, and maybe getting gallery representation.

Good luck with this project!

[Richard Wasserman]

LensScratch recently did a series on independent photobook publishers.

https://lenscratch.com/2022/01/publishers-spotlight

Go to the bottom of each entry and click on "Next" There were a bunch of them, one s day for several days, with many different business models.

[Pieter]

LensScratch recently did a series on independent photobook publishers.

https://lenscratch.com/2022/01/publishers-spotlight

Go to the bottom of each entry and click on "Next" There were a bunch of them, one s day for several days, with many different business models.
Just perusing the page that you linked, you come the the statement "we publish books for hire." Meaning they get paid by the photographer/author/artist to publish the book. I don't even know if they distribute the books, although that might be part of the services they get paid for. The bottom line is, there are very few photo book publishers who will take your photos and design, lay out, print and distribute a book unless you are a known photographer whose book they have a good idea will sell. Otherwise, you will end up paying to publish, either by the self-publishing route or what used to be known as the "vanity press," which seems to be what the publishers profiled on Lenscratch are.

My experience with getting a book published is agents and publishers pretty much want everything handed to them if they are going to publish and distribute your book. That means knowing who the audience and market is, having a list of bookstores you know will carry the book, and your own network of potential individual buyers.

Self-publishing is the toughest. You need to pay for the printing (remember to include the cost for revisions, and design if you are not so inclined) and hope you have chosen a printer who can deliver the quality you expect. You will also need to market and sell the book yourself (most bookstores are not interested in self-published books).

[esearing]

One photographer I know sends out a postcard with one or two images with an invite to view the portfolio on his website. He has been doing it for over 20+ years and has sold many images to calendar and stock houses but you could do similar with a dedicated website containing digitized copies of your images and a write up about your goals to publish. Postcards in the US cost about $1.25-$2.00 each to print in bulk through companies like Minted or if you want a smaller number, ilford makes postcard sized paper that you could print directly in the darkroom showcasing not only your image but your skill as a printer. The effort would then be expended in creating a compelling website and copy text that would draw the publisher into at least having a conversation. The site could also be used to sell images should the book not work out. Web images do not have to be high resolution scans.

[r.e.]

unless you're already a big name whose books are a sure sell out, no one will publish your work for you.

True, and it isn't just photography books. For most non-fiction, responsibility for marketing has transferred from the publisher to the author. Both agents and publishers expect the author to have built up a significant following on social media which can be counted on to purchase and promote the book.

[Bernard_L]

We have not heard from the OP since he initiated this thread 5 days ago.
@christopherf how about showing your photos to this audience; not quite as gratifying as publishing a book, but a start nevertheless.