Scan or Photograph?

[Toyon]

I have a lot of b&w gelatin prints and want to duplicate them for a website. Minimizing the cost, what sort of a flatbed scanner would yield accurate jpegs of glossy fiber prints. What can I expect to pay? What are some good scanners with decent dmax? Lastly, am I better off biting the bullet and buying a digital SLR to photograph my prints or in buying a scanner?:confused:

[JBrunner]

I have a lot of b&w gelatin prints and want to duplicate them for a website. Minimizing the cost, what sort of a flatbed scanner would yield accurate jpegs of glossy fiber prints. What can I expect to pay? What are some good scanners with decent dmax? Lastly, am I better off biting the bullet and buying a digital SLR to photograph my prints or in buying a scanner?:confused:

Qualitively, you can easily get a better bang for your buck with the scanner, unless you want or need a DSLR for some reason. I have an Epson 4990 that I have been happy with (its actually very good, considering it is a flatbed scanner) and it has the added bonus of being able to do negs and trannys up to 8x10. I paid about four hundred and something for it. The current model is called the V700 (IIRC). Lesser scanners that will still do a fine job for scanning for the web can be had for half that.
Scanning is easier to get good results with, compared to copy camera work, in general.

I think the lowest end DSLR's start at about $700 and go up from there, but I admit I don't have a short enough attention span, nor the geek spasming needed to stay current on DSLR's

[Walter Calahan]

Use a scanner. Pay as much as you want. There are many different price-points to choose from.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, I agree with the scanner approach. Assuming your prints are 8x10 or smaller, there are many scanners available, either new or used, at attractive price points. Larger prints are more problematic, of course, and both limit the scanner selection and boost the prices. For 8x10 or smaller prints, print-only scanners (Epson, HP, etc.) are pretty inexpensive. If you might want to scan negs, as well, the current Epson and Microtek scanners are worth looking at. If you buy used, make sure that the appropriate software CD(s) is/are included.

[Tony Karnezis]

I've never done this, but I don't see the advantage of making a digital image of a print through scanning vs. photography. Maybe I'm missing something, but why not just use a very good (and relatively inexpensive) point and shoot digital camera or borrow someone's DSLR (if it's an option)? Because you're going to markedly downsize the image you obtain from either a scanner or camera, I would think neither would be better. I seem to be wrong, though. Is a scan better because the hardware itself makes a it better than a good reproduction from a camera, or is it the larger file you can start out with that translates into a better image when downsized, or is a glossy print easier to image with a scanner vs. with a camera? So, whatever people are recommending, could you please explain why?

[neil poulsen]

You can get decent results scanning the original prints, especially if you want to put them on the internet. I would think most reasonable scanners would do the job. You'll probably want to Photoshop the scanned image anyway, to optimize the image's appearence for your webpage. I scanned a vintage print on my 4870 and was able to get an excellent result printing the image onto inkjet paper.

If this is the only need you'll have for a scanner, then price versus performance would be a good guide for which scanner to select. (Compare the specifications.) If you want to scan film to print, I'd say go for the gold. Get an Epson V700, the V750, or a reconditioned 4990 that will do a good job. This is especially true for smaller negatives, versus 4x5. There are a lot of threads on this site that compare or describe different scanners.

[walter23]

If you just want to display them on the web, I think DSLR copy-work is okay. Put the negative on a light table (or improvise your own, I did with a plate of glass suspended over an LCD monitor displaying a blank white page) and photograph it. It's hard to keep the negative flat (I guess you could use tape) and dust is an issue (as I guess it is in scanning), but the results are adequate for web use in my opinion, as long as you do it in the dark to reduce ambient light reflections.

I'm getting a scanner soon; I hope it's going to provide better quality so I can make nice prints. I don't just digitize for web display - I want to do it so I can actually print. I don't have anywhere near the space for a proper darkroom, and I'm pretty comfortable with digital workflow.

If scanning is NOT going to give me better results than DSLR copywork I'd like to know so I can avoid the expense of the 4990 or V750 (whatever I decide on).


You can get decent results scanning the original prints, especially if you want to put them on the internet. I would think most reasonable scanners would do the job. You'll probably want to Photoshop the scanned image anyway, to optimize the image's appearence for your webpage. I scanned a vintage print on my 4870 and was able to get an excellent result printing the image onto inkjet paper.

If this is the only need you'll have for a scanner, then price versus performance would be a good guide for which scanner to select. (Compare the specifications.) If you want to scan film to print, I'd say go for the gold. Get an Epson V700, the V750, or a reconditioned 4990 that will do a good job. This is especially true for smaller negatives, versus 4x5. There are a lot of threads on this site that compare or describe different scanners.

[Capocheny]

Minimizing the cost, what sort of a flatbed scanner would yield accurate jpegs of glossy fiber prints. What can I expect to pay?:confused:

Even a refurbished Epson 3200 will do a good job for you...

Cheers

[Ted Harris]

Toyon,

Scans of your old prints should both be better and will allow you a lot more felxability in terms of touching them up. If ALL you are going to do is can prints you don't need an 4990 or V750. The older 4870 or possibly even a 4490 at under $200 will serve you very well. If you are looking for "accurate" without any adjustment after the scan then you may be disappointed. To me the whole point of scanning them is that you can touch up any of the dust spots, imperfections, etc in the print. You will easily get "accurate" but you may have to do some minor adjustment.

If you look at the issue of View Camera magazine with a nude by Peter Gowland on the cover you will see a number of Peter's images fromt he 1940's and 1950's in the magazine that I scanned from 8x10's. Some of the prints had been well handled and needed a good bit of touch up after scanning but you would never know it from the published images.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . If scanning is NOT going to give me better results than DSLR copywork I'd like to know so I can avoid the expense of the 4990 or V750 (whatever I decide on).

With a scanner, you can adjust the resolution (pixel dimensions) to optimize the file for the size of the print you want to make. With a DSLR, the file size is set by the camera hardware and firmware, and may well fall short of the number pf pixels needed to reach the input needs for the print.

[Dave Brown]

While I don't have any specific scanner recomendations, I have been through this process. After dismal results using two different scanners, I mounted a DSLR on a copy stand and started shooting. I quickly found that it was almost impossible to get the lighting right. I lost detail in the shadows, I lost detail in the highlights, and blacks weren't black. No matter what I did, I couldn't get results as good as others were getting with their scanners. The bottom line: a good scanner is better than a DSLR and a copy stand. Personally, I'll be buying a new scanner, but first I need to get a new engine for the race car (ouch!).