Can any scanner accomodate mounted 11X14 prints?

[dshenk]

On behalf of my father, the photographer Richard L. Shenk (http://richardlshenk.com), I'm looking for a good scanner that can allow him to scan from 8X10 and 11X14 prints already mounted on much larger board. In other words, we need a scanner with an 11X14 surface area but whose lid can completely lift up and allow a much larger board. Any advice?

Thanks,

David Shenk
davidshenk.com

[dwhistance]

There are no doubt a few very large commercial scanners that could do this, however I suggest you look for a studio using a Betterlight or similar scanning back on a large format camera (or a Cruze if there is one near you). Done properly, with one of the larger Betterlight backs, you will get a result as good or better than you could get from a large flatbed scanner.

The alternative would be to unmount the prints and scan them with a Creo or Eversmart scanner.

David Whistance

[neil poulsen]

What is your purpose in scanning these prints? Is this for Internet use or for making prints?

[Kirk Gittings]

What is your purpose in scanning these prints? Is this for Internet use or for making prints?


Yes, the key question, if it is for internet, one could use an Epson scan in sections and stitch the image together in PS.

[Jon Shiu]

Yes, check out the larger Epson scanners. My old 12x17 Epson 836xl has the glass bed flush with the surrounding plastic, so mounted prints can scan fine.

On the smaller scanners, the plastic around the glass is several mm's higher than the glass, but this would would still give good enough resolution for web images, ie scan in two parts and stitch them together.

Jon

[John Whitley]

David, have you considered using a copy camera instead of a scanner? It's not clear whether this would be appropriate for your needs, but a lab or studio in your area may have a copy stand that will handle your father's prints even if they don't have a suitable scanner. If you're of the DIY mindset, you could look into hunting up a stand (or a copy camera adapter for an enlarger) via Craigslist, ebay, etc.

[Mark Sawyer]

The lid lifts right off my Epson 1640xl. A very nice scanner, and sells fairly inexpensively now that they're "obsolete". (I got mine for about $300.)

[dshenk]

Thanks for the input. To answer Neil's question, the purpose is to get excellent scans for a high-quality website. I'd like to avoid stitching if I can. It sounds like the Epson 1640xl is a good candidate -- though we'd be willing to spend more for a better scanner if you folks advise that its worth it. Or are we just wasting money for better quality if high-quality Internet stuff is all I'm after?. For very high-quality Internet scans, what standard should I be looking for?

Thanks,

David

[Richard M. Coda]

A good digital camera on a copy stand, or even hand held (you can fix/de-skew later in Photoshop) is more than enough for web images.

[Mark Sawyer]

I think the 1640xl will give you more scan quality than the internet can handle. Certainly in resolution, and in tonalities as well. I've been impressed by mine, and the only problem is the heartache of reducing the image sizes for posting...

[Peter De Smidt]

Probably the easiest way to do this has already been mentioned. Use a digital slr to copy the images. It wouldn't have to be an expensive one. A 50mm f1.8 lens would work really well. It wouldn't have to be autofocus. (If not, make sure that your camera works with manual focus lenses. My D200 does.) Web images are something between 72 -100 ppi. That's really low res! If you were making copy prints, like Lenswork did awhile ago, then scanning the print at 600 spi would make sense, but for web images that's way overkill.