Best materials for scanning for a Blurb book.

[tomalophicon]

I'm starting to think about the best way to get my prints to Blurb for a book.

Does anyone have experience with what kind of paper is good to use?

I want to use fibre, but does it make a difference whether it's glossy or matte?
Or is RC better?

I'm using a V500. Will this be suitable.

And I can only scan up to 8x10 inch. Should Is scan the biggest sheet I can, or scan 5x7 inch to save enlarging. I'm thinking of a smallish book.

Thanks, I will be experimenting on my own, but have usually just used the scanner to share pics online.

 

[2F/2F]

I think you should ask at www.dpug.org. It's definitely on topic there. It is only arguably on topic here.

 

[tkamiya]

I find RC glossy scans better than anything else I've tried.

Matte surface will scan "fuzzy" because of light scattering on the surface. Size wise, I always scan film OR 8x10 thinking better details are available this way.


Can we please stop arguing/discussing suitability of scanning post on APUG? Mod has said over and over, for purpose of posting it on APUG gallery is suitable. On the same token, I'd imagine scanning for the purpose of APUG BOOK is also suitable. If anyone thinks it's not, please just report it rather than discussing it in the thread. (oh, oh.... I discussed it here too....)

 

[tomalophicon]

Here ya go fellers.
http://www.dpug.org/forums/f6/scanning-blurb-book-2621/

 

[tomalophicon]

I find RC glossy scans better than anything else I've tried.

Matte surface will scan "fuzzy" because of light scattering on the surface. Size wise, I always scan film OR 8x10 thinking better details are available this way.


Can we please stop arguing/discussing suitability of scanning post on APUG? Mod has said over and over, for purpose of posting it on APUG gallery is suitable. On the same token, I'd imagine scanning for the purpose of APUG BOOK is also suitable. If anyone thinks it's not, please just report it rather than discussing it in the thread. (oh, oh.... I discussed it here too....)

HAve you tried fibre-based glossy paper?

 

[2F/2F]

I'd imagine scanning for the purpose of APUG BOOK is also suitable.

You also did not mention that in the OP. You said to Blurb for a book.

 

[removed account4]

I'm starting to think about the best way to get my prints to Blurb for a book.

Does anyone have experience with what kind of paper is good to use?

I want to use fibre, but does it make a difference whether it's glossy or matte?
Or is RC better?

I'm using a V500. Will this be suitable.

And I can only scan up to 8x10 inch. Should Is scan the biggest sheet I can, or scan 5x7 inch to save enlarging. I'm thinking of a smallish book.

Thanks, I will be experimenting on my own, but have usually just used the scanner to share pics online.

when i was doing newspaper work they always asked for rc glossies for reproduction
but i these days it doesn't matters that much. glossy rc is really reflective,
but just the same i haven't noticed a difference in what i make in to 0's and 1's

as for blurp
just scan deep fix to make it look like your print. and then rz down to whatever it is their program asks for.

make sure you save it the way they ask otherwise it will not look right ...

have fun !
john

 

[SuzanneR]

I've used neg scans, try to match the print as closely as possible, and have made several Blurb books tha I find somewhat inconsistent from book to book in the quality of reproduction. That said, I'm sure you could generate some good scans from RC prints.

And yes, this is a somewhat borderline topic for APUG, so just report posts if you aren't sure. Thanks.

 

[tomalophicon]

when i was doing newspaper work they always asked for rc glossies for reproduction
but i these days it doesn't matters that much. glossy rc is really reflective,
but just the same i haven't noticed a difference in what i make in to 0's and 1's

as for blurp
just scan deep fix to make it look like your print. and then rz down to whatever it is their program asks for.

make sure you save it the way they ask otherwise it will not look right ...

have fun !
john

John, thanks for replying.
What does 'deep fix' and 'rz' mean?
Cheers.

 

[tomalophicon]

You also did not mention that in the OP. You said to Blurb for a book.

Huh, I wrote the OP

 

[tomalophicon]

I've used neg scans, try to match the print as closely as possible, and have made several Blurb books tha I find somewhat inconsistent from book to book in the quality of reproduction. That said, I'm sure you could generate some good scans from RC prints.

And yes, this is a somewhat borderline topic for APUG, so just report posts if you aren't sure. Thanks.

SuzanneR, is there another company that would offer a better product, that you know of?
I'll definitely be scanning from prints.

 

[Michael W]

I've scanned matte and gloss fibre prints with no problems. This was using an Epson V700. Get it reasonably close with the scan software and then final adjustments in Photoshop to match the print colour and tones.

 

[2F/2F]

Huh, I wrote the OP

Yes, I know. What I said was that in that OP, you did not mention that this was for the possible APUG book. You said something like, "for a Blurb book."

I'm starting to think about the best way to get my prints to Blurb for a book.

Does anyone have experience with what kind of paper is good to use?

I want to use fibre, but does it make a difference whether it's glossy or matte?
Or is RC better?

I'm using a V500. Will this be suitable.

And I can only scan up to 8x10 inch. Should Is scan the biggest sheet I can, or scan 5x7 inch to save enlarging. I'm thinking of a smallish book.

Thanks, I will be experimenting on my own, but have usually just used the scanner to share pics online.

 

[SuzanneR]

SuzanneR, is there another company that would offer a better product, that you know of?
I'll definitely be scanning from prints.

I've only used Blurb. Not sure any of the other PODs are any better, butyou can look at Lulu or My Publisher. There's also the higher end Asuka book. They cater to wedding photographers, and I understand they make beautiful books. I'm sure there are a few others, if I think of the names, I'll post them.

 

[tomalophicon]

Yes, I know. What I said was that in that OP, you did not mention that this was for the possible APUG book. You said something like, "for a Blurb book."

Yep, not for APUG. For my own stuff.

 

[tomalophicon]

Thanks SuzanneR, I'll have a look around.

Still, it sounds like RC glossy but be what I should try at first.

 

[tomalophicon]

I've scanned matte and gloss fibre prints with no problems. This was using an Epson V700. Get it reasonably close with the scan software and then final adjustments in Photoshop to match the print colour and tones.

Thanks Michael. Did either of the surfaces look better than the other?

 

[2F/2F]

Yep, not for APUG. For my own stuff.

Which is why this argument confounded me:

CMod has said over and over, for purpose of posting it on APUG gallery is suitable. On the same token, I'd imagine scanning for the purpose of APUG BOOK is also suitable.

I said my piece in the very first post. It was not a "get lost" statement. It means nothing more than exactly what it says.

My posts since have simply been to explain why I made that initial post, not to harass you on the issue. I made it because you are talking about non-APUG use of the scanned images.

But you then argued that it was OK because APUG use was OK for discussion...

Then you said, no, you really meant that this information wasn't for APUG use...

So my initial reading of your OP was correct...thus my response reasonable, IMO.

 

[tomalophicon]

Mate, I think you've got 2 different posters confused.
I don't want to get involved.

 

[erikg]

I do a lot of stuff for repro. An excellent neg scan is often best, but you have to have a decent scanner and then replicate your burns and dodges, takes a bunch of work. Scans from prints work well too, and you don't have to recreate your darkroom efforts. Glossy surface is best, makes no difference if RC or fiber, but RC will lay flatter and that is an advantage for the scanner.

I think what John is saying is scan deep, (high pixel depth, RGB 16 bit or the best the scanner can do) then match it to look like your print. "rz" or res, or alter the final resolution to match the specs. Scan at a higher resolution at or above the final output size. It's best to work close to 100%, if the print is a bit bigger than your final output that's good, if much smaller, not so good.

 

[2F/2F]

Mate, I think you've got 2 different posters confused.
I don't want to get involved.

You're right; I do. I am sorry. It was tkmamiya who made the post about the fact that scanning discussion for APUG gallery-related issues is ok.

So, redirect my comments on that line of reasoning to the other guy. Again, I'm sorry for my mistake.

 

[tomalophicon]

Eric, thanks for that. I would like to scan the prints, as I suck at photoshop and I'd like to keep this project as traditional as possible.
Thanks for all the advice.
Flatness is important. do you think it's possible for RC to look like fibre (e.g. I prefer the look of FB to RC, but I suppose you could manipulate the latter digitally)?

4F, don't sweat it I had no idea what he meant when he said the APUG book...

 

[K-G]

SuzanneR, is there another company that would offer a better product, that you know of?
I'll definitely be scanning from prints.

In their issue 127 ( August 2011 ) the British magazine Black+White Photography had a test of six different photo book publishers. They were :

Blurb
Albelli
Bob books
Pixum
Photobox
Yophoto

Of these six, Pixum was named Best in test but the overall ratings were rather good also for the other five. If you can get a copy of the magazine I think it can help you. I'm enclosing a link to them.

Karl-Gustaf

http://www.thegmcgroup.com/pc/viewCategories.asp?idCategory=698

 

[ozphoto]

I've put together a few Blurb books and scanned both fibre and RC matt and RC Glossy for inclusion.

I found the slight "stipple" on the paper's surface, gave me (at least) a less than perfect result. A little soft, and for colour images refraction that looked woeful, so decided to print up all images to be included on RC glossy.

Cleaner scans resulted in better images - I can never seem to get negs looking right when scanning, so really prefer to print RC, scan and drop into the software.

Published books:

http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/1609721
http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/1609666
http://www.blurb.com/my/book/detail/828859

All RC and scanned on Agfa Duoscan 1200.

And Suzanne's comments regarding consistency are spot on too - have had some beautiful books from Blurb and some that look as if they had been printed on an Epson scanner with dirty, misaligned heads!! :O

 

[bdial]

The fiber paper "look" is an artifact of the paper the image is on. In your case that will be the paper in the book. Unless you're using a textured paper for the prints (don't!) fiber or RC will scan fine, but RC glossy, for the reasons stated, will probably give you better results. KIS (Keep it Simple).