Getting your images into the gallery....

[Blighty]

I wasn't sure where to post this but here goes....Up 'til now, I have scanned my prints on a flatbed and then uploaded them to the gallery. But my current flatbed scanner is, to put it midly, a piece of old shite. Scanning large prints means having to stitch together 2 or 3 images in photoshop and I'm getting a little fed-up of having to do this all the time. I've thought of rephotographing my prints on a digital camera and uploading this way but, all the same, I'm curious as to how all my fellow Apuggers do this. Regards, B.

 

[Dan Henderson]

My work flow involves making an 8x10 print of anything worth showing others. These prints may become part of a portfolio if they survive the winnowing process. I can scan 8x10's in one pass on my old Epson scanner for posting here. If I really like a print after living with the 8x10 for awhile I may reprint it larger for framing.

Scanning and stitching large prints would be a pain to me and likely discourage me from posting many prints (which other apuggers might consider a blessing!) I have not purchased a scanner for awhile, but it seems that a decent quality flatbed could be had for a reasonable price.

 

[jbridges]

My workflow is almost the same. Most scanner beds are only 10 inches wide so I was always clipping the sides of my scans. Decided to start printing everything I wanted first on 8x10 paper, living with the prints for awhile then going back and printing the ones I still liked bigger or only when they were purchased.
I find that I waste less paper and get great scans without a lot of work.
By the way I bought a Epson V700 scanner this summer and love it.

 

[SuzanneR]

You are not the only one who might have prints that are too big for the scanner, in which case, a neg scan made to look as close to your print as possible is fine to upload... provided, of course, that you scanner can scan film.

 

[hpulley]

I use a digital camera to take a picture of my prints. My flatbed scanner fits up to 8x10 but it does such a terrible job that I don't use it. I'm sometimes tempted to make 5x7 since they fit in my better neg/print scanner but making a print JUST to post it to the apug gallery seems silly so I always make prints in the size I really want and then if I feel like it, I scan it and upload it to the gallery as best I can because to me the print is the final product, not a silly scan.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll scan in two parts and blend in Photoshop for my 5x12's, which I can't print any other size (they're contact prints from 5x12 inch negatives). For anything bigger than that, (the 14 x 17), I photograph with the digicam.

 

[MattKing]

I've recently experimented a bit with Microsoft Image Composite Editor (aka Microsoft ICE) for stitching images. It does a decent job at stitching together scans of both halves of an 11x14 print, and is available as a free download from Microsoft.

My most recent upload in the APUG gallery ("Looped") was done this way, and it was a relatively painless process.

 

[Blighty]

I've recently experimented a bit with Microsoft Image Composite Editor (aka Microsoft ICE) for stitching images. It does a decent job at stitching together scans of both halves of an 11x14 print, and is available as a free download from Microsoft.

Yes, the Microsoft ICE thingy is quite good and I've been using it to stitch images for showing on the gallery. The main problem I have is that the scanning glass is recessed by a couple of mil. and that means that parts of the image closest to the edge are rendered out of focus. This means I have to scan enough areas of the print to get everything sharp. I'm thinking the digi camera route might work best 'coz I can use my enlarger as a copying stand. Anyway, thanks for all your replies. Regards, B.