How do you scan your FB paper to show your prints in Apug gallery ?

[Rom]

Dear all,

Trust you are well.

I am struggling at the moment with my scanner. I would like to scan some of my prints to have advices from APUG members in the gallery.

When i scan my FB print, it just gives me a sheet of rubbish with only black point and whyte point. No grey inside..

Thanks in advance for your advices.

All the best

Rom

 

[ozphoto]

Are you sure you're not scanning this as a line drawing?

 

[Ian Grant]

FB prints don't scan well at all because of the paper surface. I re-photograph using a DSLR or make a Glossy RC print for scanning. The other option is a neg scan I can emulate my darkroom prints this way.

Ian

 

[ooze]

I'm pretty sure there is something wrong with your scanner setting. Try "grayscale" if there is such an option in your SW.

I always scan FB prints with a flatbed scanner without any problems.

 

[Rom]

Thanks

Ozphoto: I am sure that that i am not scanning in line drawings. I scan in 16 bits grey scale.

IanGrant: Is RC paper more easy to scan ? I was thinking like you, i need to shoot it with the dslr, i think it will be the best way. About scanning the negs, i already do it but i wanted to show the print on apug and not the neg scan.

Ooze: i have tried the scan "greyscale" and it's already much better. On my jpeg viewer (picasa) the greyscale are correct, when i have upload it on apug, the whites turn grey. Do you know why.

Just to compare, please find below:
- the link of (there was a url link here which no longer exists): it looks so grey, isn't it ?
- the link of Dead Link Removed: it is hybrid dev, so the results is different. It was my base befor to print it on FB
- the jpeg file: it's a test to see if the upload is different in a message here than in the apug gallery.

It seems that analog & digital don't want to leave together. They are too much different.

Thanks a lot everybody

All the best

Rom

 

[paul ron]

I hate scanned B&W prints as they are full of noise n never look as pretty as the original. Scan em as color instead of B&W and the results will be somewhat better.

.

 

[Ricus.stormfire]

Scan em as color instead of B&W and the results will be somewhat better.

.

I can also recommend scanning prints as colour. You wouldn't believe what difference there is between a "grayscale" vs "colour" scan of B&W prints, greyscale scans lose alot (if not all) the small colour/image tone nuances of a print.

 

[ROL]

My scanner (Epson 4490) is, as most are, restricted to sizes smaller than my editioned fiber fine art prints, so I have for some time included 8X10's in my workflow to scan or publish. Yes, fiber takes a lot of cleanup in photoshop once scanned, but it is the only way to faithfully present digitally what may only be truly appreciated in the "flesh", as it were. I rarely need to make any tonal corrections whatsoever, only employing unsharp mask and spotting out white artifacts (indeed a royal pain). The scans only need to be good enough to truthfully represent the actual print at standard screen resolutions of 72 DPI and no larger than, say, 800 pixels in the longest dimension (larger and more finely scanned files exacerbate theft issues). I scan in color space and convert to monochrome to rid it of artifact color not representative of the actual fine print.

While not part of the APUG Galleries, all fine print representations on my site have been done in exactly this manner. My scans do have a different look from most other monochrome work I see on the web – but they are, to the best of my limited abilities, authentically portrayed. However, based on the responses in this thread, it would seem that this intention and result may be at odds with the sensibilities of others.

 

[removed account4]

sk-n your images as color

don't use the auto adjust function (the image will look greyish in your preview )

sk-n your print at least @ 300dpi

when your sk-n machine is done, open your image

go into your editing software, with your print in front of you, and adjust the brightness + contrast until it looks about the same ..

then go into the "hue /separation " thingy and desaturate your file until it looks about the same as your print.

save your file ...

then go into your image size box and make it 72d

"save for web" so the file will be small

good luck !

 

[ROL]

The scans only need to be good enough to truthfully represent the actual print at standard screen resolutions of 72 DPI and no larger than, say, 800 pixels in the longest dimension (larger and more finely scanned files exacerbate theft issues).

To clarify, I scan at least 300 DPI and save (jpgs. for web use) at 72 DPI.

 

[Rom]

My scanner (Epson 4490) is, as most are, restricted to sizes smaller than my editioned fiber fine art prints, so I have for some time included 8X10's in my workflow to scan or publish. Yes, fiber takes a lot of cleanup in photoshop once scanned, but it is the only way to faithfully present digitally what may only be truly appreciated in the "flesh", as it were. I rarely need to make any tonal corrections whatsoever, only employing unsharp mask and spotting out white artifacts (indeed a royal pain). The scans only need to be good enough to truthfully represent the actual print at standard screen resolutions of 72 DPI and no larger than, say, 800 pixels in the longest dimension (larger and more finely scanned files exacerbate theft issues). I scan in color space and convert to monochrome to rid it of artifact color not representative of the actual fine print.

While not part of the APUG Galleries, all fine print representations on my site have been done in exactly this manner. My scans do have a different look from most other monochrome work I see on the web – but they are, to the best of my limited abilities, authentically portrayed. However, based on the responses in this thread, it would seem that this intention and result may be at odds with the sensibilities of others.

Dear Rol,

Many thanks for your comment. It helps me a lot.

You have a great site web full of very interesting things. It is the second time that i discover your site, first time with the mounting video.

I am also scanning with a 4490. I will try your preset and see. I will have also to look why the function b&w on the scanner is so bad. With my negs, after struggling i have finalised with a color scan and then the channel mixer. I don't know if the results are good but they are enough for me.

What i don't understand is why the function b&w exist if it's so bad, or, when do we have to use the b&w function ?

For Apug, do you resize in 800 pixels ? More or less, which one is the best?

Thanks jnanian for the dpi.

I scanned this one in 1200 dpi... it gives me a tiff of 110mo that's why i said it was rubbish... I have nothing and it takes an enormous place.

Thanks for all your help. I will try to work again on it.

All the best

Rom

 

[Jerevan]

I also scan in colour, but I prefer photographing them with a digital camera (in RAW format). Reduces the grain a bit and gets me closer to what the print looks like in real life, at least to my eyes. And I don't have to set up the scanner.

 

[vpwphoto]

FB prints don't scan well at all because of the paper surface. I re-photograph using a DSLR or make a Glossy RC print for scanning. The other option is a neg scan I can emulate my darkroom prints this way.

Ian

Re-photography with Hassy and Leaf Back is crazy good nice. (or a DSLR)...
Didn't read all the replies but did you turn off auto-levels/controls?

 

[Rom]

Jerevan,

I will try the dsrl. Just have to find the good light to shoot the print.

Thanks again

++

 

[Rom]

Vpwphoto, yes I turn off all the automatic function. Anyway I need now to make new tests. Will come back perhaps this week end with a new proof.

Let's see.

Thanks

Rom