How to send copies of prints to publisher (non digital b&w)?

[Christopher Frank]

Because you posted images from film scans - Hassleblad, Coolscan and Epson, and state 6300ppi I thought you needed your film scanned as opposed to print scanned. Can you clarify for me if you need your film or print to be scanned or maybe both?

If it is just to scan 8X10 prints then $50 for each sounds excessive. I have scanned many original prints on various papers and the highest ppi I have used was 1200ppi on super glossy paper and at that point you can see the paper's texture. I have not scanned Ilford Fiber Base Multigrade paper but would guess you will see the paper's texture before 600ppi whichmeans any competent flatbed should be able to achieve all the detail you want.

Please let me know and I would be happy to help as I have the Coolscans for film scanning as well as an 8X10 capable Epson 4990 for print scanning. I've never used Adobe InDesign.

Thank you for your very kind offer to help; alas you are in California; we just left California six years ago after 26 years of living there; unless I could hand carry the prints
to you I simply cannot entertain shipping them; without in any way intending to sound poetic; they really are my children; newly birthed.

 

[Christopher Frank]

interesting keep with your search

Thanks!

 

[Christopher Frank]

This is scanned from a postcard size darkroom print that I made and toned for a APUG Postcard Exchange several years ago. It was made on a Canon 9000f flatbed that I purchased used for less than $100.00 few years ago.e

Round 11 Postcard Exchange - Derelict

• MattKing
• Nov 3, 2007
• 4

A derelict boat on the Fraser river - this is from Postcard exchange 11. Better late than never...

And this was scanned using the same scanner, except in this case the print was 11 x 14”, which meant that I had to scan it in two passes, followed by digital stitching of the results:

Looped

• MattKing
• Nov 23, 2010
• 2

One of the prints I sent in the current Blind Print Exchange. This is a scan from an 11x14. It...

S

These scans are great; I am really encouraged seeing them.

 

[MattKing]

I certainly wish you great success in your endeavour.
I do believe though you missed the import of what grain elevator posted.
That wasn't a comment about the quality of your work. It was a comment about how brutally difficult it is to get noticed in the right way in the publishing world, unless you are already well known.
And with respect to the scans I posted, I would caution you not to get frustrated if and when you start doing your own. There is a definite learning curve when you start scanning.
Your first scans will probably be at least mediocre to look at, and they will require you to become reasonably proficient using digital editing tools in order to make the result fairly representative of what was scanned.
But most importantly, you need to understand that it may be difficult to get scans that have the same strengths as your existing prints, if those prints are what you intend to scan.
I have the advantage that I have in the (rather distant) past made darkroom prints that were intended for newspaper and, in a couple of cases, magazine publication. Some of my experience remains applicable to prints that are intended for digitization for subsequent use - either web display or publication. Prints that look wonderful on the wall may not look as good in scanned form - there are printing choices (such as paper and surface choices, as well as contrast and dynamic range) to be made in the interest of achieving good scans. Those printing choices differ from the printing choices made for prints intended to be viewed.

 

[Christopher Frank]

I certainly wish you great success in your endeavour.
I do believe though you missed the import of what grain elevator posted.
That wasn't a comment about the quality of your work. It was a comment about how brutally difficult it is to get noticed in the right way in the publishing world, unless you are already well known.
And with respect to the scans I posted, I would caution you not to get frustrated if and when you start doing your own. There is a definite learning curve when you start scanning.
Your first scans will probably be at least mediocre to look at, and they will require you to become reasonably proficient using digital editing tools in order to make the result fairly representative of what was scanned.
But most importantly, you need to understand that it may be difficult to get scans that have the same strengths as your existing prints, if those prints are what you intend to scan.
I have the advantage that I have in the (rather distant) past made darkroom prints that were intended for newspaper and, in a couple of cases, magazine publication. Some of my experience remains applicable to prints that are intended for digitization for subsequent use - either web display or publication. Prints that look wonderful on the wall may not look as good in scanned form - there are printing choices (such as paper and surface choices, as well as contrast and dynamic range) to be made in the interest of achieving good scans. Those printing choices differ from the printing choices made for prints intended to be viewed.

While I appreciate your efforts to translate for grain elevator, please know I am a retired English teacher with an emphasis in the area of teaching reading; I have inference skills; I could easily say that I was being too
sensitive and over reacted, but it is not what you say, but how you say which goes to tone; it is one thing to say it is brutally difficult to get noticed in the publishing world, (something I am acutely aware of since I did spend considerable time with established artists), and quite another to communicate:

I'm sorry to rain on your parade and you didn't ask for this, but someone has to say it. I doubt your "entire black and white life" will be interesting to publishers unless you are famous as a photographer or something else. Unless you didn't tell us the full story, you should probably look how you can edit your photos around a more specific theme or two. Or look into self publishing.

However unintended, this absolutely feels like snark; framed ostensibly as an effort to help. So no I did not miss what he was seeming to say on the surface, and something other; FWIW I shared the comment with my wife who is my ruthless editor in the area of tone and she too read it the same way

This on the other hand is appreciated: But most importantly, you need to understand that it may be difficult to get scans that have the same strengths as your existing prints, if those prints are what you intend to scan.

Again it is not my intention to be or sound in any way argumentative when I say we have a fairly large collection of photography books (my wife having worked at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art for 14 years). For example Now Becoming Then by Duane Michals, the images in the book are almost identical to his actual prints hanging on a wall in a gallery; same for the book Clarence John Laughlin: Visionary Photographer; we were able to see the actual prints in exhibition and the reproductions in the book are quite close; Gerhard Steidl, the publisher is passionate about accomplishing this end result; parenthetically it may be because the Duane Michals book was done in photo gravure process accounts for the accuracy? It is the same with books by Mark Feldstein; I have seen his prints and the books give a quite good impression of the actual print.

I am attempting to present, absent sending the actual prints, something that will show, the glow, that the prints emanate. I am hoping the scans will not kill that feeling and result in a flat one dimensional product; hope too that clarifies what I am looking to achieve.

 

[radiant]

However unintended, this absolutely feels like snark; framed ostensibly as an effort to help. So no I did not miss what he was seeming to say on the surface, and something other; FWIW I shared the comment with my wife who is my ruthless editor in the area of tone and she too read it the same way

That was pretty clear to me too. Please remember: that there are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you and their attitude towards your project are positive. Do not sped too much time on the negative messages, this forum can be sometimes a bit like that, unfortunately.

 

[grat]

DId you try these people?

https://www.foto2digital.com/photos/

They're fairly near you, and seem to be set up for bulk scanning. Their default DPI is a little low (600dpi), but that should be sufficient to present to a publisher.

These guys are in Madison:

https://cameracompany.com/photo-lab/scanning-services#pricing

And they don't say what resolution, but charge $3 / 8x10.

 

[Pieter12]

Before you go to the expense and effort of scanning a lifetime's worth of prints, since you seem to have credentials and connections in the art and possibly the publishing world, it might behoove you to send an exploratory letter to the publishers you would like to work with including your resume, references and maybe a small sample print or two. You might then be able to schedule a face-to-face meeting with the publishers or representatives and present the actual prints. All in all, if your work and references are impressive enough, it seems that would be a better use of your time and resources.

 

[Christopher Frank]

That was pretty clear to me too. Please remember: that there are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you and their attitude towards your project are positive. , this forum can be sometimes a bit like that, unfortunately.

I am not too proud to tell you how much what you wrote meant to me; it was balm to my soul; it was the very last thing I read before going to sleep at 3:40 AM, which, parenthetically, is considered an ideal time (according to Sadhguru) to implement any meditation practices you have been given or adopted; I saw an email on my phone after shutting down the desktop and thought geez what if I open this and it turns out to be
argumentative; nevertheless I took what was for me a chance; considering that time of day the ego energies are low (which i guess is why it is an ideal time to start meditating) and opened your message up; it turned out to be the perfect energy, at the perfect time; my wife is wiser than me by far; in fact she said almost the exact same thing you said, do not put your attention on the one negative comment; look how many people are kind enough to offer help. Thank you again. BTW, I like your, I believe it is called avatar, the image of assorted prints.

 

[Christopher Frank]

Before you go to the expense and effort of scanning a lifetime's worth of prints, since you seem to have credentials and connections in the art and possibly the publishing world, it might behoove you to send an exploratory letter to the publishers you would like to work with including your resume, references and maybe a small sample print or two. You might then be able to schedule a face-to-face meeting with the publishers or representatives and present the actual prints. All in all, if your work and references are impressive enough, it seems that would be a better use of your time and resources.

This "Before you go to the expense and effort of scanning a lifetime's worth of prints" is very good advice indeed; I am in the process of reaching out but it never occured to me not to scan all. You would not believe (and I am not exaggerating here) how many publishers, under submission, on their websites want you to do all the work for them!
Yhey want you to submit the book for them in its' entirety, complete with layout! And this just to be considered!
There are disclaimers, we are under no obligation to return the materials to you. I understand business is business and they want to make a profit but nevertheless eye opening!

 

[Christopher Frank]

DId you try these people?

https://www.foto2digital.com/photos/

They're fairly near you, and seem to be set up for bulk scanning. Their default DPI is a little low (600dpi), but that should be sufficient to present to a publisher.

These guys are in Madison:

https://cameracompany.com/photo-lab/scanning-services#pricing

And they don't say what resolution, but charge $3 / 8x10.

Thank you for the camera company; they just were not on my radar as every time I have contacted them for film or anything darkroom related they did not have the item. Upon reflection they always let me know they were primarily focused on digital; you are in Florida
and found something for me in my own backyard here in Madison; thank you!

 

[Christopher Frank]

That was pretty clear to me too. Please remember: that there are plenty of people on this forum willing to help you and their attitude towards your project are positive. Do not sped too much time on the negative messages, this forum can be sometimes a bit like that, unfortunately.

I thought I would share this story so as to inspire others:

A mentor and friend who was also a photographer and my professor who taught photography at the ICP Museum and Hunter College in NYC and showed at the Zabriskie gallery in New York and the Louvre Museum in Paris was always urging me to print. When he met me on the street he would always ask “how’s the work going?” Though I was and am passionate about making images, I did not prioritize printing. Although I had free access to the darkrooms at ICP and Hunter College (which I did use to print the best I possibly could) and locally in a community darkroom, in my mind I always put off serious printing believing it would happen only when we owned a home, because then I could control every aspect, the chemistry choices, all the variables, enlarging lenses, enlarger etc. This made perfect sense to me; especially to attain consistent results.
When it because clear we would not own a home as we are content with our rental, that is when I realized I could not procrastinate any longer.
I put out a Hail Mary in a local paper offering to pay by the hour if someone had a darkroom in their basement. I received a reply from a professional photographer who offered to donate to me his entire darkroom gear if I were willing to build a darkroom. It really was a miracle. I received a 4x5 Omega enlarger with diffusion head and almost everything necessary to get going.
Imagine one day you have nothing and several weeks later you are standing in the midst of a complete darkroom; complete with long sink and plumbing.
The springs in the enlarger were not up to par so I contacted a store in Canada that specialized in parts; and ordered a set; still, I was not confident in installing them.
In a large format site someone wrote it is rather easy to do, you can do it; I replied half jockingly, if you are so confident I invite you to do it; the next day I received a call asking me when he could come over! He lived 90 minutes away.
In what seemed like no time at all a man was standing in my door with what looked like an old fashioned bag carried by doctors who made house calls, in both hands; after several HOURS he had the springs installed and the enlarger aligned! These two events were like an extended hand from the heavens; that is why I have no problem declaring them miracles.

I hope this inspires all who read this.

 

[brbo]

These helps a great deal; which is which as I prefer this one https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51842622491_de4484b122_b.jpg

Perfect! You prefer the flatbed scanner.

 

[cowanw]

I did self publish a book of portraits. They were of different shapes in a 3D sense and required some ingenuity to get good images in depth and ultimately I photographed the portraits with a 25 megapixel Sony A 900, creating PDF's from the Tiff files. The publishing cost $30,000 for 250 books of which the printing was $12,500 and the rest was editing $6,000 and Art production $5,500 plus other costs. Good editing is a must. I strongly advise an Art/Book director.
By all accounts the book has good reviews.
Going to tiff from the paper, glass, daguerreotype or tintype original and then to PDF and then to print, all created changes that had to be monitored and managed. A book image will never be an original daguerreotype, however. And I suspect a printed image will never be the same as one of your prints.
It does bring to mind though, Karsh's books of the 1950 which were marvels of printing technique that had a textured surface which should never be handled. That is to say, best seen when first opened after which they show finger marks.
What I am trying to say is that at the end of the day the limitations of the final product, the printed page, will limit the ability to recreate the intangible qualities of your prints.
But this may not be the level you are looking at.

 

[Pieter12]

This "Before you go to the expense and effort of scanning a lifetime's worth of prints" is very good advice indeed; I am in the process of reaching out but it never occured to me not to scan all. You would not believe (and I am not exaggerating here) how many publishers, under submission, on their websites want you to do all the work for them!
Yhey want you to submit the book for them in its' entirety, complete with layout! And this just to be considered!
There are disclaimers, we are under no obligation to return the materials to you. I understand business is business and they want to make a profit but nevertheless eye opening!

But wait, there's more! Many publishers and agents want to know who your audience is, i.e. who will buy your book, because they want you to do the lion's share of marketing or all least make the marketing easier for them. Unless they see an immediate and profitable market, they will be reluctant to take on a photo book. Photo books, when well done are expensive to produce and have high price tags, and don't really sell many copies. Unless you are a well-know photographer (and even then, how many people even know photographers by name?) or it is assigned a textbook, most copies will be sold to friends and family. If bookstores are open, a visit by you (and maybe with a small exhibit) will really help sell books. Once again, many publishers will ask you for suggestions for bookstores, and you will most likely be traveling on your own dime. Get really lucky and get a mass-media review (NYT, New Yorker, Art Forum, et al) then you might have a hit on your hands.

Another route to go if you have some connections is to get gallery representation. If it is a good gallery, they should help get the project in front of a publisher. And the gallery is a good place to have book signings.

Good luck!

 

[Christopher Frank]

Perfect! You prefer the flatbed scanner.

Thank you; to my eyes (disclaimer, viewed on a 10 year old desktop monitor) on the other scan, the whites looked a bit blown out; perhaps in person my choice would be the opposite.

 

[Christopher Frank]

I did self publish a book of portraits. They were of different shapes in a 3D sense and required some ingenuity to get good images in depth and ultimately I photographed the portraits with a 25 megapixel Sony A 900, creating PDF's from the Tiff files. The publishing cost $30,000 for 250 books of which the printing was $12,500 and the rest was editing $6,000 and Art production $5,500 plus other costs. Good editing is a must. I strongly advise an Art/Book director.
By all accounts the book has good reviews.
Going to tiff from the paper, glass, daguerreotype or tintype original and then to PDF and then to print, all created changes that had to be monitored and managed. A book image will never be an original daguerreotype, however. And I suspect a printed image will never be the same as one of your prints.
It does bring to mind though, Karsh's books of the 1950 which were marvels of printing technique that had a textured surface which should never be handled. That is to say, best seen when first opened after which they show finger marks.
What I am trying to say is that at the end of the day the limitations of the final product, the printed page, will limit the ability to recreate the intangible qualities of your prints.
But this may not be the level you are looking at.

It is EXACTLY the level; read this article
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/22/gerhard-steidl-is-making-books-an-art-for
and then visit
https://steidl.de/Publisher-0211122830.html

https://scroll.in/magazine/919215/g...n-the-relationship-between-images-and-writing

 

[Christopher Frank]

But wait, there's more! Many publishers and agents want to know who your audience is, i.e. who will buy your book, because they want you to do the lion's share of marketing or all least make the marketing easier for them. Unless they see an immediate and profitable market, they will be reluctant to take on a photo book. Photo books, when well done are expensive to produce and have high price tags, and don't really sell many copies. Unless you are a well-know photographer (and even then, how many people even know photographers by name?) or it is assigned a textbook, most copies will be sold to friends and family. If bookstores are open, a visit by you (and maybe with a small exhibit) will really help sell books. Once again, many publishers will ask you for suggestions for bookstores, and you will most likely be traveling on your own dime. Get really lucky and get a mass-media review (NYT, New Yorker, Art Forum, et al) then you might have a hit on your hands.

Another route to go if you have some connections is to get gallery representation. If it is a good gallery, they should help get the project in front of a publisher. And the gallery is a good place to have book signings.

Good luck!

Yes I was once very sorry to see a photography book remaindered at The Strand book store in NYC because I imagined once you were published by Harry Abrams that was the end alll be all
My artist friend was very stoic about it; he was sincere when he said "it exists." To me it meant it didn't matter if a million people read it or only a few, it was out there.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Here are the suggestions.
First, I will start with something that might come across initially as criticism - it isn't intended that way!
1) When you started your project, it would have been a really good idea to plan for being able to have product that was shareable in digital form. Just as it is a great idea to have the characteristics of your printing paper in your mind when you expose your film.
2) It is a far from trivial task to convert work from film and paper based results to digital results. No matter which approach you take with the conversion, it requires equipment, knowledge and skill. If you are unwilling to pay to have others do the task for you, you will have to acquire that equipment, knowledge and skill.
3) I am assuming that the prints you have reflect the printing manipulations that you employed in order to achieve the results you wanted, and that you wish to share. That means you have three approaches available to you:
a) you can use a print scanner to create digital files from your prints as they are, and then use photo editing software like Photoshop to edit the resulting files into a satisfactory form;
b) you can re-print the prints you have on paper using techniques that optimize the results obtainable from scanning those prints, use a print scanner to create digital files from those prints, and then use photo editing software like Photoshop to edit the resulting files into a satisfactory form; or
c) you can scan the original negatives using a negative scanner, and then use photo editing software like Photoshop to edit the resulting files into files that mimic on the screen the prints that give you the results you wanted.
Options a) and b) require easily available scanners of reasonable cost. You don't need high dpi/ppi scans to scan print originals. The biggest limiting factor may be the size of your prints. If they are larger than 8.5" x 14", you will need either a rare and expensive scanner, or to learn techniques involving digital stitching, in order to split the scans into more than one part, and then combine them into a single file.
To get really high quality results from negative scans, you do need more expensive scanners, and the choices available are fewer.
This part is where I might give the impression that I am criticizing. If I were doing this, when I was preparing my presentation prints, I would also have prepared prints intended for scanning. They would have been on 8"x10" Satin finish RC paper (because it scans well) and, rather than having them mimic exactly the presentation prints, I would have narrowed slightly the tonal range, and printed them with slightly more open shadows and detailed highlights, in order to assist with the scanning process.
If prospective publishers decide to publish your work, they will have some very specific requirements for the digitization process. The files you send them on a memory stick won't be the files that get printed. Even if they have expensive, 4K monitors, their memory stick files should be significantly smaller and have less resolution than a file that is to be sent to a printer. You need to use your scans to prepare their review files - not the printing for publication files.
This should give you a lot to think about. Others here who are currently having photographic work published can provide you with more help, but I hope my post helps a bit.

+1

 

[Pieter12]

It is EXACTLY the level; read this article
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/22/gerhard-steidl-is-making-books-an-art-for
and then visit
https://steidl.de/Publisher-0211122830.html

https://scroll.in/magazine/919215/g...n-the-relationship-between-images-and-writing

FYI, try contacting their submissions editor before you get your hopes up. Here is what she wrote me last year:
"Thank you for your interest in our publishing house. We have received your e-mail.

At the moment, we have reached the limits of our capacities and rarely accept any new books, but Gerhard Steidl still reviews every single submission in person – a process which sometimes takes months considering the large amount of submissions we receive.

We ask for your patience and will contact you with further questions, should Gerhard Steidl be interested in publishing your project at some future point.

Kind regards,
the Steidl team

SUBMISSIONS POLICY AND DISCLAIMER:
For a photobook proposal, please send a short outline and a PDF with sample images plus your CV via e-mail. Unfortunately, because of the high volume of submissions that we receive, we cannot give feedback on proposals.
Be advised that in no event will we be liable for loss or damage of any material you submit to us. We can not guarantee that we can return anything you send, so please do not send anything of value."

 

[Mike Lopez]

It is EXACTLY the level; read this article
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/05/22/gerhard-steidl-is-making-books-an-art-for
and then visit
https://steidl.de/Publisher-0211122830.html

https://scroll.in/magazine/919215/g...n-the-relationship-between-images-and-writing

Thank you for sharing the link to the story on Steidl. I read that in the print edition a few years back and it was good to revisit it.

While Steidl's quality is top shelf, his scheduling "quirkiness" can be quite maddening. He is now several years behind his original schedule for publishing two Lee Friedlander books, which were made available on Amazon on a pre-order basis over four years ago. Eventually Amazon threw in the towel and cancelled the pre-orders. When I asked Lee about this in 2019, all he could do was shrug and say that he doesn't know when those books will come out. I really hope he's still around to see them in print. Quite frustrating, to be sure.

 

[urnem57]

Great thread. If you decide to go the DIY route and pre sell it on Kickstarter, plan on spending around one dollar for each backer. There are services that run campaigns, which will increase your odds of meeting your goal. From what I understand, about half of all projects fail to raise the $.
Do the math on what the guy above said. His numbers are accurate, it’s expensive and quite a gamble.
There are tons of photo books for sale in the close out sections of any large bookstore.
Many of them by big name guys.
This is solid advice you are getting in this thread.

 

[radiant]

A bit off-topic but what book from Steidl would you suggest to buy? I would be interested in reviewing the print quality etc.

I know https://steidl.de/Books/Whatever-You-Say-Say-Nothing-1216314559.html is quite epic (and you can use that word describing that book) but the price is a bit high for my budget

 

[Philippe-Georges]

3F is not a scanner. It's a file format. Well, not even that as 3F files are simply .tif files (renamed to .fff). Just files without any editing done on them.

You definitely don't need Flextight for scanning prints. An Epson flatbed (V700, V800 series) will do just fine for BW prints and can get every bit of shadow detail from a print. Print's dynamic range and Dmax is no problem for any semi-good scanner.

As to scanning the negatives rather than prints... You may find that making scans from negatives that have the same look as the prints requires much more work than scanning the prints.

I do agree with Brbo, the Epson V750 is a very good prize–quality related device.
For film scanning, there is a (affordable) wet scan accessory made by Epson that ameliorates the results a lot, and the liquid for that way of scanning is rather easy to mix (*).
But, look for a good scanning software, this is really very important and makes a day/night difference, and for print scanning too! I use Silver Fast Studio, but there are others, and then import it into P.S. for further tweaking and dust retouching.
Be aware NOT to enlarge the format of your prints, a 21x30cm print stays a 21x30cm image. As a print is only a copy of the camera original, and a copy always has defects of all kinds precisely it is only a copy...
Pixel peeping a scanned print isn't that wise...
Prints are dry scanned, but put a wight on them to keep these flat and in good contact with the scanner's bed, I use a 10mm thick glass plate (and a sheet of black paper) the same as the scanner's size.

(*) 1% paraffin oil in D100 benzene, is a good starting point. The oil is there to slightly slow down the fast evaporating of the D100. And put a somewhat larger clear polyester foil over the mounted film, you can use the liquid for that too. The whole mixture is rather easily to wipe off afterwads, do it gently with a soft and lint free microfiber cloth. And if there are some stubborn stains, these can be removed with film cleaner. Blow away the dust first.

 

[logan2z]

Thank you for sharing the link to the story on Steidl. I read that in the print edition a few years back and it was good to revisit it.

While Steidl's quality is top shelf, his scheduling "quirkiness" can be quite maddening. He is now several years behind his original schedule for publishing two Lee Friedlander books, which were made available on Amazon on a pre-order basis over four years ago. Eventually Amazon threw in the towel and cancelled the pre-orders. When I asked Lee about this in 2019, all he could do was shrug and say that he doesn't know when those books will come out. I really hope he's still around to see them in print. Quite frustrating, to be sure.

I had pre-ordered those Friedlander books as well. Really disappointing that they've never been released, although they're still on Steidl's 'Coming Soon' list so maybe they'll be published some day. The same thing happened with a couple of Frank Gohlke books. I'm hoping the reprinting of 'New Topographics' doesn't suffer the same fate.