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.
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
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:Round 11 Postcard Exchange - Derelict
- MattKing
- 4
A derelict boat on the Fraser river - this is from Postcard exchange 11. Better late than never...
S
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.
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. , this forum can be sometimes a bit like that, unfortunately.
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.
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.
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.
These helps a great deal; which is which as I prefer this one https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51842622491_de4484b122_b.jpg
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.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!
Perfect! You prefer the flatbed scanner.
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.
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!
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.
FYI, try contacting their submissions editor before you get your hopes up. Here is what she wrote me last year: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.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
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 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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?