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

[Christopher Frank]

I am 72 years old and finally completed a photography project; editing my entire black and white life to one hundred potential images from 6 x 9 & 35mm negatives.

From those I selected and printed 81; kept 79, printing three of each.

There is a specialty store in Trondheim, Norway that I quite by chance discovered and what they undertook was extraordinary.

They took almost every black and white film and then processed them with almost every black and white developer.

Ironically, from all of the results, I preferred the combination I always used; Tri-X and D-76 1:1 despite the hype around newer developers.

These results were simply not available 40 years ago; artist photographers had to ask friends what they were using and look at the results.

Of course it was difficult to decide since there were so many variables.

Here, it was same image; same camera; the test was run with 135 film, scanned with a Hasselblad scanner with 3F scan in 6300 ppi.

Differences were easily discernable.

I was so impressed with the results I called around Madison to find a store that is using this scanner and came up empty.

From Hasselblad’s description this scanner seems quite different from anything else out there; here are the details:

https://www.knowhowtransfer.com/how...olutionary-pro-scanning-system-by-hasselblad/

I made calls to local stores and the ppi of their scanners is a fraction of 6300.

My intention is to put the 79 images on a memory stick and send to publishers for possible interest in a book.

There is one publisher in Hamburg that I would love to work with; needless to say I do not want to ship original prints overseas for review.

That is why I am seeking the Hasselblad 3F system, as it will bring me as close as possible to the original print.

Update:

I spoke with Hasselblad and they informed me that 3F scanning system was discontinued 3 years ago.

They had another scanner called the Flex-tight X-5 and they stopped selling it too. Why?

“We ran out of parts; to create new parts too costly.”

The retail price for the first scanner was $22,000

Other than sending hard copy original prints to publishers, is there any other way, other than taking pictures of the prints with a cell phone or scanning the prints?

This scanner costs $4,000 https://shop.fotoimport.no/digital-avdeling/scannere/epson-expression-12000-xl-pro

SCANNER TEST

We have tested the Epson V750 scanner against the Hasselblad 646 and Nikon 8000ED on scanning black and white film. The image shows reasonably well the differences in what comes out of the scanner. Click on the image to enlarge.

Hasselblad 646 is the sharpest, while Nikon 8000 ED appears sharper due to high contrast, but is a notch behind Hasselblad on detail reproduction. In addition, the shadow details grow completely on the Nikon scan. The Epson V750 is definitely usable.

A friend and photographer let me know “depending on the darkness of your prints you don’t want to scan your prints on a flatbed scanner. You will have too much gain in the shadows. If you just want to show an editor your images scan the negatives and process it in photoshop to look like your print.” The problem is I have zero experience with photoshop.

Someone else wrote: As far as I can tell there are no high-end scanners being manufactured today.

Thank you in advance for your time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher Frank

 

[brbo]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

If you are just looking for film scanning with an Imacon/Flextight scanner locally in Wisconsin a quick google brings up https://www.tomfritz.com/pages/lab.html#scanning
According to their site, "We offer scanning of film originals up to 5"x7" on our Imacon Precision III. With optical resolution up to 6,300 ppi and 4.2 maximum density". Further, "But if it’s a drum scan you need, we offer the best. Made on our Heidelberg Chromagraph S3900, this scanner delivers resolution up to 24,000 ppi and unsurpassed dynamic range."

I have no affiliation with that company and have never used their services. Also,I believe there are members here who also offer scanning services but I don't know if they are local to you.

 

[jvo]

welcome to photrio....

 

[MattKing]

I too wish to welcome you to Photrio. I'll follow this post with some suggestions.

 

[MattKing]

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.

 

[gone]

The last time I took prints somewhere to be scanned (this was back in pre cell phone days), a PPI of 200 to 300 worked out the best, if I remember correctly. I was surprised, but at higher resolutions it looked worse. Probably had something to do w/ blowing up the paper's imperfections as well as the image.

Have you contacted the publisher's on this? They surely have a preference on how they want things sent to them, and each publisher may have their own way. By the way, I came to the same conclusion that you did w/ Tri-X and D76. It's a great combination, and you get these deep blacks and beautiful tonality when using it 1+1.

 

[jvo]

Matt,
although i will never have a book published of my work, i appreciated reading your thoughts and explanations... as usual clear and complete.

 

[Christopher Frank]

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.

 

[Christopher Frank]

Thank you very much for the recommendation of the Epson flatbed V700, V800 that they "will get every bit of shadown detail from a print
I am in Madison, WI and all the commercial stores are quoting $50 per scan of each image! Times 80 = $4,000; on "quantity I will receive a 10% discount which still leaves a $3,600 cost; since this is all new to me
does this seem reasonable? Seems steep to me; I asked since I am requiring a print just a scan would the price be lower and the answer was no. Should I look for the Epson V700, V800 on the used market would what be a fair price to pay? Thank you again

 

[Christopher Frank]

If you are just looking for film scanning with an Imacon/Flextight scanner locally in Wisconsin a quick google brings up https://www.tomfritz.com/pages/lab.html#scanning
According to their site, "We offer scanning of film originals up to 5"x7" on our Imacon Precision III. With optical resolution up to 6,300 ppi and 4.2 maximum density". Further, "But if it’s a drum scan you need, we offer the best. Made on our Heidelberg Chromagraph S3900, this scanner delivers resolution up to 24,000 ppi and unsurpassed dynamic range."

I have no affiliation with that company and have never used their services. Also,I believe there are members here who also offer scanning services but I don't know if they are local to you.

I am EXTREMELY grateful to you for this lead; I am looking for scanning of my prints they are all on 8 x 10 Ilford FB Multigrade paper; I live in Madison and the firm you found is in Milwaukee, a 90 minute drive away so it seems you may be my hero; am I reading this wrong are these the prices for scans of negatives only and not prints; we have a saying in our family and it is "reading teachers do not read" meaning carefully! My wife teases me about this all of the time; in this instance I did my due diligence and DID read carefully buy am unclear if these prices also apply to prints; thank you again for finding this place.

 

[Christopher Frank]

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.

Thank you very much for the detailed reply. Apropos "They would have been on 8"x10" Satin finish RC paper" RC paper is something I would not spend time on.
I waited many many years to print my work and was gifted with a 4 x 5 enlarger with diffusion head and complete darkroom; it is in a 3rd bathroom in a large apt; something I never imagined could manifest outside of home ownership
"Time is the most valuable thing a man can spend" - Theophrastus
When making the prints my focus (no pun intended) was to make the best possible print, (ARCHIVAL) print, I know how to make. RC paper is not archival so I did not want to spend precious time invested in making RC prints; keep in mind I remember hand carrying prints to gallery owners.
I recognize that the days of sending original prints for consideration are long gone. It seems that everyone wants digital files for review.
A lab owner said to create a presentation using Adobe InDesign.
You are saying I did not think this through; perhaps from the perspective of distribution to publishers; again despite my awareness that we are living in a digital age I am steeped in the mind set of make the best print you can and then with portfolio complete in hand I was confident the appropriate publisher would recognize the work.
I am in no way naive and yet I still have a build it and they will come mindset.
I knew many young people who came from priviledge went to all the schools you can name for their MFA in photography and already had their contacts/connections lined up; the commercial aspect was thought of and was in place long before producing any work; sort of the cart before the horse; not intending to be or sound in any way self-righteous or purest; only that it has always and only been to finally bring forward the work in print form. So perhaps not very forward thinking as you suggest; just over the moon to have had the opportunity to print as I have imagined for many years. Again not wanting to sound defensive; just hoping to share a different point of view.

 

[radiant]

First of all, good luck with your project. I would happily help you and scan your prints for free if I was in same continent.

Epson V600 or V550 will also do the job. You should get one around 100-200$ .. BTW: I didn't spot your print size, check that the scanner can fit your prints.

 

[Christopher Frank]

First of all, good luck with your project. I would happily help you and scan your prints for free if I was in same continent.

Epson V600 or V550 will also do the job. You should get one around 100-200$ .. BTW: I didn't spot your print size, check that the scanner can fit your prints.

That is a very generous offer; all of the prints are from 6 x 9 negatives and 35 mm negatives but all are on 8 x 10 paper; Ilford Fiber Base Multigrade paper

 

[grain elevator]

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.

 

[Les Sarile]

Thank you very much for the recommendation of the Epson flatbed V700, V800 that they "will get every bit of shadown detail from a print
I am in Madison, WI and all the commercial stores are quoting $50 per scan of each image! Times 80 = $4,000; on "quantity I will receive a 10% discount which still leaves a $3,600 cost; since this is all new to me
does this seem reasonable? Seems steep to me; I asked since I am requiring a print just a scan would the price be lower and the answer was no. Should I look for the Epson V700, V800 on the used market would what be a fair price to pay? Thank you again

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.

 

[MattKing]

For clarity, the reason I recommended the Satin surface RC prints is that prints made on that paper and surface scan better than anything else I have experimented with. I understand entirely your reluctance to reprint anything, but you may find that scanning from the prints that present themselves for optimum viewing will give you scans that are of lower quality than scanning from paper that is better suited to that process.
There may be a fibre based paper that scans as well as Satin RC, but I haven’t discovered it.
The other advantage of the RC prints is that they are likely to withstand the amount of handling necessary for a project of this sort, whereas fibre based prints may suffer more from that handling. In any event, the archivability of RC vs. FB is a discussion that can reach religious levels of fervour, and has been the focus of many threads here!

 

[MattKing]

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

 

[drmoss_ca]

I've owned a Flextight 848 and an X1. They are quick, quiet and produce lovely files. Hasselblad discontinued them silently (with no public notification so the existing stock could be sold) when they decided it was not worth updating the scanner driver from 32-bit. Ed Hamrick had indicated he would make a version of VueScan to work with the scanners but they would not release the engineering details to him, even when discontinued. I was very annoyed that they would abandon these lovely scanners, and leave users looking for secondhand computers with older operating systems that would work with 32-bit software. So when I was going for a bone marrow transplant, I decided to sell the remaining X1 in case I didn't do so well. I now rely on my Nikon 9000, which is slower and noisier, but gives results so close I can't see much difference.
If you are scanning the prints the Flextights will only help if using the Imacon 848 or the Hasselblad X5 - they are the only ones that do reflective scans. But a good flatbed will do a great job of scanning a 10x8 print. Should you decide to scan the negatives, you'll be starting afresh, with all the adjusments made under the enlarger still to recreate in post-processing of the scans. I think I would scan the prints in your situation.

 

[brbo]

Thank you very much for the recommendation of the Epson flatbed V700, V800 that they "will get every bit of shadown detail from a print
I am in Madison, WI and all the commercial stores are quoting $50 per scan of each image! Times 80 = $4,000; on "quantity I will receive a 10% discount which still leaves a $3,600 cost; since this is all new to me
does this seem reasonable? Seems steep to me; I asked since I am requiring a print just a scan would the price be lower and the answer was no. Should I look for the Epson V700, V800 on the used market would what be a fair price to pay? Thank you again

$50 per scan? Wow!

This is a scan of a T-Max 3200 on Foma Variant 311 (glossy). One scan is a drum scan and the other is a one-minute flatbed scan. The flatbed Epson 4990 (one step below V700/800) unfortunately can't scan to the full 12" of the print's width...

 

[Pieter12]

First of all, have you tried contacting any publishers about your project? Many (like galleries today) do not want any unsolicited work.

Unless you can locate a source to scan your prints at a reasonable price, you will have to acquire or borrow some equipment, either a flatbed scanner or a digital camera, copy stand and lights. Don't overlook contacting traditional lithographic print shops, they usually have either drum or flatbed scanning equipment and might be able to work with you. One thing to keep in mind is the printer you end up with will need digital files to print from. Whether they use the files you are providing or will rescan everything is going to affect overall costs. If you end up going the self-publishing route, you will definitely need high-res digital files, adjusted to your liking and then also adjusted to the publishing platform (using their instructions, profiles, etc). So you will need to learn some photoshop or other image-editing software or pay someone to do that for you, as well as the design and layout of the book.

Most publishers like to see a mock-up of the book in digital form. This also means page layout software and some design skills. But the images don't have to be super high resolution for that. They will most probably want a medium-resolution pdf for consideration. You could try a traditional hand-made mock-up with inkjet prints, it all depends on how much time, money and effort you want to put into it.

Good luck with your project.

 

[Louis Nargi]

interesting keep with your search

 

[Christopher Frank]

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.

I've owned a Flextight 848 and an X1. They are quick, quiet and produce lovely files. Hasselblad discontinued them silently (with no public notification so the existing stock could be sold) when they decided it was not worth updating the scanner driver from 32-bit. Ed Hamrick had indicated he would make a version of VueScan to work with the scanners but they would not release the engineering details to him, even when discontinued. I was very annoyed that they would abandon these lovely scanners, and leave users looking for secondhand computers with older operating systems that would work with 32-bit software. So when I was going for a bone marrow transplant, I decided to sell the remaining X1 in case I didn't do so well. I now rely on my Nikon 9000, which is slower and noisier, but gives results so close I can't see much difference.
If you are scanning the prints the Flextights will only help if using the Imacon 848 or the Hasselblad X5 - they are the only ones that do reflective scans. But a good flatbed will do a great job of scanning a 10x8 print. Should you decide to scan the negatives, you'll be starting afresh, with all the adjusments made under the enlarger still to recreate in post-processing of the scans. I think I would scan the prints in your situation.

Thank you very much for saying I would scan the prints in your situation; people have been emphasizing but by scanning the negative you will get a 1:1 replication; I am not that much at all into manipulation; and yet my final print is so much more (in the best possible way) than even a good contact sheet suggested, that I would not want an exact copy of the negative.

 

[Christopher Frank]

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.

Apropos "Unless you didn't tell us the full story" is that what I need to do before asking for help about the best way to submit to a publisher, to post my resume here?
Did I need to say that an artist photographer who was with Leo Castelli & had his work shown at the Louvre in Paris has been asking me for years to bring my work forward and he would walk me into his publisher? That he subsequently died.
Did I need to include that I was selected to be one of five people from the entire country to study for free at the ICP Museum in NYC?
Did I need to include that I was on the NEA Visiting Artists in the Schools in Photography.
Did I need to include a documentary I developed with micro photography was selected for a documentary festival?
My work has been praised by several museum curators; there also have been commercial assignments but those do not at all apply to the personal art work.
But I doubt your "entire black and white life" will be interesting to publishers unless you are famous as a photographer
"But someone has to say it." Indeed.
I strongly suspect you are not at all sorry but frustrated, to reply with such negativity; not raining on my parade; I am not wounded, but wiser; thanks.

 

[Christopher Frank]

$50 per scan? Wow!

This is a scan of a T-Max 3200 on Foma Variant 311 (glossy). One scan is a drum scan and the other is a one-minute flatbed scan. The flatbed Epson 4990 (one step below V700/800) unfortunately can't scan to the full 12" of the print's width...

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