ULF images on the web

[John Jarosz]

For those of you that have website or those that post ULF images, how do you digitize the image so that you can post it? I'm sure there has to be more than one way to do this.

Thanks

John

 

[JBrunner]

I don't do ULF (yet) but I do sometimes make prints larger than what will fit in my scanner. A couple of times I scanned them in sections and tried to stitch them together. Since I loathe that kind of work I finally just bought an easel and now I photograph them. Fast and easy.

 

[Dan Dozer]

I have an HP Scanjet 4890 flatbed scanner (pretty inexpensive) that I make three passes of my 8 x 20 prints, and then use a stitching program to make it a single image. Works very easily and well for me.

Dan

 

[epatsellis]

Heidelberg Opal Ultra, 11x17 at a pass.

 

[scootermm]

I have an HP Scanjet 4890 flatbed scanner (pretty inexpensive) that I make three passes of my 8 x 20 prints, and then use a stitching program to make it a single image. Works very easily and well for me.

Dan

ditto to this.
only difference is I use an Epson 3170 and scan 12x20s in 4 parts, but the scanner makes no difference, any flatbed scanner will do.
Most important thing I've found when scanning a print in pieces and then stitching together, is do NOT "preview" after the first scan. Lock in the exposure and all other scanner settings and scan all four (or 3 or 2) pieces using the same settings. Makes stitching infinitely easier as you wont have to match up each peices levels/etc.
I know some people that will photograph the final print with a digicam. Seems to work well for alot of people.

 

[garysamson]

I photograph my finished 12x20 inch prints in the studio with two polarized lights and a polarizing filter over the camera lens.

 

[Scott Peters]

Scan the finished print on a flat bed scanner using the photoshop 'stitching' tool - you've done the hard part making the print...stitching is really easy. I stitch with the print already mounted to the mat board. You can check out my website - www.scottpetersphotography.com for results.

 

[donbga]

Fast and easy.

Not hardly as fast and easy as scanning and then stitching PS, unless you are making and copying really large prints.

 

[JBrunner]

Not hardly as fast and easy as scanning and then stitching PS, unless you are making and copying really large prints.

Got the set up right long ago. It just sits there.

lights on-"Kerclick"-crop-size-upload. The digidoohickie puts it right in the 'puter.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

One issue with scanning and stitching is that some scanners, like my old Duoscan, have a slightly recessed glass, which can damage the print.

I just dupe with a digicam that basically lives on a copy stand.

 

[TracyStorer]

I also shoot straight copy-work with a digicam.

 

[Alex Hawley]

I just posted (there was a url link here which no longer exists) which was scanned on the flatbed in two passes then merged together with p-shop. I'm starting to believe that a digicam on a copy stand is a better way to go.

 

[Robert Hall]

Similar to Gary's I use a copy stand in more of a horizontal fashion for my 12x20 images. I considered a larger scanner or service, but I have a hard time laying out $2200 for a scanner or to let others handle my negatives.

 

[John Jarosz]

Hmmm. No surprises apparently. I really don't know what I was hoping for, but those are fine.

Thanks

John

 

[Robert Hall]

Yes! I was waiting for the perfect 1200 dpi 12x20 scanner for about $599 to come my way but I've not seen it yet!

the eternal optimist,

 

[RoBBo]

I use an Epson 1000 XL to scan the negatives.
Has a bit of newton ring and minor banding issues that only matter when I'm printing large digital (You're welcome to give me shit as soon as you find me an 11x14 enlarger within my budget) which doesn't happen too often, prefer the contacts anyways.

 

[Scott Peters]

I use an EPSON 2450 - I think we paid $99 or perhaps it was free with our computer set up...and you don't scan the negatives...you scan the print...see my website.

 

[donbga]

Got the set up right long ago. It just sits there.

lights on-"Kerclick"-crop-size-upload. The digidoohickie puts it right in the 'puter.

Oh so you are using a digi-snapper not a film camera. That makes sense. Making a film copy just for the web seemed like over kill.

 

[donbga]

Similar to Gary's I use a copy stand in more of a horizontal fashion for my 12x20 images. I considered a larger scanner or service, but I have a hard time laying out $2200 for a scanner or to let others handle my negatives.

You don't need a $2200 scanner for scanning prints. See Scott Peters post.

 

[JBrunner]

Oh so you are using a digi-snapper not a film camera. That makes sense. Making a film copy just for the web seemed like over kill.

The idea of doing that much work to get something to the web makes me laugh so hard I almost fell of my dinosaur

 

[philsweeney]

The idea of doing that much work to get something to the web makes me laugh so hard I almost fell of my dinosaur

Can you post a link to an image done that way? This sounds like a good option for me to copy my 7 x 17 contact prints. I have a large copy stand.

 

[philsweeney]

Can anyone post a link to a photograph known to be copied on a copy stand with a digital camera? I am particularly interested in copying for web 7 x 17 and 8 x 20.

 

[Robert Hall]

I have several under "new work" as well as medium format work under "China" which are lith prints copied from 12x16 prints.

Look for the longer formats which are 12x20 under the new work section.

 

[RobertP]

Phil, I have a couple 8x20 pt/pd images in my gallery that were scanned on a cheap scanner and photomerged together in photoshop. Cheap and easy. Robert

 

[Steve Sherman]

Can anyone post a link to a photograph known to be copied on a copy stand with a digital camera? I am particularly interested in copying for web 7 x 17 and 8 x 20.

Any panoramic perspective image on my web site was done from original mounted 7x17 contact prints on a copy stand with a digital camera. http://www.steve-sherman.com/index.cfm