Copy Tables

[ThomGascoigne]

Hi

Woo first topic!

So I've got a bunch of photos I want duplicated to post on the internet and also get re prints made up. I've had a few quotes from people on scanning them. Theres around 40,000 4x6 prints to be duplicated and I also have around 1500 magazine covers as well as other bits and pieces.

One of the teachers at the art school I attend suggest I use a copy table and photograph the photos and magazine covers and duplicate them like that for use online and to make doubles.

Can anyone give me some advice regarding this please. And also can anyone think of a good copy table and where I can find them?

Thank you :D

[hawkeye60]

Seems to me that a scanner would be much faster than setting up a copy table, photographing then downloading and resizing.

[ThomGascoigne]

Seems to me that a scanner would be much faster than setting up a copy table, photographing then downloading and resizing.

Well yeah thats what I thought as-well. I want them scanned at 600dpi and made into .TIF as well as JPEGS. I'm sure as hell not going to sit there and do it myself!

The best Aussie scanner guy quote I've had was $0.25 per image. This includes cropping, Re size, dust etc etc.

I do prefer the copy table photography for the magazine covers though, I've had better results.

[Titus213]

Why do you want the 4x6 prints scanned at 600DPI? They were printed at something less than 300.

[ThomGascoigne]

I was told if you want to use the photos for printing in a magazine you should scan them at 300 dpi, And if you want to blow them up bigger and use them in a book you should scan them at 600 dpi

[Titus213]

I would definitely check that theory out. Upscaling from a printed image may present some issues.

[bieber]

I was told if you want to use the photos for printing in a magazine you should scan them at 300 dpi, And if you want to blow them up bigger and use them in a book you should scan them at 600 dpi
It all depends on how big you want to print it, and at what resolution, but there's no way you can extract more resolution from a print than was put into it. If something's printed at 300 DPI, scanning at 600DPI is just gonna give you a bigger view of the little dots of ink...

[tim]

40,000 prints, wow. There's no harm scanning at 600dpi. I'd probably try it and see what the difference was before I did that lot at that, just because it'll probably double your file sizes.

[bieber]

40,000 prints, wow. There's no harm scanning at 600dpi. I'd probably try it and see what the difference was before I did that lot at that, just because it'll probably double your file sizes.
Quadruple, methinks, as the DPI increase applies to both dimensions

[FlashZebra]

A flatbed scanner will be a far faster production environment that a copy stand.

I think the basic rule for full fidelity scanning is to oversample by a factor of two. If the item you are scanning contains about 300 DPI, then 600 DPI would be the general guideline.

Photographic prints are about the same as 300 DPI, the magazine covers will not be that high so 400 or 500 DPI would be about right.

But, you may be able to get perfectly acceptable scans at a lower resolution.

Oversampling by a factor of two will wring everything that is there out.

Enjoy! Lon

[tim]

Quadruple, methinks, as the DPI increase applies to both dimensions

I was thinking JPG file size, but for TIFFs yeah you're probably right.

[Titus213]

I ran a test on my cheap Epson document scanner. 4x6 image, 24 bit color, 600 DPI. The scan took 50 seconds. The generated tif was 25 meg.

$0.25 each is starting to look good.

[PacAce]

I ran a test on my cheap Epson document scanner. 4x6 image, 24 bit color, 600 DPI. The scan took 50 seconds. The generated tif was 25 meg.

$0.25 each is starting to look good.
40,000 x $0.25 = $10,000. That would buy you a 1DsmkIII, a good lens and a very good copy stand/table. ;)
:D

[ThomGascoigne]

40,000 prints, wow. There's no harm scanning at 600dpi. I'd probably try it and see what the difference was before I did that lot at that, just because it'll probably double your file sizes.

Your right, I really should start doing some tests.

Thanks!

[ThomGascoigne]

40,000 x $0.25 = $10,000. That would buy you a 1DsmkIII, a good lens and a very good copy stand/table. ;)
:D

Hmm, That would set me back a bit more in Australia. And it would take me a very long time to do all the photos, Thats why I wanted to out source the job.

Thanks :)

[ThomGascoigne]

I ran a test on my cheap Epson document scanner. 4x6 image, 24 bit color, 600 DPI. The scan took 50 seconds. The generated tif was 25 meg.

$0.25 each is starting to look good.

Yeah, I was looking at getting a high end Epson A3 Flat bed, But that will set me back around $2500 grand and it will mean alot of work for me.. And I hate scanning!

Thanks

[ThomGascoigne]

A flatbed scanner will be a far faster production environment that a copy stand.

I think the basic rule for full fidelity scanning is to oversample by a factor of two. If the item you are scanning contains about 300 DPI, then 600 DPI would be the general guideline.

Photographic prints are about the same as 300 DPI, the magazine covers will not be that high so 400 or 500 DPI would be about right.

But, you may be able to get perfectly acceptable scans at a lower resolution.

Oversampling by a factor of two will wring everything that is there out.

Enjoy! Lon


Thanks Lon!

[Titus213]

40,000 x $0.25 = $10,000. That would buy you a 1DsmkIII, a good lens and a very good copy stand/table. ;)
:D

That's fair. I figure 17 weeks of scanning, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Or 3 months of time (with some overtime). That comes out to about $3300/month.

Send those pictures up to me with either your check or the 1DsMKIII and I'll see what I can do for you...:lol:

Of course the stack of external HDs and shipping will be extra.

[bobn15]

Can't remember where but I read in a magazine (maybe pop photo) about somewhere that scans a photo box full for a flat rate, which I think is pretty cheap, but it's at 300dpi

[ThomGascoigne]

Can't remember where but I read in a magazine (maybe pop photo) about somewhere that scans a photo box full for a flat rate, which I think is pretty cheap, but it's at 300dpi

Yeah theres a company based in the USA that does it very cheap at 300dpi, The problem is they send the photos to India to scan them. I don't even want to send my photos 3 hours away let alone to the USA and then on to India!

Thanks!

[ThomGascoigne]

That's fair. I figure 17 weeks of scanning, 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Or 3 months of time (with some overtime). That comes out to about $3300/month.

Send those pictures up to me with either your check or the 1DsMKIII and I'll see what I can do for you...:lol:

Of course the stack of external HDs and shipping will be extra.

Haha! Storage wise I was thinking of investing in a Drobo system, I think they can store up to 16 " terror bites "

And Dave don't you already have a 1dsMKIII ?

[Oneslowz28]

a drobo is still a stack of HDDs in an enclosure.

[Titus213]

Haha! Storage wise I was thinking of investing in a Drobo system, I think they can store up to 16 " terror bites "

And Dave don't you already have a 1dsMKIII ?

No, but I think I have 3 months.....:lol:

[ThomGascoigne]

Haha!