![]() |
|
|
#1 |
|
User is banned from forums
|
To make an extremely long and painful story quite short, I've suffered massive data loss. Many photos are gone forever and I'm now left trying to pick up the pieces. I really don't want to get into how that all happened, so if you would, please do not question me on it.
Right now I'm focused on solutions. Thankfully, some of my most valued photos were actually printed and framed, so I *do* have a copy of them. However, I'm curious as to how I should go about digitizing them. A heavy majority of them are larger than an 8 x 10 in size, so I can't use any scanner "off the shelf" so to speak... Where would you go to have the absolutely highest-quality scan of your photos, if you found yourself in a similar situation? (Assuming that money is no object.) Nothing can replace the lost originals, but I'm trying to get as close as I possibly can. Last edited by SimplyShane : 26th of July 2011 (Tue) at 02:24. |
|
|
|
| sponsored links |
|
|
#2 |
|
User is banned from forums
|
Sioux City, Iowa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Cream of the Crop
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 7,199
|
The first thing I'd do is check with your local shops (if you have any) and see if they can help. At least by doing it local you still have some control over the transport of your prints.
|
|
|
|
| sponsored links |
|
|
#4 |
|
Goldmember
|
Having actually done this sort of thing before: the simplest solution is to buy a scanner and do the job yourself.
One generation ago, in an era when DSLR's cost around US $15,000, scanning prints was a common way of digitizing images. It's still possible, and Canon sells several inexpensive flatbed scanners for that purpose. It's easier now, because today's scanners use USB connections, while many of the scanners of 15-20 years ago needed proprietary SCSI connection cards. It's less expensive, too, since today's scanners cost around one fifth the price of mid-1990's scanners. There's no difficulty in the process: buy a scanner, install it, and scan the prints into the computer. The only complication might come from screened artwork that's already been reduced to dot patterns for printing, but scanner software usually has a setting to handle that. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Cream of the Crop
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 7,199
|
The problem the OP has is that the bulk of his images are larger than 8x10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Goldmember
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 4,513
|
Why the need to get them in a digital format? It sounds like you are already appreciating them since they are framed assuming they are on your walls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
POTN Landscape & Cityscape Photographer 2005
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: southern Alberta, Canada
Posts: 10,761
|
Quote:
Depending on how much larger than 8x10 you might still get away with a flatbed. My Epson can do up to 11x14 and honestly have never had the need to scan anything larger. Back in the film days I had an artist customer that had me shoot everything he painted. Commercial printing companies normally have the equipment to provide scans on large documents. This is not your color lab but the kind of place one would go to get business forms and such printed. I know for a fact that my local one can do up to 16x 20 as that is the size of one such piece of work we had them scan for us. The only concern I would have is that these kinds of firms typically do most of their work in the CMYK color space so you would have to address that. Terribly sorry for your problems and I do hope that you find a desirable solution.
__________________
My life is like one big RAW file....way too much post processing needed. Sheldon Simpson | My Gallery | My Gear updated: 20JUL12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
User is banned from forums
|
What's the largest scanner I can buy off the shelf? Let's start there.
If it's 11x14, that just might work as I must consider matting is greatly increasing the size of the image as well. I'll have to get a ruler out today and figure out exactly what my LARGEST print will be. That should help... |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
Member
|
Quote:
__________________
T3 (1100D) - 18-55mm IS, 50mm 1.8, 55-250 IS Pics Here to learn, feel free to be harsh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Cream of the Crop
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 7,199
|
You may want to go to B&H, or Adorama, and check out their scanners. I did a quick check at B&H and didn't see any consumer grade scanners that did bigger than standard letter size. Maybe a more thorough search would yield something. I've got a fairly high end Epson (v700) and all it will do is 8 1/2 x 11.
Last edited by crn3371 : 26th of July 2011 (Tue) at 12:35. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Goldmember
|
B&H lists several large format scanners, but none are inexpensive. It appears you're going to need to put a large amount of money toward either equipment or a graphics service bureau to handle the job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
User is banned from forums
|
So clearly the solution is to go to a company that HAS such scanners in their possession and ask to use them for a cost.
What kind of companies should I be looking for? I know that's probably a stupid question, but just *who* exactly would have these high-end scanners laying around? Also, as inconvenient as it may seem, I am glad that most of my images are larger than an 8x10 in size. It is my understanding that when it comes to this type of thing, the larger the better, correct? Also, the fact that I chose a high quality, five-star Epson luster paper should also be of worth...right? Last edited by SimplyShane : 26th of July 2011 (Tue) at 13:58. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Cream of the Crop
|
A very common solution for digitizing prints and works of art larger than standard paper is to use a copy stand. basically you rig up a camera a few feet above a flat surface, use appropriate lighting and take a picture of the picture/painting. Works well with a little care in setting things up properly, and you likely have most of what you need already.
Big Scanners are EXPENSIVE.
__________________
Taylor Galleries: Flickr Photoshop.com 60D - ELPH 100HS - 15-85 - 30 1.4 - 50-135 2.8 - 55-250 IS Last edited by tkbslc : 26th of July 2011 (Tue) at 14:01. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Cream of the Crop
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SoCal, USA
Posts: 7,199
|
First, call any local camera shops and ask. If that doesn't work, try calling local printers or graphics companies. Based on your track record I'd try and keep it local. Don't want to see a "FedEx lost my prints!!!" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Member
|
Quote:
Harold's Photo, Harold's Photo Centers, Inc 4501 Southern Hills Drive # 11 Sioux City, IA 51106-4735 If they don't have what you need, and are oriented to something more poster sized, I'm sure any reputable guy out there will refer you to someone more appropriate.
__________________
T3 (1100D) - 18-55mm IS, 50mm 1.8, 55-250 IS Pics Here to learn, feel free to be harsh. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Clients scanning prints | kaydawgy | The Business of Photography | 49 | 21st of December 2010 (Tue) 10:52 |
| Inkjet pigment ink prints are superior to silver-halide prints - do you agree? | Picture North Carolina | RAW, Post Processing and Printing | 18 | 15th of September 2010 (Wed) 18:00 |
| Best flatbed scanner for scanning prints | mr2step | RAW, Post Processing and Printing | 14 | 13th of February 2010 (Sat) 13:22 |
| Scanning film & prints | cyber_m0nkey | RAW, Post Processing and Printing | 4 | 14th of November 2007 (Wed) 16:48 |
| Few questions about printing(what pixel size for 4x6 prints and prints come out dark) | fiery360 | RAW, Post Processing and Printing | 12 | 26th of October 2005 (Wed) 13:24 |