PDA

View Full Version : ULF images on the web



Pages : [1] 2

John Jarosz
12-07-2008, 03:20 PM
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
12-07-2008, 04:00 PM
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
12-07-2008, 04:00 PM
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
12-07-2008, 06:04 PM
Heidelberg Opal Ultra, 11x17 at a pass.

scootermm
12-07-2008, 06:20 PM
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
12-07-2008, 08:39 PM
I photograph my finished 12x20 inch prints in the studio with two polarized lights and a polarizing filter over the camera lens.

Scott Peters
12-07-2008, 09:20 PM
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
12-07-2008, 11:09 PM
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
12-07-2008, 11:24 PM
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
12-07-2008, 11:30 PM
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
12-08-2008, 12:08 AM
I also shoot straight copy-work with a digicam.

Alex Hawley
12-08-2008, 12:14 AM
I just posted this one (http://www.apug.org/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=39825) 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
12-08-2008, 01:47 PM
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
12-08-2008, 03:01 PM
Hmmm. No surprises apparently. I really don't know what I was hoping for, but those are fine.

Thanks

John

Robert Hall
12-08-2008, 03:25 PM
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
12-08-2008, 05:58 PM
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
12-08-2008, 10:25 PM
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
12-08-2008, 11:24 PM
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
12-08-2008, 11:25 PM
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
12-09-2008, 12:13 AM
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:p