[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Scan or shoot photos


The cost of photography seems excessive to me.

Regarding scanning:  if the pages to be scanned are part of a book making them
flat enough to scan is likely the major concern of the cuator.

If you do go with photographic methods make sure that you are getting the
negatives as well as the prints.  It is the negative that should be scanned for
the best possible results.  If you use 4 x 5 negs. they will have to be scanned on
a drum scanner and the cost will probably be $50 + each.  Medium format negs
should be quite adequate.  Whichever way you choose, work backwards from the
endproduct desired or you may find yourself having to have  some things done twice
if they are not acceptable for the next stage.

Try PPA  http://www.ppa-world.org/  for a referral to a photographer in your area.
One suggestion for more info and/or referral is dscottphotoart@xxxxxxxx (DEBBIE J
SCOTT) who is in Houston.

Feel free to email me personally if I can help further.

Christine McCormick
Photographic Fine Art Service

Charles Jones wrote:

> >a print is only as archival good as the paper it is printed on and laser toner
> >is just melted plastic. Fiber based photographs are pretty archival
> I guess I need to explain the situation more fully.  I plan to create a
> book using capitol letters, frontispieces, and other designs drawn by an
> artist who was working around 1914-38.  I need the work in digital form to
> allow for proper reduction and to allow for a file that can be used for
> cuts to be made in zinc.  Since the designs are only black and white or
> occasionally black and red, I really don't need 4x5 transpariences or
> photos that would only have to be re-scanned or reduced photographically by
> the engraving co.  The museum director who has possesion of the works is
> reluctant to have them scanned in favor of having them photographed on a
> copy stand.  It seemed to me that a flat bed scanner would be less harmful
> to the work and would be a benefit for cataloging, exchange of information,
> scholaraship from a distance, so to speak. The costs of photography are a
> consideration also, with the price quoted for 4x5's at $75.00 each.
> So the question is really: Which is less harmful, the light from the
> scanner or the bank of photofloods on a copy stand?
> Thanks for the info. I have received, Charles
> Charles D. Jones
> Artist/Printmaker/Fiddler
> and professor of art
> Crazy Creek Press
> Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
> Box 13001 SFA sta
> Nacogcoches, Tx. 75961

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]