[Table of Contents] [Search]


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

Re: [scanning vs colour copies]



Two things --

1)  In defense of Macintosh computers,  I must say,  when I upgraded last,  I
intended to buy a PC.  I ended up buying a Mac system for far less than the
comparable (memory,  speed,  capability) PC,  *and* it runs all the PC
software.  This might be because I hit when Apple was at a low point with all
its business troubles.  Either way,  it's a great 'puter & as my husband owns a
PC system we have plenty of opportunities to compare:  my system is better at
graphics.  More than once we have had to take an image from his to mine using a
zip disk (and please note:  my zip reads his disks,  but not vice versa.).
However,  I do think the PC excels at business applications,  but that's
another story.

My Mac has about a hundred fifty meg of RAM so that may be one reason why I
have not had major problems with graphics.  I *still* run out of memory
occasionally,  usually when using multiple programs at one time.  We do have
problems with our printer -- easily solved by taking "important" prints to an
expensive printer via service bureau --

Today's computers can handle all manner of graphics & it shouldn't cost all
that much.  *However* it might be necessary to forego the convenience of a
laptop,  which were designed primarily for business functions (not high-end
graphics).

2)  To reproduce artwork,  why would anyone *want* to print out from a home
printer when so many specialty companies print out art prints on acid-free art
paper,  with a higher overall quality and a lower per-print cost?

If that is beyond what you intend to do,  I would suggest photoprints for
small-scale (low up-front $$) ventures.


Laura




Don Hosek wrote:

> At 10:35 AM 7/9/1998 -0500, you wrote:
> >Hello, all on the book arts web site.  I bought a scanner and good printer
> >back in 1994, when I had my compac notebook.  Anyway, I thought I would
> >be able to easily scan my art work ( I am a printmaker) onto the scanner,
> >and then print out black and white images.  I also had hopes of printing
> >color copies, so I could shrink wrap them and sell them for less to area
> >venders.  My compac notebook never had enough ram, the minumun I needed
> >was 32 bits, not the mention that the photoshop, illustrator, and the
> >other soft ware packages on my computer were vertually using up all my
> >memory.  I did get to use the scanner once, then I decided that the $750
> >scanner, $4,000 lap top,
>
> OK, problem number one. The rule of thumb used to be that you payed double
> for a laptop (as compared to a comparable desktop). The ratio might be down
> somewhat, but I suspect that it's still pretty close to 2x.
>
> Problem number 2: Memory memory memory. It's essential. It's also very
> cheap these days. When I bought my first computer I paid $30/MB for RAM.
> Now it's closer to $1/MB. It's more inertia than anything else that I
> haven't gone up to 128M from my current 64M. (I *could* use the memory).
>
> Of course with a laptop, the 2x rule applies to memory and disk space (also
> much cheaper these days but no less essential) as well.
>
> >software that cost over $1,000, printer that cost
> >$4,000 made very fuzzy pictures at best. Sure I could make the images
> >smaller, but it was definately not worth the cost of $6000 plus.
>
> The printer is the weak link. I had the opportunity some years back to work
> with a Xerox 5775. More expensive than anything you can imagine, BUT, the
> quality, oh the quality. It actually mixed color toner on the page so that
> you were getting real 400dpi resolution at 24bits.
>
> But current printers are pretty good and you can get quality output for
> much less than $4000.
>
> >Anyway,
> >now if someone asks what I use my scanner for I pile books on top of it,
> >and it holds down the table so it won't blow away in a wind storm.  I now
> >have a bigger computer than my initial computer of the year 1994, and I
> >have a nicer printer, but I still do original pieces of art that I sell
> >one of a kind type.  I laugh when I hear that someone might even consider
> >a scanner, printer, and software to reproduce art.
>
> My main concern with desktop scanners is color fidelity. The new 30bit
> scanners are an improvement, but drum scans are still essential for the
> highest quality art. I'll still buy a drum scan occasionally when I need a
> full page image from a transparency (4x5 or smaller). I buy a lot of
> PhotoCD scans just because they're so cheap and convenient (and fine for
> most things, although I can see the loss in quality when I go to full page,
> even with a ProScan).
>
> >The real systems that
> >do it for commercial printers are so expensive that my old boss, Athletic
> >Advertising that did high school posters had to hire a full force of
> >artist and pay giant off set litho printers to print their posters.
>
> If you're printing posters in quantity, you're in a different ball game
> entirely. The scans are the least of it. You've got to go offset for
> quantity printing just because single-copy color printing is too expensive
> for that sort of thing. That means getting imagesetter negs for the
> platemaker.
>
> The image acquisition side of things is possible with a desktop scanner,
> but if they're, say, printing a poster-size print from a large-format
> transparency, they will definitely want a drum scan. Otherwise they're just
> not going to get enough dots to do the job.
>
> -dh
>
> >Sure
> >they used the same software I did but their Macintosh computers cost
> >$5,000 with the proper amount of ram and memory to get a decent slick
> >looking poster.  So I rest my case, Ron. I know that in Canada everything
> >is dear, and scanners are no exception.  But if you had my system and you
> >tried all you possibly could to do art reprodutions you would never sell
> >a one and would waist all your money.  I think the only thing an artist
> >can do is go to 4 color off set litho companies and have them reproduce
> >them for cheaper than one could ever possibily do it their self.  Anyway
> >good luck to the artist that wants to do everything. Having been a graphic
> >artist and an selling oil painting artist, I realize that Thomas Kinkade
> >isn't getting rich off of reproductions in his living room, he goes and
> >does whatever it takes to get the job done right.  I know because I
> >realize that he is an ordinary artist with great printer, great market
> >personal, and good public relationship skills.  If I could earn 1% of what
> >he makes a year, I would be happy.  Thanks for lisnening and good luck
> >in pursuing my passion, the art of reproduction of art.  I hope if anyone
> >out there has the skill to reproduce a Van Gogh that they give it their
> >best shot, it might be your only way to make a million.  Have a Wonderful
> >Summer.
> >
> >Janet
> >
> >Hi - this is Janet - I am an artist - do you need any art work?
> >Give me a call.  Logos, Murals, Signs - jmeyerb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >
> ---
> Don Hosek           dhosek@xxxxxxxxxxx    Quixote Digital Typography
> 312-953-3679        fax: 312-803-0698     orders: 800-810-3311
> For information about SERIF: THE MAGAZINE OF TYPE & TYPOGRAPHY,
> http://www.quixote.com/serif/ or mail serif-info@xxxxxxxxxxx


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