Scan or Shoot??

Create a Post
Goodtwin

Goodtwin

CGF, Certified Grumble Framer
Joined
May 1, 2008
Posts
178
Loc
Richardson, Texas
We have a new program involving childrens artwork. I would like to capture each piece before we slide it into the frame.
Problem is it's between 300 and 600 pieces for every show, so I need it to be a fast capture.
We will be printing some of these so the capture has to be a decent quality.
They are 12x16 sheets with a 8x12 image, most are watercolor so they're only semi-flat.
I'ld love to hear your opinions!!
 
A real good camera, a copy stand, and a easel** for the work will be the quickest way to capture the image. Set the camera at 300dpi for the chosen size*. The difference between a scanner and a camera will be about 15-45 seconds per image, depending on the scanner, and that size scanner can be pretty costly (as can the camera, but the camera is much more versatile). We use a Nikon D700 for everything over 8.5" X 11". Doing that volume, I would hitch the camera directly to the computer and download directly into whatever photo management software you are going to use.

*Or less if you are simply going to publish them on the Internet.
**If you made 2 easels, you could be loading a piece in one while the other was being shot.
 
With photography, the lighting is at least as important as the camera. Get the lighting set up right first off and you can click away all day with consistent results.
 
wpfay said:
Set the camera at 300dpi for the chosen size...We use a Nikon D700...
Click to expand...

Where do you set DPI in the D700? Or are you just selecting a size that equates as close to 300 DPI as you can?
 
David, I believe Mark (my employee) shoots stuff raw and converts in PS or one of the other photo management software we have. He handles all the photo/printing side of the business. I guess the point was that if you are shooting 300-600 images raw, you are going to max out your memory pretty quickly. If the camera is set at a lower resolution you can store more images. I'm not sure exactly how that works when the camera is hitched up directly to the software in the computer. For Jerry's purposes an even lower resolution might be all that is needed if he's just posting photos on the Internet.
Thanks stcstc, my camera lingo has certain deficits since they stopped making film. I believe the conversion is done in Photoshop.
Right Peter, good lighting along with the copy stand so you have a fixed mount for the camera and easels that hold the work flat and in consistent position are all essential.
 
I don't know much about photography but I do know about scanning which is close. For those 8x12 images at 300ppi (pixels per inch) you have pixel dimensions of 2400x3600 pixels or 8.64 mp so you'd need to set the camera at its highest resolution. That would be a tiff file size of 26mb. If you plan to reproduce these images on an inkjet printer you wouldn't need 300 ppi; 200 would do, even 180. I sure as heck wouldn't set the camera to RAW. I'd want JPEGs right out of the camera. That would probably be a file size under 8mb in top quality JPEG. Wouldn't you need a macro lens? If I were unfortunate enough to be facing a job like this one I'd scan the pictures after they were framed since they would be as flat as possible. I don't know what the depth of field of the lens would be or how much light would be available to stop the lens down but the art wouldn't have to be perfectly flat. Even scanning, I wouldn't take a 300 piece job for under $2000 up front. Just scanning and cataloging 300 pictures would take some time to say nothing of actually printing them
 
Last edited:
Goodtwin said:
We will be printing some of these so the capture has to be a decent quality.
Click to expand...

Capture is a combination of the output intent and the budget, in this instance I would not be getting too concerned as the original can be recaptured later if necessary for larger output.

In the most simple fashion I would make a softbox with foamcore, using a >15mp DSLR (jpeg files), 90mm macro or similar and a couple of flash units around the softbox.
 
I would set up either a flat work bench or an easel that you could simply place the work into and then take a photo. Once you get into the swing of things it shouldn't take too long. If you use an easel, you could set up the camera in the right position so you could just adjust it slightly each time before capturing the image. I wouldn't really recommend scanning for this, to be honest.
 
Create a Post
Back
Top