Scanners versus Photos

[CatherineA]

I have written a draft for a book that I now want to illustrate with images of objects that I have gathered. A number of people have suggested that I use a scanner instead of photographing the objects. They have said that it could give me a better result in certain instances. I have never used a scanner and I don’t understand what the potential advantage would be.

Does anyone use a scanner? Could anyone tell me what they think the advantage might be?

Thank you

[Manfred M]

Scanners give the image a totally different look and feel versus a photograph.

They are designed to scan flat objects lying on the glass bed of the scanner and have a very narrow depth of field, so focus fall off is drastic. Unless the lid is down, the light drop-off is sudden and anything that is not on the scanner bed will get dark.

My suggestion is that you try it. Some people love the look and others do not like it at all. If it works for you, go with it.

There is no "rule" saying that you can't use a mix of scans and photographs.

[CatherineA]

Scanners give the image a totally different look and feel versus a photograph.

They are designed to scan flat objects lying on the glass bed of the scanner and have a very narrow depth of field, so focus fall off is drastic. Unless the lid is down, the light drop-off is sudden and anything that is not on the scanner bed will get dark.

My suggestion is that you try it. Some people love the look and others do not like it at all. If it works for you, go with it.

There is no "rule" saying that you can't use a mix of scans and photographs.

I would try it but the people I know who have scanners aren’t in Ottawa. One person told me that she uses an old Epson and I should be able to get one for about $300-$400 however I’m not finding anything that cheap here. Her work is lovely with the one she uses (she makes composites and does a lot of post production work). I don’t think a more expensive model would give me more for my purposes.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Catherine,

I assume the objects are all flat and not too big ...

I don't know about Canadian prices, but in the UK, an A4 size* flatbed scanner can be got for about £55 (GBP), my example, a Canon CanoScan LiDE 300 Flatbed Scanner.

* A4 = 210 x 297mm or 8.3 x 11.7 inches.

If that size isn't big enough, I agree the price may escalate rapidly.

Good luck with the book,
Dave

[CatherineA]

Hi Catherine,

I assume the objects are all flat and not too big ...

I don't know about Canadian prices, but in the UK, an A4 size* flatbed scanner can be got for about £55 (GBP), my example, a Canon CanoScan LiDE 300 Flatbed Scanner.

* A4 = 210 x 297mm or 8.3 x 11.7 inches.

If that size isn't big enough, I agree the price may escalate rapidly.

Good luck with the book,
Dave

Thanks, Dave! For some reason I was stuck on looking at Epson but I will broaden my scope. The objects are not actually flat though, but they are miniatures. Well, some are bigger than miniatures but I don’t think I should pay for an expensive scanner because of that - for those things I will stay with using a camera.

[Manfred M]

Looking on Amazon.ca.

The Epson Perfection V19 II runs at $109 and the Canon CanoScan LiDE400 runs at around $100.

I have an older Canon of the same LiDE line that I paid less than $100 5 or 6 years ago and it seems to be indestructible.

[CatherineA]

Looking on Amazon.ca.

The Epson Perfection V19 II runs at $109 and the Canon CanoScan LiDE400 runs at around $100.

I have an older Canon of the same LiDE line that I paid less than $100 5 or 6 years ago and it seems to be indestructible.

Yes, I saw that too on Amazon. Sure beats the price and selection that I was seeing at the camera store. Good to know how durable your economical scanner has turned out to be. I guess I just need to look at the resolution I would get from them.

[eiler m]

Hi Catherine - why not try to photograph your objects with a digital camera with a lens not to wideangled in order to compare with the scans? Take care of the light, either open shadow, or a proper setup with artificial lights to get a uniform exposure. Eiler

[pnodrog]

I have an older model Epson V700 scanner that I use for scanning photographs and film but I would never use it for scanning something that was not almost completely flat. For a start the cover would not sit properly. Think of it like a simple high quality photocopier that does not directly print. If you would use a photocopier for your items a scanner will be fine.

A few years ago I made a visual record of most of the artifacts in a museum and nearly all were done using a camera as very few were suitable for scanning.

[Manfred M]

Hi Catherine - why not try to photograph your objects with a digital camera with a lens not to wideangled in order to compare with the scans? Take care of the light, either open shadow, or a proper setup with artificial lights to get a uniform exposure. Eiler

When people scan, it is the "scanned look" that they are after and it is one that cannot be captured with a camera. This is why people use this approach. The is a common approach in the fine art community.

[CatherineA]

When people scan, it is the "scanned look" that they are after and it is one that cannot be captured with a camera. This is why people use this approach. The is a common approach in the fine art community.

I have seen images that include scanned objects - either miniatures or flattish objects - and I really like the effect. I wanted to intersperse my illustrations, which will mainly be made with my camera, with drawings and scanned images as counterpoints.

I bought a super cheap Epson and it turns out that it is not suitable for my purposes at all. Fine for documents or slides but nothing else. One artist I know uses the Epson v850 for her miniatures but that costs $1800 and since I don’t know whether it would work with my objects, it is too expensive a gamble.

I haven’t been able to find anything yet on the depth of field for this scanner, probably because that is irrelevant for most users.

[Cantab]

Catherine, my one comment may not be helpful for what you're trying to do but may be relevant for others who read this thread.

Like you, I've written a book, now in the final stages of proofreading before it is printed. It has a large number of photographs, many dating from the early 1940s and in photo albums.

To create a digital image of them, I photographed them with a Canon 50 mm lens; camera mounted upside down between the legs of the tripod; photos lying flat on the floor; good natural light from a window; long exposure with a cable release.

This worked well for most photos but many months later I realized that a number of the images suffered from what turned out to be reflections. These had resulted from the fact that the "flat" photos were not 100% flat. I subsequently scanned these problematic photographs on an Epson V600 scanner. The end result was very good.

[Manfred M]

I haven’t been able to find anything yet on the depth of field for this scanner, probably because that is irrelevant for most users.

Depth of field is something that we look at when we photograph with lenses, something a scanner does not use per se. The scanners are designed to ensure that whatever is lying of the scanning bed is in focus; nothing else is.

The scanner has a light source and hundreds of photo receptors along the length of the scanning head. The light source (usually LEDs) illuminate the subject and the sensors pick up the colours as the scanning head moves along the platen. The more expensive scanners use a more sophisticated sensor, which give better resolution and colour results.

[pnodrog]

I think the "scanned look" can be achieved by using very flat shadowless lighting when taking the photographs. Getting a small softbox maybe a better option than buying a scanner.

[CatherineA]

I think the "scanned look" can be achieved by using very flat shadowless lighting when taking the photographs. Getting a small softbox maybe a better option than buying a scanner.

Yes, I now think you are right. One of the artists that I admire so much who uses scanned images as components in what she creates sent me some images from her scanner yesterday. Nothing special in those images at all and I don’t see why I would buy a scanner now. Clearly all the beauty of her work must come the work that she does afterwards. I guess she uses the scanner for its convenience.

[pnodrog]

Yes, I now think you are right. One of the artists that I admire so much who uses scanned images as components in what she creates sent me some images from her scanner yesterday. Nothing special in those images at all and I don’t see why I would buy a scanner now. Clearly all the beauty of her work must come the work that she does afterwards. I guess she uses the scanner for its convenience.

I'm always right but it is refreshing to find someone with enough wisdom to recognises it....

[CatherineA]

I'm always right but it is refreshing to find someone with enough wisdom to recognises it....

[Manfred M]

Yes, I now think you are right. One of the artists that I admire so much who uses scanned images as components in what she creates sent me some images from her scanner yesterday. Nothing special in those images at all and I don’t see why I would buy a scanner now. Clearly all the beauty of her work must come the work that she does afterwards. I guess she uses the scanner for its convenience.

Photos straight out of camera are rarely as good as they should be. That is something that photographers have known for the last century, but post-processing is not nearly as exciting as creating the image, so most never spend the time / effort that is needed.

Unfortunately, post-processing generally takes a lot longer than taking the original shot.

If there are some shortcuts, I don't know what they are...

[eiler m]

When people scan, it is the "scanned look" that they are after and it is one that cannot be captured with a camera. This is why people use this approach. The is a common approach in the fine art community.

Of course - if the objects are flat - like most 2D artwork are.

[Manfred M]

Of course - if the objects are flat - like most 2D artwork are.

Except that the objects are NOT flat, but are not very thick. As an example I know of one artist that deconstructs flowers and scans them on a flatbed scanner to gather material. These pieces are then taken into Photoshop to build the artwork,