Print to Computer: Have dozens of 16x20 B&W aerial photos to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum. Plan to photo each and load into program. We don't have...

gondolier

Have dozens of 16x20 B&W aerial photos to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum. Plan to photo each and load into program. We don't have scanner with this size capacity. Any ideas?

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

The old fashioned way, before scanners, was to put a film camera on a "copy stand" and take a picture. What made it a copy stand was that there were two lights aimed from side angles that provided even illumination without reflection.

You may get reasonable results by putting a table near a large, north facing window in midday. North facing windows never get direct sunlight.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

You might try looking up document scanning services in you area. For example, in Columbus, OH there is a company called Columbus Scanning and Imaging that specializes in converting paper documents to digital documents including architectural and engineering drawings and blueprints (I mention these because of their size). There are also places like ScanCafé that specializes photo scanning but you have to ship your photos to them. That may or may not be problematic for you.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

gondolier wrote:

Have dozens of 16x20 B&W aerial photos to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum. Plan to photo each and load into program. We don't have scanner with this size capacity. Any ideas?

Making photographs will work, but to get museum quality copies requires a good copy lens, a good set of lights, a good copy stand, and a high megapixel camera.

If you have to buy equipment, the scanner route is probably far less expensive!

And with a flatbed scanner that is smaller than 16x20 you might consider making 4 scans and stitching them together.

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Making photographs will work, but to get museum quality copies requires a good copy lens, a good set of lights, a good copy stand, and a high megapixel camera.

The OP said, "to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum". He/she is not making museum quality prints. Most good computers now have 1920x1080 screens. Some of the "fruity" ones have "retinas" with higher resolution, but for WEB viewing they are not necessary. A snapshooting point&shoot, if aimed to avoid glare off the original photos, will get the job done.

In order to get corner to corner crispness, she/he will need to set small apertures and will be dealing with slow shutter speeds. But that's OK because the subject isn't moving much.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

For best quality you need to find a scanning service that can do it. The take a picture method only works well with a full fledged copy setup. If all they want is to show what they have, yeah, you can pull it off. If they want quality that can be downloaded and studied etc. then they need to be scanned on a large scale scanner.
There are lots of places that can do this. Getting to one easily depends on where you are. Someone might even give the museum a discount if they get credit on the site.

gondolier wrote:

Have dozens of 16x20 B&W aerial photos to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum. Plan to photo each and load into program. We don't have scanner with this size capacity. Any ideas?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

bsprague wrote:

The OP said, "to get into the WEB accessible ... (show quote)

What I said had nothing to do with prints. Museum quality copies was the term used, and the discussion applies.

What you are suggesting will provide lower quality images. Note that a 1920 pixel wide screen can show just about all the detail in a 6-1/2 inch wide strip from one of those 16x20 images. That is ideally the quality that would be available, not just a full screen view, at only 1920 pixels, of the entire print. The images should be at least 4800x6000 pixels (28.8MP), and sharp all the way to the edges.

Currently the Nikon and Sony 36 MP models are the only cameras that can produce single images with that much resolution.

Ideally the images should be scanned at a minimum of twice that resolution!

gondolier

Thanks all. Need is to get the images online, if a better quality is required it can be delt with on a case by case basis. The copy stand route seems the most practical solution.

billybob40

Photoshop's blank page and make it as big as you like.

pbriggs8 Loc: Lexington, KY

Another option is to scan the images in sections with a scanner and then stitch the photos together in post-processing. On Windows machines Microsoft's free ICE (Image Composite Editor) program does a pretty good job, but there are other free stitching programs available.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Have you checked with FedEx/Kinkos? Also, there should be other professional copying services that may beat their prices. My guess is that their copies would turn out much better than a photo of a photo. Also, you need to specify the type of paper that you want used on the copy.

philphotog Loc: Perth, Scotland

Hi Gondolier.
Can you not photograph the originals with your digital camera and download via card reader to your PC?....maybe someone else has suggested this, too?

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

gondolier wrote:

Have dozens of 16x20 B&W aerial photos to get into the WEB accessible database for a small local Mueseum. Plan to photo each and load into program. We don't have scanner with this size capacity. Any ideas?

Your digital camera can easily do the job.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

gondolier wrote:

Thanks all. Need is to get the images online, if a better quality is required it can be delt with on a case by case basis. The copy stand route seems the most practical solution.

A useful approach at this point might be to first, before spending any time or money, have a talk with the curator(s) about what quality they need. (Not a discussion of what you can do, but one of what they want.)

Expecting the "Need is to get the images online" regardless of quality, you may end up doing a lot of work for no purpose.

Putting up 400x300 images that are easily searchable, as an example, would be fine for an in house catalog to let people know what is available. If the purpose is to make the images available to remote users, across town or across the country, those same images will not work and may take a lot of work but won't be used.

On their part it would be very short sighted to use poor quality small images. The work they have to do (as opposed what you would be doing) is just about the same either way. One way provides very little functionality, the other provides vast functionality.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

The office stores, Office This or That, Kinkos, etc should be able to scan a 16 x 20, that's not really getting into 'wide format' scanners. Good camera, and printer would work too.