Scanning 11 by 14 prints: Some of my important B&W photos only exist now in enlargements. Negatives lost ... another story. Any recommendations in the SF Bay Area for a studio that can...

Graeme Loc: El Cerrito, California

Some of my important B&W photos only exist now in enlargements. Negatives lost ... another story.

Any recommendations in the SF Bay Area for a studio that can do good digital copies?

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

Just make sure whoever does them, has a drum scanner. Most office supply places can do that size on a flatbed. But, that would be last resort, better than nothing?

Leitz Loc: Solms

Graeme wrote:

Some of my important B&W photos only exist now in enlargements. Negatives lost ... another story.

Any recommendations in the SF Bay Area for a studio that can do good digital copies?

My niece claims that Dickerman is one of the best in the bay area:

http://www.dickermanprints.com/scanning/

Leitz Loc: Solms

Michael Hartley wrote:

Just make sure whoever does them, has a drum scanner. Most office supply places can do that size on a flatbed. But, that would be last resort, better than nothing?

I believe I would prefer a flatbed scan. Here is a comparison, from Dickerson's:

FLATBED SCANNING
Best for high-quality digital files and prints of non-transparent originals

· Resolutions up to 12,000 dpi depending on size of original
· From reflective originals to 12×16.5"
· Output in RGB Tiff format
· File sizes up to 1GB depending on size of original

HEIDELBERG DRUM SCANNING
Best for larger negatives, transparancies or reflective prints up to 17×17"

· File sizes (8-bit) up to 235 MB depending on film size
· For film (neg. or transparency) originals from 35mm to 17×17″
· From reflective originals and transparencies to 17×17"
· Output in RGB Tiff format
· File sizes (8-bit) up to 235 MB depending on film size
· File sizes (16-bit) to 460 MB depending on film size

JimKing Loc: Salisbury, Maryland USA

Isn't drum scanning of prints overkill. I've read arguments that anything over 200 dpi is wasted. While I prefer a little higher than that prints just don't have the resolution of negatives or chromes and 400 dpi seems sufficient.

gemlenz Loc: Gilbert Arizona

If possible you can always photograph the print. Also, if you can scan it in 2 pieces and stitch it together with software.

Graeme Loc: El Cerrito, California

Thanks to all, especially Michael for the Dickerman recommendation. I see it would cost $50 for each 11 by14" print so I will have to think carefully.

And yes I had thought of scanning halves of the prints and trying to stitch them with software but haven't tried to do that with scans rather than images taken with a camera. Certainly worth considering considering the cost.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

$50.00 per scan, is a little steep, maybe more than a little? It's easier to find someone with a large format printer, than a large format scanner. 11 x 14, isn't exactly what I'd call large format. But?

Good photo sounds like the way to go.

I don't prepare the images, I just print what people send.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Graeme wrote:

Thanks to all, especially Michael for the Dickerman recommendation. I see it would cost $50 for each 11 by14" print so I will have to think carefully.

And yes I had thought of scanning halves of the prints and trying to stitch them with software but haven't tried to do that with scans rather than images taken with a camera. Certainly worth considering considering the cost.

You're quite welcome. I'm glad to have been of some help.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Graeme wrote:

Some of my important B&W photos only exist now in enlargements. Negatives lost ... another story.

Any recommendations in the SF Bay Area for a studio that can do good digital copies?

Graeme, George is right, why don't you just photograph them?
Tape them up to a wall in decent light and just shoot them. I've done hundreds like that.
Especially on old pics, they are usually so grainy, just how good do you need that big old grain to come out??
Anyway, that's what I do! ;-)
SS

Graeme Loc: El Cerrito, California

SharpShooter wrote:

Graeme, George is right, why don't you just photograph them?
Tape them up to a wall in decent light and just shoot them. I've done hundreds like that.
Especially on old pics, they are usually so grainy, just how good do you need that big old grain to come out??
Anyway, that's what I do! ;-)
SS

Yes that is what I should do. Saves stitching. No grain showing in the prints.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

Graeme wrote:

Yes that is what I should do. Saves stitching. No grain showing in the prints.

Not to mention, a lot more economically friendly.

I have printed several pretty large enlargements/reproductions, from photos of old prints. Not like an original, but with a good camera, straight on camera placement, some decent lighting, absolutely acceptable.

Graeme Loc: El Cerrito, California

Update to all who replied: a photographer friend recommended ABC Imaging in Concord, CA with offices also in SF and Sacramento.

They did TIFF scans of my seventeen 11 x 14 inches at $6.20 each. So it turned out to be the best and cheapest solution.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

Graeme wrote:

Update to all who replied: a photographer friend recommended ABC Imaging in Concord, CA with offices also in SF and Sacramento.

They did TIFF scans of my seventeen 11 x 14 inches at $6.20 each. So it turned out to be the best and cheapest solution.

That sounds more like it.