8x10 photographygreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
I need a way to input large high resolution images into my computer. I am thinking of using a 8x10 rail camera, shooting transparencies, than scanning with a standard flatbed scanner. If this sounds like a reasonable solution I need a recommendation on a camera set-up. The art I need to shoot is approx. 20"x20".
-- Alan Spears (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 1998
I don't think it will work very well: you will get image ghosting from the shadow of the trannie on the white cover.
"Proper" scanners are very common now, for 35mm or 5x4. 5x4 at 4000 ppi is quite a decent resolution. The computer file is not much short of 1GB.
-- Alan Gibson (email@example.com), May 29, 1998.
The 8x10 idea sounds like a good one to me, but I would be more inclined to send the transparencies out to be professionally scanned by a lab specializing in digital imaging. It does cost a little, but the results are usually worth it.
-- Adam DeKraker (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 30, 1998.
If you are going to the expence of shooting 8x10 trans. I would also suggest that you have a lab do a drum scan for the best quality. But you can save alot of money and not suffer quality if you shot 4x5 trans. and had them put on a photo CD. You will get a file size of about 70 meg. at high resolution. You not only will save alot of money on film and processing but also on the cost of the scans.
-- Larry Gard (email@example.com), May 31, 1998.
Why not use the Dicomed or similar back on a 4x5 camera and go digital from the beginning? Large files are the norm with these backs and they work well. Otherwise, go with the suggestion above to have a good lab do the hi res scans for you.
-- Dan Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 03, 1998.