Hello, I want to sell some small ethnic paintings on the web, and need to be able to take close-up photos of very fine detail, ie a camera would need to be 2-6inches from the object. Does anyone know if I would be better off buying a flatbed scanner and scanning the pictures, or buying a digital camera with some sort of close up lens. I have neither, so I could go either way. (Some of the pictures would be in frames, so i am not sure if I could sit them on the flatbed scanner and get reasonable results). Thanks, Aisling.

-- Aisling (aisling@wrs.com), April 03, 2000

Answers

try a nikon 950 or 990.

-- benoit (foo@bar.com), April 03, 2000.

Aisling:
Sounds more like a job for a good camera to me. The big difference here is the lighting however. The flatbed scanner provides all the light you need. The camera, however, will require some very carefully set-up lighting to produce good results. I think that the scanner is not an option if you have frames that can't be removed - so you will probably need to invest in a camera and lights.
Now don't go overboard here - I've found very good results with some cheap tungsten work lights. These can be had for about 12 US dollars each at a home supply store (Menards, Builders Warehouse, etc). These are close enough to the standard 3200 K that you needn't worry. The camera's white balance will compensate perfectly for any difference. You'll need at least two lights to produce an even result. They do need to be of the same color temperature (i.e. don't use one florescent and one tungsten light...). Even though the subject isn't moving (your pictures aren't haunted are they...) you might also consider a tripod. It makes arranging the lights to eliminate glare and composition much easier.

Good luck.
Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), April 03, 2000.

Give the flatbed a try. I've had excellent results simply placing small objects face down on a flatbed. A4 scanners of very good quality can be had for peanuts these days. Even a 300 x 600 dpi model will give you better resolution than a top-of-the-range digital camera on subjects greater than 4" by 6" in size, and at about a tenth of the price.

One drawback would be if the paintings are behind glass, the reflection of the fluorescent tube might well be a problem, but some scanners have the tube offset (Mustek 12000 for instance), so there may well be a model out there that'll do the job anyway. The scanner also has the advantage of giving a fixed size ratio, and consistency from picture to picture, which may be a factor. Since the scanner inputs directly to the computer, it'll also be faster.

Try a couple of scanners out in the shop if possible, but beware these new slimline models that don't use a fluorescent tube for lighting. The colour they give is not so good, apparently. Give a scanner a try, you could save yourself time and big money.

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), April 04, 2000.

I saw a really cool new product over the weekend at Photoshop 2000 and you could use your scanner to scan larger items that wont work on a regular flatbed. It fits over any regular size flatbed scanner and it lets you scan anything like flowers,pendants and anything else that you couldn't regularly scan. It look like a little garage for a scanner and the inside is all mirrors so you can scan most anthing of reasonable size with excellent fidelity, best of all it was only $250 plus about $150 for a flatbed scanner. So for about $400 you've got a setup that could be much better than a digicam for certain things. Check it out at www.3dscanner.com

-- Cris Daniels (danfla@gte.net), April 04, 2000.