Getting darkroom prints digitised

[JOReynolds]

Originally Posted by big paul

I never know what angle to have the screen when looking at my scanned photos

To maintain screen brightness while holding down power consumption (and therefore improving battery life), laptop LCD screens use a technology that gives acceptable contrast, but only over a relatively narrow viewing angle.
I'm testing it now - comparing a 2007 HP Compaq 6715b laptop LCD with a secondhand Benq sensye+ photo monitor. The difference is obvious - the desktop screen retains acceptable colour reproduction when viewed at 45° but the laptop degrades as the viewing angle increases (with respect to perpendicular). Either way you will get best results if you view head-on.
The old CRT screens, especially those with Matsushita or Mitsubishi tubes, are better at any angle but need periodic recalibration as they fade.

[Mark J]

This is an old thread, I know, but is there a consensus that the best method of putting up a scan of a print on the forum is probably to photograph the (damn) thing using a digital camera ?
I would like to show a couple of recent shots.
Scans on flat-bed scanners at home and at work have come nowhere close to doing justice to even a test glossy RC print.

[TonyMiller]

If you can set up and light a glossy print correctly without reflections then a phone, dslr or point and shoot will do the job.
I use my iphone for quick scans but use a V700 for most prints now. Its all a compromise!

Originally Posted by Mark J

This is an old thread, I know, but is there a consensus that the best method of putting up a scan of a print on the forum is probably to photograph the (damn) thing using a digital camera ?
I would like to show a couple of recent shots.
Scans on flat-bed scanners at home and at work have come nowhere close to doing justice to even a test glossy RC print.

[JOReynolds]

My wife and her friends are painters, some semi-professional, and are often requested to furnish digital files for catalogues, posters, advertisements and websites. The results were sometimes laughable, with toes and body shadows included in mobile-phone images, which is a shame, because some of the paintings were really good. Some galleries specified ridiculous formats and file sizes, which confused everyone until we learned that the galleries were equally poorly informed.

My background is in photography - a long time ago I was taught to use a wooden camera - and I was volunteered to write a paper on photographing flat artwork, of which I have experience. My attitude towards mobile phone cameras has changed a little since I wrote it but, if anyone wants to read it, send a PM and an email address. It's in .DOCX format and includes an appendix to explain jargon.

A few months ago I attended the grand opening of a new gallery and there I met a lady who had actually read it and used it, grey cards included, for her application for a post-graduate course!

[PanFrank]

All digital images, directly made with a digital camera or scans need post-processing. Just get them digitized and then try to match the real print in your hand with the digital image in your post-processing software. With Ilford RC MGV I can somehow close, but Ilford FB warmtone seems to be almost impossible. But I am not that educated in digital post-processing. I would have guessed that it should work with the Epson scanners 500/750/850 to be able to continue with Photoshop or another software.

[MattKing]

My experience with traditional flat bed scanners and RC papers is that Satin finish prints seem to scan better than other finishes.

[Mark J]

I was thinking about that but I'm reluctant to duplicate test prints on another paper, just for forum posting.
Thanks for the advice anyway.
I'll see what I can set up easily for a DSLR copy.