Alex wrote:Based on which scanner? All scanners or just some scanners?
It's not about the scanner, there are good and bad scanners.
I scan large format transparencies when I have to in my work.
Sometimes I am sent a transparency of a work of art that is being loaned to us for a show and since the publicity for the show must be done long before the actual original work arrives I am forced to scan the film to get the needed digital image to be sent to the printer for the gallery guide, museum magazine, poster etc. I have a good film scanner and I know how to use it. I can get a good scan of the transparency that matches the transparency really well and get that image into print.
The problem is that it is nearly impossible to get a transparency that is accurate to the original painting or anything else for that matter. Film has the fixed limitations that I have stated earlier. But give me the original painting and I can do a direct digital capture of it and it will surpass the scanned film image in every way.
What must be remembered also is that nearly all the printing presses in the world are now digital and require an accurate digital image for printing.
Just so you know I use the correct tool for the job without prejudice look in the October 2005 issue of Art in America pg. 146 and you'll see a two page wide photograph by me of a Lewitt wall drawing and because it's 180 degrees wide and poorly lit I shot it with my 2 1/4 Noblex panoramic camera on color negative film. I then scanned the negative and tweaked it in photoshop to get the resulting image. This is not my usual working method but it got the job done.
Taliesin
), and colors (flowers and dresses). He delivered hundreds of beautiful images on 120 size Kodak negative film, a set of 5x5-inch paper proofs, and two CDs with all the scanned images. Can't wait for some poster-sized blow ups of the shots, but the digitized images are convenient for sharing with family and friends.
