SCIART-L Archives

SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration-


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Britt Griswold <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
SciArt-L Discussion List-for Natural Science Illustration- <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:16:26 -0500
text/plain (22 lines)
If you work really small and detailed on a smooth surface, you might get away with 24 x 8 inch image 
scanned at 400 to 600 dpi. Something easily accomplished on a oversize prepress flatbed scanner (if 
there is one in your area.)


.On 2/2/11 12:39 PM, Kathryn Killackey wrote:
> Dear all,
>    I have a process question that I hope some more experienced illustrators might be able to
> answer.  I am at the very beginning of a project creating three historic scenes that will eventually
> be reproduced for display, each on a panel aprroximately 6ft by 2ft. I've been taught and it has
> been my preference to create original artwork that is at least slightly larger than its final
> format, scaling things down always tightens things up nicely.  But in this case it seems a waste of
> time, not to mention daunting.  Is it alright to blow up an image, say, 200%?  If I painted a 3 x 1
> ft scene and did a high resolution scan, would it look alright enlarged?  I would probably be
> working in watercolor and graphite, though I could go digital as well.  I'd really appreciate any
> advice you have to give.

Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at