I think Natalya is pretty prolific, so cutting out the time needed to stitch her preliminary art
before finishing in PSD might be a decent economic proposition for her. $3000 is 30-40 hours of paid
time. So if you can save 30-40 hours over the course of two years in paid assignments, she should do
it. If she deals with transparencies on a regular basis, getting a small scanner for $500 or less,
might make sense as well.
On 9/4/13 9:42 AM, Bruce Bartrug wrote:
> I would concur with both the above posts (which I've left attached for reference.) Smaller scanners
> have the highest resolution and the lowest price. Here, for example, are the specifications for the
> Microtek i800, which has a legal-sized bed.
> Many of the larger scanners that aren't exactly cheap have a lower resolution, at three times the price.
> (You can see the whole list of Microtek pro scanners at this url:
> http://store2.microtek.com/shop/index.php?cPath=21 )
> Epson's pro model legal-sized scanner has higher resolution and only costs $1000.
> But you can get the same resolution in an 8.5x11 scanner for less than $200.
> I have the V500 and its scan quality is good. I find the standard Epson software versatile enough
> for my purposes, something I can't say for the standard Microtek software.
> Be very careful about spending $2000 on something you will only use once in a while. As mentioned,
> check out prepress scanning options for larger work, and/or a local professional photograper.
> Photographing artwork can be tricky and most pro photographers will have polarizers for both lights
> and camera, which completely eliminates any reflections. In the long run using outside services
> when needed can save money unless you are routinely scanning work larger than 8.5 x 11 or 14. Even
> there, at least to my mind, using the smaller scanner and zipping together partial scans in
> Photoshop would seem the best option.
Need to leave or subscribe to the Sciart-L listserv? Follow the instructions at