Best scanner for artwork?

I don't know about brands, but recommend getting the largest you can afford because stitching together scans of larger works is a serious PITA.

Well, since you haven't gotten any real replies.

Epson used to make some very good flatbed scanners (for a reasonable price; a really great one will cost close to $1000). I don't keep up with the newer models so I'm not sure what their ratings are now.

You might try looking on some of the unbiased computer rating websites, such as PC Magazine.

hp's are fine. have two different ones at work that do a fine job. high quality scans for documents and also for b&w artwork. (not sure about color. never tried) Here's one for $150:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00J8NBVYE/?tag=absowrit-20

I recommend choosing a scanner with high resolution, to ensure it catches all the detail and allows you to reprint (if that's an end-goal) at decent sizes..

I have never bought a high-end scanner but I was really impressed with the scanning of my previous epson multi-function. I purchased the particular model because I wanted to scan my ink drawings, take them into photoshop and play around with them. Wasn't a high-end machine but I chose it because it offered higher resolution than all the other "cheapies" and it really did do a good job
I was able to get good quality prints larger than the original drawings.

I'm not sure if it matters all that much for scanners on the letter-sized, affordable end of things (as opposed to the super-high-end, thousands-of-dollars pro scanners that I'm sure we'd all like to have ...). I've used Epsons and HP's and been pretty happy with them. What I have right now is a Canon Pixma MG5422 all-in-one printer/scanner, which kind of sucks as a printer but works just fine as a low-end scanner, which was mostly what I wanted it for anyway. Getting one with wireless networking capabilities is a nice plus because then you can scan to any computer you have without having to mess with cables.

You might want to google for consumer ratings on some different models to see if there are any issues to beware of. Also check the scanning resolution -- most scanners have more than one DPI number here (e.g. 1200x2400), but the only one that matters is the smallest number. These days, nearly all scanners, even on the bottom of the market, can do at least 600-1200 DPI, and there aren't too many situations when you'd need better than 1200, unless you're getting high-quality art prints made, or blowing up smaller pieces to a larger size.

If you're scanning for print you need to scan at at least 1200 dip

More is better.

If you're not going to be scanning things constantly, I'd go to a Kinkos or similar print service shop (local printer, a Staples, etc.) and pay a few dollars per scan for a really high end scanning job. They will also have larger scan tables, i.e. a larger surface, or a drum scanner or even a ceiling mounted scanner.

Consider also taking pictures with a digital camera mounted in a frame or on a tripod.

You can find shops with exceedingly high end scanners that can scan at 6400 dpi these days fairly easily, and even better.

You can always reduce data; you can't really add it. So it's better to scan in at higher than you expect to use.


Also, archive the raw scan as well as any reduced or processed or edited versions.

AW Admin said:

Consider also taking pictures with a digital camera mounted in a frame or on a tripod.

Click to expand...

Doing this right can get just as expensive as (or, more likely, much more expensive than) a decent flatbed scanner, and is wrought with its own peculiar set of problems (lens distortion, color cast, white balance, even lighting, stability, just off of the top of my head). If any of your artwork is on backed canvas, though, it might be unavoidable. However, getting a digital camera rids you of the need to scan photos (unless you're scanning other people's photos, in which case you need to make sure you're not running afoul of copyright laws).

I'd personally rather get something along the lines of an 11x17 flatbed scanner. If necessary, you can also use programs like Hugin to stitch multiple images together. Photographers use those sorts of programs to create large-resolution panoramas. It's been something I've been wanting to try personally in my photography but I have yet to get a tripod decent enough to get the initial shots right.

Photography is way better than scanning, if you can master it. Subtle glazes and texture become lost in the best of scans. Paintings that have a lot of depth to them become flat.

Book cover artist Dan Dos Santos has a great article on book art photography HERE. I've employed variations of this with great success. And it doesn't require expensive equipment; just mastery. Honestly, I make do with all kinds of interesting junk laying around my studio, patience, and a 15 MP camera.

HERE is one of my feline paintings, photographed (I have this in a much, much higher res, for art prints). I use many subtle translucent glazes when I paint. If this were scanned, so much would be lost.

Sorry about that, Alessandra. I've been out of these forums for awhile, and some things have changed since. The image is now a link.

Thank you, Lady Macbeth. Glad I could help.

Lady MacBeth said:

Maybe a new camera is the way to go.

Click to expand...

Tread carefully, for photography is an addictive hobby which will gladly consume any money you want to throw at it, well beyond the point where throwing money at it won't make it better, just more expensive. One does not simply walk out of the camera store.