Scan Vs Digital Pictures of Covers?

[mlovest]

Have any of you had good luck taking digital pictures of your comics versus scanning the covers? I would think the camera would be much quicker, but how hard is it to get good, centered shots?

 

V/R,

Mike

[namisgr]

Have any of you had good luck taking digital pictures of your comics versus scanning the covers? I would think the camera would be much quicker, but how hard is it to get good, centered shots?

 

V/R,

Mike

 

Good photography of printed material requires a lighting setup that provides even illumination on both sides of the material, and at an oblique angle to not produce glare. If you had access to such a setup, then the quality would be outstanding. Scans, though, are just as easy, alot cheaper, and of very high quality if done correctly.

[Ringfinger]

I go with scan.

[mlovest]

Good points... I would think it would be pretty cheap to buy a basic setup with lights for a good digital camera. I wonder, what's the effect of scanning on the comic's cover? I would think a rare scan or two would have minimal impact. Lots of scans would dull the colors, wouldn't they?

 

V/R,

Mike

[Deucedriver]

Mike,

 

I've digitized several covers using both methods. If you or someone else is only doing a few (up to even a few dozen) books and already have a digital camera, a scanner is not necessary. For those who are serious about digitally archiving or selling over the long haul, I would recommend the small investment in a scanner.

 

The advice given earlier in this thread about two lights on either side of the book is right on. The small "still life" setup I made consisted of a table, white piece of posterboard, and two household lights. Just make sure to back the lights off at an angle that doesn't create glare on the glossy cover of the comics. It is obvious when you set up.

 

I stood over the comic book and centered it in the lcd viewer, and snap - a pretty decent picture with good detail. It's nice because it is fast and you don't have to invest in more equipment.

 

The great thing about digital cameras is you can use a standard household light with no camera filters or special bulbs because of the white balance function. When I took a still life photo course using film, either a lens filter or special bulb was necessary to reproduce white correctly and not discolor the final image on film. Typically, after you transfer the digital picture to your computer you can do an "automatic white balance" or color balance to fix the tint of a standard household bulb, and therefore reproduce your colors correctly.

 

Hope this helps. If you have more questions let the board know, and I will try to post a few example photos using both methods when I get a chance.

 

Sean

[Aman619]

best thing about a digital camera is its snap and youre done! Scanning drives me crazy! too many steps. But the quality is better.

[mlovest]

Sean,

 

Thanks for the great info. I must say I truly enjoy digital versus film photography. It's great have hundreds of pictures on a disk versus tons--literally--of photo albums.

 

V/R,

Mike

[Ringfinger]

Scanning is just easier and looks nicer.

[divad]

Have any of you had good luck taking digital pictures of your comics versus scanning the covers? I would think the camera would be much quicker, but how hard is it to get good, centered shots?

 

V/R,

Mike

 

Scans are superior to photos for evaluation of the grade and defects. Photos are almost always deceiving. It relates to the 2-dim quality of a scan vs. the 3-dim quality of a photo.

 

Books in hand, purchased from photos, always look worse in real life. I find just the opposite to be true with scans.

[Dmac538]

The scanner is the way to go , especially if you have one that can take the whole picture of the book.