# How to take pictures of/scan my artwork in without destroying quality?



## Bir (Jun 18, 2010)

Alright. So I'm running on Ubuntu, I have an HP 1401 scanner/printer, I have a Polaroid i836 camera with an amount of megapixels that I cannot read, it's been used so much.


No matter what I do, I just cannot get quality images of my colored pencil work. I /used/ to be able to. The only thing that's different is that I was running on XP before. For example:

Quality then: 







Quality now:









Should I ditch Ubuntu? I don't see how it would affect my scans, though. Is there a certain camera that I can buy that will take nice pictures for me? 

I'm not asking if you like my art or not. I'm asking on how to get clear strokes and tooth, like in the first picture. I can see everything, while in the second picture... colors have been screwed up, the pretty marks that colored pencils made are just... gone.

The first image was drawn a few years ago, and the new one was actually drawn within the last week. My skill has improved, so I'm pretty much VERY CONFUSED.



;___;

Help?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 18, 2010)

It seems to be the same quality to me. However, did you make sure you have correct color profiles and so forth when editing and posting through what ever image program you're now using?


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

Arshes Nei said:


> It seems to be the same quality to me. However, did you make sure you have correct color profiles and so forth when editing and posting through what ever image program you're now using?


 
All settings are exactly the same. I don't know how you don't see it, though. Like, the tooth of the paper shows much more through the first picture. Also, every single line I made shows up in the first picture. The raccoon lost about half of the fur I drew on it, and a TON of color, while the first picture looks exactly like the original when I hold it up to the computer. One of my friends on this site and IRL even told me when I showed her the original raccoon in person that it looks nothing like what scanned in. Is it possible for scanners to have less quality over time? I don't know much about electronics..


----------



## Runefox (Jun 19, 2010)

If you're losing details, it's possible the DPI settings aren't the same as you've been using in the past. Make sure you're scanning it in at a decent DPI level - Around 300 should give you a fairly large and detailed scan. In addition, if the colours are off, try making sure that it's scanning in with a high colour mode. Generally, presets for coloured drawings and so on will use 256-colour modes, while you should use photograph presets if you want perfect colours.

Also, it's certainly possible for scanners to lose their sensitivity over time, but it generally doesn't happen very quickly. One thing you might do is try to clean the platen with a lint-free cloth and some eyeglass cleaner, as it's possible that it may be smudged or dirty.

One last thing: I can definitely make out JPEG artifacts in the second image, and this is probably a source of some of your troubles. Make sure when you scan it in that you use a format like PNG or BMP rather than JPEG or GIF. JPEG will slightly blur the image, and some colour information will be lost along with adding blocky artifacts. JPEG is best used for uploading to the web. GIF is limited to 256 colours, and is therefore not very good for much more than animation (PNG is better in every other way).


----------



## furiana (Jun 19, 2010)

How large were the original (real-life) drawings, Bir?  Did you have to resize the scanned images?  I recently discovered that some programs are better than others at resizing!


----------



## Stratelier (Jun 19, 2010)

In my personal experience (scanner = HP 4400c) I find that 150 dpi is plenty of detail already for everyday use.  "Web resolution" for an image is somewhere about the 75 dpi range anyway....  And as already mentioned, when you scan something make sure to save it in a lossless format (PNG or BMP) so that you can open it up for editing later and save only the final (web-ready) version as a JPG.

You are correct that scanners are extremely sensitive to paper tooth, there is nothing you can do here but learn to embrace it.  Paper texture is a matter of _perception_, it's something that's always there but we just ignore it when looking at a drawing in real life.  Same goes for all those pencil lines that you sketched and erased while creating the work, they carved nice little impressions into the paper tooth and while _we_ can ignore it easily, the scanner doesn't have that luxury and will pick it right up.  However, sometimes you will find an "enhance" (sharpening) control in your scan utility that you can use to give it just little bit of leverage.

Also make sure you know where to find your scanner utility's exposure controls, especially the midtones (gamma) setting because that has the largest effect on perceived color quality.  Your first image looks slightly overexposed while the second image is much better in that department.


----------



## furiana (Jun 19, 2010)

Actually, that brings up a good point.  Did you use the same type of paper for both drawings?  And did you use fixative or anything on the second drawing that you didn't use on the first?  That could also change the surface of the paper, and therefore how it scans...


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

Both of the drawings were drawn on sketchbook paper, the same kind. They're very very nearly the same size IRL, too. No resizing was done on the computer, and I'd actually LOVE if the scanner picked up all of the tooth. The more it picks up, the better. You brought up a great point though, that the second one looks very much like a JPEG victim. I'm gonna go ahead and try to scan it in once more with everyone's advice and see what happens.


----------



## furiana (Jun 19, 2010)

Bir said:
			
		

> They're very very nearly the same size IRL, too.



Somehow the second image came out smaller than the first. If they were the same size in real life, why aren't they the same size now? :?  Whatever caused that might have caused the loss of quality, too.

Good luck with the re-scan.  I'm interested to see the results: I have a hard time scanning colored pencils, too.  I wonder if it's a JPEG thing?


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

Aw man. It came out beautiful when I changed the DPI settings. *Had no idea what that meant, before*

It still isn't perfect, but it's MUCH MUCH better. Now I'm not afraid to scan my stuff in. xD

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/4032878


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

And I know they aren't the same size on the computer. Whatever settings were changed must have done it. I was just trying to say that /I/ didn't change anything, so I  had no idea what was going on. ;____;  But it's all better now.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 19, 2010)

I notice there are still JPEG artifacts (see here - Notice the area around the edges and around the black dot in the upper right corner) even though you've saved it as a PNG file - When you scan it in and when you save it, try to use only PNG or BMP, and try to stay away from JPEG as much as possible - Altogether if you're going to upload as PNG files to FA.


----------



## furiana (Jun 19, 2010)

Don't worry, I get what you were saying.   I was just trying to isolate the problem, but it looks like Runefox's and Stratadrake's*http://forums.furaffinity.members/4661-Stratadrake *tips worked.  Like, _really_ worked. o.o!

What specifically did you change about the dpi settings?


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

From 200 to 300. XD Such a huge difference. Holy wow.


----------



## furiana (Jun 19, 2010)

No kidding! Wow!  

Well, whatever works. It really does look a lot better now.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 19, 2010)

Runefox said:


> I notice there are still JPEG artifacts (see here - Notice the area around the edges and around the black dot in the upper right corner) even though you've saved it as a PNG file - When you scan it in and when you save it, try to use only PNG or BMP, and try to stay away from JPEG as much as possible - Altogether if you're going to upload as PNG files to FA.


 
Uhh why. No offense but it's excessive. If you have Adobe Elements use the Save for Web option.

If anything the White Balance and levels need adjusting Artifacts in this case aren't that big of a deal.


----------



## Runefox (Jun 19, 2010)

Arshes Nei said:


> Uhh why. No offense but it's excessive. If you have Adobe Elements use the Save for Web option.


You misunderstand me... Until preparing to upload to the net, staying away from JPEG is a Good Thing(TM). If you notice, the submission file is a PNG, yet still has JPEG artifacts, which means JPEG was used at some point beforehand. JPEG is only appropriate for when the image is ready to be uploaded to save on the filesize.


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

I scanned it in as a PNG. I never use JPEG unless I don't know about it. In this case, the picture was never a JPG. Maybe some other things are off. I learned that way back when I played Neopets. : /

But either way it's much better now. I'm gonna play around with more scans to see how much better I can get it, but for now I'm content. ^^


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 19, 2010)

Runefox said:


> You misunderstand me... Until preparing to upload to the net, staying away from JPEG is a Good Thing(TM). If you notice, the submission file is a PNG, yet still has JPEG artifacts, which means JPEG was used at some point beforehand. JPEG is only appropriate for when the image is ready to be uploaded to save on the filesize.


 
That could  be (FA's system) trying to compress, FA doesn't handle pngs very well tbh, but then I can't entirely blame FA. I noticed users tend to do bad scans regardless.

Having said that, I never seen any real valid reason most of the artists here to use PNGs claiming some kind of quality loss. And I know it's going to come off offensive but most work here doesn't qualify png status.


----------



## Bir (Jun 19, 2010)

It wasn't JPEG at any point. I keep saying that. : / When I scanned it in, I scanned it in as a PNG. That's how I've always done it. It was the settings that was screwing me over.

If you're looking at the texture of the ground and calling it JPEG artifacts, it's actually the texture of the leather table I was drawing it on. Otherwise, I have no idea what an Artifact from JPEG is. All I know is that it was never at any point at JPEG.

And whether my artwork is worth being or good enough to be PNG, it makes things look closer to what they really are. Wasn't PNG originally made for computer-made images, though? Whatever the case, I've always used it. I'm not new to uploading things to my computer, but I've never had to mess around with my settings before because it always scanned in pretty nicely. I was just confused as to what was going on with my newer scans.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 20, 2010)

Yeah, why do you keep saying that because I didn't argue that point at all. :/ I said the system may be doing a compression on FA.


Yes, and many artists have produced fantastic levels of artwork and saved as JPEGS for WEB.. I'm saying 99% of art here using PNG is overkill. You may have it closer to what you said it would look like but do you think the general populace thinks "Well oh good, that grain looks like the original" They're going to look at what is good enough, as long as it's not artifacted to hell it's not going to matter :/


----------



## Bir (Jun 22, 2010)

It wasn't towards you, it was towards Runefox, who kept insisting that JPEG was used at some point before the upload. Sorry for not clarifying that ^^;

And I'm not really looking to have it look better than what it really is, and I'm a fan of tooth and little imperfections. For me, the more it shows, the better, because I want it to show what it's been drawn on as well as how it looks IRL, no matter how crappy it looks. : /


----------



## Runefox (Jun 22, 2010)

I guess the scanner just does that then.  Weird. Anyway...


----------



## furiana (Jun 22, 2010)

FWIW, I have heard of scanners leaving artifacts before.


----------

