This is gonna be a doozy.

I know, I know, I should invest a scanner when posting traditional art.
But not many who don't have a scanner are not risking themselves to go out to the library or the computer shop just to scan adult art.

Given that cameras on phones have improved over the years, with multiple cameras slowly creeping out of the gimmick phase, and picture quality of certain phones is on par or have exceeded DSLR cameras (they could take vivid pictures even on low light!), do you think there'd be a reexamination on taking pictures over the phone with multiple cameras?

And, since some artists are using pencils, and they have to make do by taking pictures over the phone, while trying to remove the glare, do you think light boxes such as this one, to could alleviate the glare? I had considered that after I was given advice on that, even though I'm using watercolors now, since I'm still taking photos of my pictures if I'm not doing digital art.

The lightbox would prevent glare, but I set up a decent lightbox a few years ago for photography and it actually cost me more than my scanner did.

The scanner can definitely produce better results, and takes up less space.

alexyorim said:
do you think there'd be a reexamination on taking pictures over the phone with multiple cameras?

It ultimately comes down to "can we tell it's a photo of a drawing?" Using a scanner doesn't automatically make it acceptable if there's specs, contrast problems, obvious paper wrinkles, etc... as long as the result is clean enough with well-balanced light and color, the method doesn't really matter.

watsit said:
It ultimately comes down to "can we tell it's a photo of a drawing?" Using a scanner doesn't automatically make it acceptable if there's specs, contrast problems, obvious paper wrinkles, etc... as long as the result is clean enough with well-balanced light and color, the method doesn't really matter.

This here. The problem with many photos is the lack of any amount of post-processing or correction to make the resulting photo actually look good. Even with a scanner it's not a guarantee you'll end up with something that wouldn't look better without post-processing, regardless of media or colors. Inks and markers can look streaky and uneven, colors can look washed out, etc. At least with a scanner, the image is pressed against a flat pane so trying to level a round lens with a flat surface is no longer a factor.

Personally I think a scanner would be a better option, not to mention easier to push for post-processing because it's already going onto a computer. I'd maybe only consider something else if the paper/surface drawn upon is significantly larger than letter/A4 because bigger scanners are really goddamn expensive. My scanner was $70, which is really not too bad for a decent flatbed and it doesn't take up a ton of space. If you're going to get a scanner, get a normal flatbed instead of a 3-in-1 because your scans will be a lot better. The scans from all the 3-in-1s I've used have been pretty shit compared to my current scanner. I'm not sure why there's such hesitation from so many people about getting a scanner when it's arguably the better and more economical answer.

ratte said:
This here. The problem with many photos is the lack of any amount of post-processing or correction to make the resulting photo actually look good. Even with a scanner it's not a guarantee you'll end up with something that wouldn't look better without post-processing, regardless of media or colors. Inks and markers can look streaky and uneven, colors can look washed out, etc. At least with a scanner, the image is pressed against a flat pane so trying to level a round lens with a flat surface is no longer a factor.

Personally I think a scanner would be a better option, not to mention easier to push for post-processing because it's already going onto a computer. I'd maybe only consider something else if the paper/surface drawn upon is significantly larger than letter/A4 because bigger scanners are really goddamn expensive. My scanner was $70, which is really not too bad for a decent flatbed and it doesn't take up a ton of space. If you're going to get a scanner, get a normal flatbed instead of a 3-in-1 because your scans will be a lot better. The scans from all the 3-in-1s I've used have been pretty shit compared to my current scanner. I'm not sure why there's such hesitation from so many people about getting a scanner when it's arguably the better and more economical answer.

I say. I've been hesitant to post my pictures of my own traditional art here without getting worried they might be deleted, even though I have post-processed them. All I could do so far for my pictures of my sketches is to either render it to digital art; or if I go for traditional art, as I'm now into watercolor, find means to diffuse light, such as a lightbox, which I'm planning to make.

I have been laying eyes on a good Canon printer/scanner with continuous ink, but thinking about how it would be hard for me to personally maintain printer/scanner hybrids because I'm not planning to make prints yet, and upon reading about the difference between printer scanners and flatbed scanners, I'm leaning to eyeing on the Canon LiDE 300 or 400 for its economical value.