I've had occasion in recent weeks to work with fine art images on the web. The purpose of this webpage is to document some of what I've learned and done in this experience. (7/18/00)
Fine art is far harder to present on the web than photos.
Those that worked best were done, I think, by a fellow in Colorado who feels $80 per image is the right price for scanning: ArtCom (local only). I believe his scanning is time consuming because he does not have a fast scanner (probably not a drum scanner). I believe he is a very careful and experienced person who works a great deal with fine art.
An unsatisfactory job was done in some that were scanned by a person who runs a consumer photo shop on a $3500 Agfa scanner (not a drum scanner). The work was unsatisfactory because he produced 500k jpgs which were to big to use and not good enough to serve as source art. RaceMatters Images (local).
An OK but not spectacular job was done on some oil paintings by a Japanese impressionist painter. These were done on a drum scanner, but I think they were done hastily because the fellow felt he should be charging more than the $10 per image he had initially quoted me. I'm also not sure how good the 3×5 negatives were that he was working from. His carelessness shows up in that he didn't always lay the image squarely on the flatbed before starting the scan. This will load slowly because all 30 of the thumbnail images are on one webpage and they range in size from 10kb to 38kb in size (250 pixels high). The web images are 550 pixels high and they range from 27k to 138k. The source art (tifs) range in size from 9mb to 48mb. Yamada Baske/pixlib (local only).
My choice for scanning next time will be to use the fellow in Los Angeles who has so far sent me about 2000 swimming photos that are scanned carefully and skillfully. He says he will charge me $20 per scan. He told me has a Heidelburg 350 (German) which originally cost $300,000 but since costs have come down could be bought today for $150,000.