The difference is huge. First of all the background is really, really white, which is good for the painted subject, because it just pops out of the paper. You can focus on the subject, not on shades in the background. And it is the biggest advantage of scan. Everything is clear and looks really nice.
Another advantage is that the size of the scanned picture is really big and it's helpful if I would like to reproduce the painting (and I'm going to try). They need a good quality file, and scanning provides much better quality that taking a photo.
There is also a disadvantage, but I'm not sure why this problem occured. When I look at a normal size of the scanned picture, when I just open it I see everything quite good. But when I zoom it in I see pixels and strange looking spots. I'll show you what I mean below. I'm not sure if this is a scanner's fault or what. But I thought that when the picture is scanned, so when I zoom it in I can see every little detail very sharp. But I am dissapointed. The details are better when I take a photo with my camera. I think it's because of the scanner and I have to try to scan it one more time in another printing office.
So here are the scanned pictures:
It's not a huge close up, but still it doesn't look good. It should be clear and sharp, but it looks horrible. I'm pretty sure that it's a scanner's fault.
Here is the detail of the scan:
Lastly, I would like to show you how big is the difference between the backgrouds. The whiter one is of course scanned.