Photo Quality

Best quality is from scanning.

I've seen great quality from cameras too though, assuming the correct set up, camera, and expertise.

scanners will give a nice uniform, evenly lit image.... however its hard to do a large image, and it won't show lumpy paintings well. it should also be a photos scanner with a good depth of field, a document scanner won't help much.

a camera is nice, but a full frame camera, with a good prime, and proper lighting, you can have a really nice image. but it takes skill and money. also keeping the camera and painting level and straight is hard to do. but if you have a painting that has relief shadows, like a palette knife image or something, then a camera is the best way. a pocket camera, phone camera etc - don't count. you won't get museum quality with those.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Thank you Thomas. My Paintings are 22"X 30" so I doubt I could find a quality printer here. Is there one big enough and good enough quality to use?

Mike, I don't have any texture on my paintings, they are all watercolors. I have a Canon Rebel XTi. It takes decent pictures but lighting is a problem. Any suggestions on lighting?

Shirley,

More than likely, a camera was involved,either 4x5 film or a 4x5 digital back was used. I used to copy artwork in my studio,with a 4x5 camera and film,for local artists and museums,galleries,etc. Then a buddy of mine bought the 4x5 digital back, that makes 3 passes,maybe 4, RGB and maybe black(?) and everybody went to him,after a while! I think he's still doing art work copies locally!

Why are you asking? Are you going to copy some art of yours? I've got the "recipe" here, if you need one,

Rich

Rich, I am selling prints. Formula... YES!!!

Shirley,

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2359806

Here's the "recipe". lighting is simple, if you follow these directions. Ideally, a nice macro lens, 100 mm would be best,since a prime lens is usually sharper than a zoom. Canon has an older lens that I use, Canon,F2.8 EF Macro. This lens doesn't have IS, but I usually have the camera on a tripod when I use this lens, as you will when you copy stuff.

Rich

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvwMxzvJHGU

Long story short if you want the best results....you either have to be willing to learn some basics of photography and lighting, or pay someone else to do it.

for flat stuff, use a scanner. your just better off, and its not worth the headache of even lighting, color temps, etc.

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Scans give great even light and high quality, but your image has to be brought to the scanner... You can achieve really good quality with a high resolution camera with proper lighting... With the camera you can adjust the lighting to reflect the lighting you as an artist feel the image should be best viewed, especially with thick medium shadows and reflective surfaces. Some finishes (high gloss) don't photograph well, and give small blow-out speckes. One of the biggest issues is the colors matching the original and the temptation to coler enhance or tweak the digital reproduction.

Thank you Rich, I will study that!

Thomas, thanks I'll check that out.

Mike, that would be nice but my paintings are large 22"X 30". Where would I find a copier that big?

If I was doing museum work with large art I would be using a medium or large format camera with a scanner back or possibly full frame DSLR. The lens would be a flat field lens. A flat field lens will have the exact point of focus on a flat subject the same at the edges as in the middle. Without a flat field you can't do that, but you can stop down a bit and get a good image. You would use at least 2 light sources. The light sources would be diffused, usually by shooting through a fabric designed for such use. To show texture the lighting ratio might be adjusted a bit to allow for some shadow. The camera lens would be positioned precisely at 90 degrees and centered on the art. We were lucky to have a studio in town that was set up for this and he also had a very large scanner that required little stiching. To get museum quality find a photography studio that specializes in fine art reproduction. You don't need museum quality to sell well. But the best sellers here have very high quality photos or scans of paintings.

One thing I have noticed in these forums is there are a lot of advice on short cuts to get passable work and few that know how to get top quality work. You rarely hear anyone mention flat field lenses which are the standard for copying art. Strive for the best quality you can get or afford. You don't always get a second chance.
Edit to add did not mean to imply that Rich and others are not giving expert advice. They are. You can get great results following Rich's recipes.

Thanks Patrick! Another problem is the cost of getting them scanned. I have at least 1000 paintings to photograph or scan. For smaller paintings, is a home scanner high enough quality?

Shirley,

As Tom mentioned and Patrick, it can be done with a camera. You just have to follow the rules. The better the camera(sensor) and the better the glass, the betterer the results! Color isn't an issue, if you follow my instructions and use a color chart or a white/gray card and then use that to match the color in Photoshop or something like that. When you've made your copy(remember to remove the gray card in AT LEAST one copy) and then upload it to Photoshop, use the eyedropper or even in Adobe camera RAW to correct the color automatically,

Rich

Thanks Brad, very good advice, maybe I need a new camera. Any suggestions?

Thanks Rich. I do shoot in raw and use a gray card. Also use CS4. I need to do some research on (blue?)
light bulbs.

You have all given me things to think about and study. I will use your advice. Thank you all!

An xti would produce respectable results given the right set up. I would get a cheap 50mm prime, should be $100. You are going to need a tripod, something sturdy to hold the photographs, and at least two lights of some type preferably with diffusers (umbrellas). There will be a learning curve but its nothing you can't handle if you are willing to put in a little time. There are a myriad of how to's on the internet on this very subject, I just posted one quick one.

With 1000 to do I would learn how to do it myself, especially if you have a little know how on how to use a camera manually.

Yes, thanks Thomas. I do know how to use the professional side of my camera. My photos seem good but I don't know if they are as good as I need for prints. I'll work at this and see if I see a difference. I thought mine were OK but after hearing about museum quality, it made me wonder. I wish I could post a photo here and see what you think.

You can, just upload one to faa and post the link.

Ideally you would upgrade to a full frame camera but all you really need is the same sensor size you have (APSc) with more pixels. Because 10Mp will limit the size and quality of your prints. Even if you don't want really giant watercolor prints it is better to be able to print them at a higher resolution then you can get with your current camera body. A cheap 50mm stopped down a bit as Thomas suggested will give excellent results. Eventually you may want to get something made for copywork.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/1-rusted-memories-shirley-sykes-bracken.html

Does that get you there?

It gets me there, if you would turn on the full resolution preview it would help. Then we could see bits and pieces in full res.

OK, just a minute.

OK, try that. Your honest opinion is most appreciated.

Shirley,

Not blue lights, just the ones I show on my site. Compact fluorescent bulbs.

If you have a 50mm lens then fine, I like the longer lens,since it will get you further back from the artwork. If you're gonna buy a lens, then look at that Canon Macro, which is a great lens and also pretty cheap as a used lens from eBay, AND it has a flat field lens, which helps,rather than a curved lens on the 50mm.

Here's how to post an image here in the discussions:

Here's how you add your images to any discussion:
1. Go to your Artist page, and then to Galleries and then to the image you want to include in your thread.
2. In the lower right hand corner of your image, that shows how the art can be ordered, framed,canvas,etc, in the bottom is a box, just under the color pallette, click on that box.
3. With the box now highlighted, do a "CTL C"
4. Return to the discussion thread that you want to add the image to and do a "paste" or a "CTL V"
a href='http://fineartamerica.com/featured/ball-of-light-marco-island-beach-rich-franco.html' size='20'>

5. You're almost there! The image will show up after you hit "submit"
6. Extra credit!!! You can change the size of your image by changing the 2 numbers after the "=" sign, width & height, but do so proportionally so you don't distort the image.

Rich

Thanks Rich!

Now the link seems broken.

Thanks again Rich, I think I've got it!

It is all about the set-up... If you are not parallel and level you can adjust that in photoshop, but the lighting is really key.

I think ideally there should be more light on it, but that is pretty good. It should print anyways.

Thanks, I think I did best on that one. I am going to retake and replace some of the others doing it that way. Going to switch to the compact florescent light bulbs. I don't have the umbrellas but maybe I'll order some.

Thanks Nancy, what lights do you use?

Shirley,

You can go to Home Depot or Lowe's and get the large reflectors like I have in my photo. What you want to do, is to evenly spread the light and aim it and that's what the large reflectors do.

If most of your paintings are in that 22x30 range, I would copy them vertically and use 2 lights on either side. Not too close, or you'll create a hot spot. An easy test is to just use a large sheet of brown cardboard,after you set up the lights and then underexpose the capture, until you can see on the computer, if one side is hotter or overlapping too much and then simply adjust the lights.

Ideally, I used to have a couple of light meters and I would use them to balance the light falling on the art work. For a painting your size and vertical, I would break the painting down to 6 boxes, left and right on top, center boxes and then the bottom boxes and use a light meter(You can actually use your camera's "spot Meter", if you play with it a bit) and get the light falling on the art work, to be about 1/2 stop the same, over the entire painting and you're good to go and can fix it later in Photoshop. When I was shooting and using transparency film, I had to get it within a 1/3,since transparency film was so sensitive to light and exposure.

Also, when you get your image into the computer, use "levels" to make sure the darks,lights and midtones are right.

The image that's in my tutorial, was a water color and one of the best ways to learn to get images and the colors in those images, right on. You can also "bump" up individual colors in Photoshop,under "Selective Colors" which you have.

Also,also, this diagram shows the right way to get the lights aimed at the artwork:



Once you get the camera and lens perfect and use a smaller aperture, like F8 or F11, you'll be a Master!

Rich

It is important to keep the lights well off to the side so that no reflected glare can reach the camera lens.

http://news.smugmug.com/2014/05/14/the-art-of-copy-work-photographing-artwork-accurately-without-glare/

Brad,

Righto!

That's another reason for the longer lens,rather than the 50mm, it allows you and the camera to get behind the lights, instead of in line with the lights. You can easily "flag" the light from falling into the lens,especially if it's a rounded lens element, instead of a flat field lens, like I suggested. Just set up the lights and then get in front of the camera and see if you can see any of the light, or reflector showing in the front element. Then simply take a large piece of cardboard or better yet, Foamcore and put it between the camera and the light source,check again, and you're done. The canon lens I suggested above, has a deep built in hood and that also is a reason to get that Canon lens, especially if you have ALL that art work to copy, used, without the IS,

Rich

I have learned so much today, I thank you all!