 Sandra Wortmann |
Photographing Artwork A local artist asked me if I would photograph her work, and then they could get prints made from those photos. What lighting would be best to use? I have studio lights - umbrellas and softboxes. What about what focal length to use so there is no distortion and that it would be close enough that would be very clear and detailed? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Hi Sandy, If it is flat artwork, scanning is a much faster, much easier way for digitizing it than "reproduction photography". Have fun!
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Sandra, you don't say how large the artwork is. If you're talking about poster-size or bigger, then scanning would not be the way to go. For that matter, if the artwork is oil on canvas, with a lot of texture in the paint, then again a flatbed isn't going to do. That said, if the artwork is actually flat (paintings, for example), then a lens designed to have a flatter plane of focus would be best. Let me explain: With a regular lens, the zone of focus is actually described by the surface of a sphere. If depth of field is ignored, when you focus at 10 feet away, the actual layer that will be sharp are all the points exactly 10 feet from the focal point of the lens - and the area described by measuring 10 feet from a point is a sphere. What this translates to in the real world is that if you are taking the picture of a flat subject and get the center in precise focus, the corners of the subject will be less sharp. Of course, DOF allows for some "slop" with all this, so using a smaller aperture will ensure better focus all around. But some lenses were made with corrections to "flatten" the focus plane - Nikon's 50MM Micro lens is an example (it was often used to take shots of documents). So if you use a Nikon camera, you could get a used 50mm Micro (macro) lens. I frankly do not know if the current 60mm Nikkor macro lens is similarly designed, or if Canon or anyone else has something similar. Again, though, with a small enough aperture to give deep DOF (and a tripod to keep things rock steady), you should be okay. As for focal length, this depends on the size of the artwork and the size of your studio - and keep to something at the normal or slight telephoto side as wide-angle lenses tend to be prone to barrel distortion. One more thing: You might want to investigate a program called DxO Optics Pro. This is a package that takes digital files and makes corrections for optical and chromatic abherrations - so it could make further corrections to the images.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
If the artwork originals are larger than the scanner's platen (glass plate), you could scan it in parts and stitch those seamlessly together on your PC.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Ah, of course - that's the easy way! Why didn't I think of that? Oh wait, I did - but it still won't help if the artwork itself has dimensionality - like oil paintings where the brushstrokes are thick.
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
Yes it does! Scan your own hand, or a real flower, and SEE for yourself! And then meticulously clean the platen . . .
|
|
|
|
||
|
John G. Clifford Jr |
Sounds like the artist would like to make a series of sellable prints from her original paintings. IMO, the important thing here is quality. Her print customers are going to want to believe they're buying a little piece of her and so the print must be absolutely sharp. This CAN be done with a d-SLR, but you'd want to ensure that you captured enough information to be able to print at the printer's native resolution at full-size. Let's say the artist wants to sell 16x20-inch limited-edition prints. I'm going to use an Epson 4800 to print them on, and I want 360 dpi for the best quality. That means I need to have an image that is at least 5760x7200 pixels in size, or about 42 MB. If I were doing this job with my personal equipment (Sigma SD14), I'd take a 3x3 multi-row panorama using an 85mm to 105mm macro lens. I'd want to be off at a distance to minimize any lens distortion and I'd shoot at f/8 to f/11. I'd make sure I had absolutely flat lighting from multiple sources so that any ridges or texture on the image would not show shadows. I do have one shot somewhat like this on my gallery ... it's actually the ceiling mural, made with a 3x3 multi-row panorama using a Fuji F30 6 MP digicam!
|
|
|
|
||
|
LightAnon.com - Steve Parrott Contact Steve Parrott Steve Parrott's Gallery |
I have done this many, many times. You can get very good results with any decent DSLR and lens combo. Just be sure your lighting is even and glare free on the artwork. Your studio lights with umbrellas should do fine, preferably with white umbrellas. Shoot RAW and use an ACCURATE grey card such as made by WhiBal for your initial shot. Then in the RAW converter you can click on the grey card to set the correct white balance... remember the color needs to be RIGHT when shooting someone's artwork. Use a small aperture, something around F11 will put you in the "sweet spot" of your lens where you will not have any pin cushion or barrel distortion to speak of. Be sure to use a tripod and have your lens level and plumb with the artwork. If the artwork is small enough, it can sometimes be best to place it on the floor and shoot down. If you must shoot the art in an upright position, be sure it is not leaning. Secure it flat against a wall if you must. You will still likely have to crop out outside backgrounds when you have the photo in the computer. Be sure and tell the client that the artwork is not likely to be of the same aspect ratio of an 8 x 10 or 16 x 20 or whatever, so it will have to be "dropped" into a sized canvas in PS if they are wanting a "standard" sized print from it. Use a QUALITY lab to do the printing. They will use a RIP program to upsize the photo so your will not have to worry excessively about native resolution. M Pix has always done great work for me.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael McCullough |
I have heard that shooting artwork outside on a overcast day can work well!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John H. Siskin |
Hi Sandra, I have done this professionally for many years. You may want to check out an article I wrote about it: www.betterphoto.com/article.php?id=170 Thanks, John Siskin
|
|
|
|
||
|
Milan Banik |
thank you all for great support with this discussion.this will help me too. thanks milan
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||