Marketing - prints of paintings

[jackiesimmonds]

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Text</FONT f>
Hello folks. I am a British pastel painter, been doing it for some time, as you will see if you visit my website. I would love to hear from anyone who has tried photographing their pastels with a digital camera, in order to produce "fine art prints" on a home computer printer. I am about to plunge in and buy a 3 megapixel camera, and possibly an A3 printer whichI plan to set up with lightfast inks. Any experiences would be most helpful. Thanks everyone. ps - as an experienced pastellist, if there any newbies out there who would like some help or advice, just email me and I will do my best to answer.

[Dano]

very nice works! I am impressed! I paint in high values few darks and somehiow I make it work my art instructors say. stay in touch I so love this group now that I am sick and staying home painting all thetime! :-)

Dano

[pixelscapes]

Hi Jackie...
See the many e-mails I just sent in response to your question about fine digital printing, and digital camera / printer issues.

If anybody else wants the same type of information, let me know and I'll e-mail you the same stuff. http://www.wetcanvas.com/ubb/smile.gif

-=- Jen "Dissertation" de la Cruz
http://www.Pixelscapes.com and http://www.BewareofArt.com

[Roan]

*raises hand*

Jen? OH OH OH OH! Me me me!

Me too, please :P



------------------
A'bheinn as àirde tha san tìr, 's ann oirre 's trice chì thu 'n ceò --
<FONT size="1"> The highest hill is oftenest covered with clouds.
-- Scots Gaelic proverb.</FONT s>

[VictoriaS]

Checked your website. Fantastic work, Jackie!

I've had no luck at all photographing my work (using a Polaroid, with or without flash). All I get is glare. I'm wondering if a digital camera would make a difference. So I'll be interested in the replies to this question.

By the way, do you blend at all? Couldn't tell on the website.

Victoria

[Lulu]

Hi from NZ
Just want to tell you Jackie that I have a book and a video of your pastel painting instruction. Brilliant!

[nancymae]

I try and take photos of my work before I frame them...I can't get the glare out of the pictures either. For the printing out of a pastel digital photo, I think you can do it, however, with a very good photo quality printer. That is the key...is your printer. You can have the best digital camera around..and if you don't have a good printer..well.... I don't have any recommendations as I have a "word processing" printer..not very good for repros. Have your sales person demonstrate the quality for you before you buy!!

[jackiesimmonds]

Thanks for all replies so far. I don't really understand why you guys get "glare" when you photograph pastel pics. Are you photographing them framed? If not, there is no reason to get any glare at all. I photograph all my work as 35 mm slides, because I find that magazines use them etc and I send them to galleries etc. I use two tungsten 500w bulbs, a fairly good 35mm camera on a tripod, and tungsten film in the camera. My slides are excellent, certainly good enough for reproduction. It is important to keep records of your work, and I believe it's worth investing a bit in decent equipment. I am not a photographer; I use a the auto setting on the camera, but i do "bracket" the shots, taking one underexposed by one stop, and one overexposed by one stop, so that I have a choice of trannies at the end. Digital photography is really not so different; you need good lighting conditions, a tripod to eliminate camera shake, and off you go. I agree, having a good printer helps, and I'm looking carefully at this ... everything so far points to the Epson 1270, or, if I could afford it, the 2000P. However, I suspect that for really good prints, the number of pixels resolution in the camera is important too. Jackie. <FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Text</FONT f>

[jdk]

Uhhhh...Jackie...? Tungsten bulb? Tungsten film? "Bracket" the shots? Underexposed? Overexposed? Good choice of trannies? *scratches my head* .... guess I REALLY seriously still have a LOT to learn...oh my, oh my!

About the printer....I haven't seen the printer you mentioned but as far as I know (I have had the chance to work with Epson, Canon and HP printers), HP is still the best....especially when it comes to the use of ink....it lasts and lasts, like the Energizer bunny....and believe me, where I once worked (computer learning center for kids)m we printed on a daily basis with lots and lots of colors and yet the cartridges last for at least a good 3 months...and the prints are very good too, quality wise....

Hope this helps...

Juvie

[Bobbie]

Originally posted by jackiesimmonds:
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS">Text</FONT f>
Hello folks. I am a British pastel painter, been doing it for some time, as you will see if you visit my website. I would love to hear from anyone who has tried photographing their pastels with a digital camera, in order to produce "fine art prints" on a home computer printer. I am about to plunge in and buy a 3 megapixel camera, and possibly an A3 printer whichI plan to set up with lightfast inks. Any experiences would be most helpful. Thanks everyone. ps - as an experienced pastellist, if there any newbies out there who would like some help or advice, just email me and I will do my best to answer.

<FONT face="Arial">Hello, I'm new on this site but have to confess I've lurked a bit. What a great forum - so many tips & lots of comaraderie. Jackie, you might remember that my friend, Joyce, & I "talked" to you about shipping your books from England. Just wanted to say that I, also, have an Epson printer. I have the Photo EX which I purchased about 2 yrs. ago - whenever it first came out. It prints photos beautifully. You must also use photo paper in order to get the max. performance from your printer and be sure the resulution is set for the highest dpi. Thanks. Bobbie</FONT f>

[Linda Ciallelo]

Hi group, Ive been photographing my pastels with my new digital camera(Epson 3000Z) since August, 2000. I use it to make photos to work from and then I use it to reproduce my pastel drawings. I have a new Epson Stylus 2000p which produces 13x18inch museum quality prints on acid free water color paper in archival ink that won't fade for 200 years. I used a 35mm camera to take photos to work from for 30 years. It took some getting used to but the digital camera gets more detail in the shadows and everywhere else. It produces crisp clear amazing photos. I didn't read all your posts, so will go back and do that now.
Linda

[Linda Ciallelo]

OK I read the posts. The glare that she speaks of might be from an automatic flash. Make sure that your flash is off. I think that the buggest problem that you will have making your own digital prints, from an inkjet printer of this quality, is that people will not believe that it is possible. And yes you will need a super camera. My camera has 3.3 mega pixels, and at it's highest setting, the memory will only hold one photo. This is the setting that you will use to make the 13x18 inch reproductions of your work. It will take more than 30 minutes to make one print.
Because you can adjust the contrast/ color/ brightness, etc.etc. the original drawing becomes just another step in the final result, which is the print.
I have wondered if, since we need 4x5 transparencies of our work in order to submit to competitions, what if you were to send your "print" to the photographer to make the transperancy from? Since the print is actually better and more permanent than the original.
Linda