Art Photography?

[painterswife]

Our scanner was close to 600.00 10 years ago. Now I could get the same quality for 200.00 to 300.00. I have no problem getting the quality I need for prints. professional photography costs us 50.00 per image ( down from 10 years ago).

It pays off very quickly to do the capture with a good scanner. I document 15-20 paintings a year minimum.

[Young Curmudgeon]

Hi Jill, an effective alternative to using a scanner and then stitching (especially with really large paintings) is to use a good digital camera, in this manner:

1) Set up the lighting and white balance as described earlier in this thread. Set the camera to take high-resolution (300 dpi or higher) non-compressed TIFF photos, because JPG's noticeably lose detail due to their so-called 'lossy' compression format. Depending on your camera, these photos will each be 30-40-50 MB in size.

2) First take one overall photo of the piece, positioning the camera (on a tripod) back far enough so as to avoid parallax errors (in other words, this image should show the painting as a rectangle with straight sides). This photo will be your main reference, but it won't have acceptable close-up image detail until step 5 below.

3) Now move your camera in close to the piece and take at least 4 individual photos (of the four quadrants), overlapping enough to leave out any blank spots in the middle. In the next step, these photos will supply the detail that is missing in the main reference photo taken in step 2 above.

4) In PhotoShop, open up all five images. Double-check that they're all set for 300 dpi. Leave the reference photo alone, and then one at a time adjust each of the four quadrant-photos for brightness so as to exactly match the brightness of their specific quadrant in the reference photo.

5) Next you’re going to CLONE the detail from each of those four photos, on top of the relevant area in the master reference photo. Since the detail-photos aren’t the same relevant size as the reference photo, then the only tricky part is to use IMAGE SIZE to shrink the size of each of the detail-photos, down to the same relative size as the area where they’ll overlay onto the master reference. They’ll decrease in size by this action, but they’ll still retain the detail that you need. (Don’t adjust the size of the master, just the quadrant photos.)

Changing the size is tricky because you need to visibly spot a couple of points which stand out in a reference photo, say from a belt-buckle to the top of a forehead, and then tweak the IMAGE SIZE of the detail-photo so that, placed side-by-side with the master reference, that chosen arbitrary distance is a close match. (Make sure you first set them both for the same percentage of zoom, such as maybe 25%.) This might take four or five trial-and-error steps until you get it ready to clone, but it’s worth the effort.

Now use the CLONE tool to carefully overlay the detail onto the master reference. It’s a delight to see the detail come to life, like it’s suddenly coming into focus. After you’ve done a few of these you’ll get the hang of it. You might choose to use less than 100% on the cloning tool, depending on the effect you want to achieve.

6) When you’re certain you’re done, you can throw away the quadrant-photos and just keep the final master reference. Name and save the finished TIFF file. It’s ok to use LZW compression when you do, because it’s not a lossy compression format. If you need a JPG of that file you can then also save a JPG copy, but always save your master graphics images in TIFF format, at least 300 dpi. Make a backup copy of your finished TIFF file, for safety.

I’ve done hundreds of successful images using the above steps, yet I’ve never heard of anyone else using that procedure. It works quite well, once you get good at it. You won’t find a professional scanner who will create a better image, and there’s one here in town who charges over $500 to do a single large flatbed scan. (Hey, you can buy a small Nikon camera, for that amount of money!)

There are many variations, such as taking a photo of an (angled) original oil paint in direct sunlight, knowing full well that there’ll be unacceptable glare on one part of that original. Flip the original around 180 degrees and take another photo, and you’ll have two halves that are good, once you clone them together. (Natural sunlight is hard to beat for taking good digital photos of artwork, so go with the flow.)

Or maybe your photo is missing detail from just a face? Go in close and take a shot of just the face, and then clone it onto the master, using the above resizing technique.

BTW, I recommend always taking TWO photos of every shot, because you’ll invariably find that one of the two always has just a tiny bit more of in-focus detail than the other. Throw away the one that seems a bit less-focused (when you initially open them up in PhotoShop, enlarge them to 200% and compare ‘em side by side) and then proceed with step 5 above. I didn’t mention this earlier, because I didn’t want to overly confuse what was already a complicated procedure.

Regards,

Tom S.

[CSForest]

This may be a silly question Tom but why wouldn't you just use Photoshop's Photomerge tool to stitch the 4 quadrant images into one large detailed image?

[SFrance]

I have had good luck using natural light from a window, with the painting angled somewhat sideways from the window, (out of direct sunlight) but in good bright light.

[CSForest]

I think I have discovered some of my shininess issues have to do with the substrate. I have recently started painting on Gessobord. I looked at some of my older images I didn't have so much trouble with and they were painted on canvas or multimedia board. I think those absorb more of the oils than Gessobord, thus reducing oily shine. Time to switch back I guess.

[Freesail]

I am now using a large flat bed scanner to "photograph" my paintings 12x16 on down. Many of the issues I've had with using a camera are now gone.

[Young Curmudgeon]

"This may be a silly question Tom but why wouldn't you just use Photoshop's Photomerge tool to stitch the 4 quadrant images into one large detailed image?"

--The short answer is that I'm using Photoshop 7, which doesn't have the photomerge option.

--The long answer is that after trying automated stitch programs, I evolved the manual overlay/stitch process as described above, and PS7 has such a wide variety of excellent features that I haven't yet seen a necessity to throw it away and get one of the newer Adobe offerings.

(Kind of like having a good car that you're happy with. If the one you have gets great gas mileage and is really low maintenance, why bother with a new one? One of my pet peeves is when a software company makes a new version of their program and then tries to force you to buy the so-called 'upgrade' even when you're doing just fine without any of the glitzy new features. --Think Microsoft Vista....)

My overlay/stitch method as described above takes some skill and getting used to but gives me more control over the final product than does an automated stitch program. Besides, if I just wanted to stitch photos together using brute-force, I'd use PS7 to stitch all of the layers together, flatten the image, and then adjust the overall dimensions. It's fairly easy to do, with no automation at all.

[wgan]

whats the good way to shoot indoor with a relatively cheap (but still reliable) approach, do you have to buy those expensive lights and umbrella thing? I need a way to take a picture of artworks at anytime in any condition with a minimal setup overhead, thanks.

[garry333]

Hi!!i think natural light ios the best wayb to take a picture by the camera because in natural light every seen is clearly capture and its very easy to for the task to do painting..whats your point of views??

[Davkin]

Natural light isn't all that accessible to me, especially this time of year with 6"+ of snow on the ground and sub-freezing temps. I bought an inexpensive set of two lights with white umbrellas last year that I keep set up in the basement, I think the set cost around $100 is all. However, I find I get better results just shooting the paintings in my studio sitting on the easel with the single cieling fixture room lighting that has CFL bulbs in it. They aren't great photos though, passable for the internet but nothing I'd try to make prints from. I never use the flash.

David

[CSForest]

Natural light is not readily available to me either. I leave in the Seattle area and, especially this time of year, it is dark and cloudy and raining outside.