camera for taking pictures of paintings

[Steve Collins]

I suppose you could blow up a 1 megapixel image to the size of Kansas, but it won't be giclee quality. The company I use for giclees recommends that images be 300 dpi for optimal results. Though acceptable results can happen at lower resolutions, you lose quality at lower resolutions.

What this translates to in my experiences is that a 10 megapixel camera (for example, my XTi) can give 300 dpi for an 8x10; anything larger means loss of fidelity.

That's why I scan anything I plan to giclee. My scanner does 300 dpi (actually 600 dpi and better scanners do better than that), and I save $100 everytime I scan it in instead of having them do it.

With giclee, you want the absolute best possible results you can manage to produce. The goal is a print that you can't tell apart from the original and that lasts indefinitely. Though perfection seems impossible, and longevity is questionable, it still merits the effort.

My 2 cents

Steve

[Ali the Cat]

thanks for the info

[Dave Carter]

Why spend $600 on a camera that will take months to learn? For under $300 there are many (Canon, Nikon and Sony point and shoots) that are very good for you intended use of web posting and ref shots, as well as fitting nicely in pocket or bag. Easy to learn and easy to use for the beginner. Keep in mind that the best way to shoot paintings is in manual mode with a tripod. A good light set will also add to the kit (something I have yet to get around to!) Never use a flash!!!

[Ali the Cat]

hello,

I borrowed a scanner and have scanned one painting in I used the photomerge as you did Steve and it has taken up an incredible amount of memory on my computer, so much so that it takes about 5 mins to adjust a colour etc.

I scanned it in at a high res as I want to produce larger prints than the original painting, and saved as tiff.

does anyone know about zipping images? I think it compresses them i'm wondering if that would help any? i'm not sure how to do it, or what about just compressing them, if i just compress them can i still get a good print, will resolution stay the same? thanks for any advice.

[Steve Collins]

I scan at 300 DPI for that very reason. At 600 DPI, the resulting files are huge and the process of producing them takes forever. At 300 DPI, the images are still much larger than you get from a camera (typically 250 to 350 Mb for a Photoshop PSD file, and 30 to 40 Mb for a matching JPEG).

NOTE: I have been told that scanning at 100 DPI with the scanner zoom set to 3X runs faster with the same scan depth (effective number of pixels). I've tried it and haven't noticed any difference myself, so it may depend on the scanner.

TIFF is larger than JPEG because it isn't compressed (typically 150 or more Mb). TIFF format can be saved in a lossless compressed format called LZW, which reduces the file size by about half without losing any fidelity. Unlike TIFF, JPEG uses lossy compression, meaning that files will be smaller but there will be varying amounts of loss in fidelity depending on how aggressive you go and how many times you save the files.

Note that the printer I use prefers TIFF format and like to have the original PSD file and I have learned that it pays to give her what she's looking for.

To pull it all together, here are the steps I take for a given scan:

1. I scan at 300 DPI to a set of TIFF files. (For a fullsheet watercolor painting, I end up with 9 overlapping TIFF files)
   
2. I use Photoshop Photomerge to stitch the 9 TIFF files together. I then save the merged file in PSD format with layers and no other editing (for a scan of a merged fullsheet, this is about 350 Mb). This becomes a baseline that I can always revert to if I screw something up later.
   
3. I save the file to TIFF format using LZW compression without layer information. These options are provided in the TIFF format dialog box. The result is about 130 Mb for a scan this size
   
4. I perform edits on the TIFF file as needed (cropping, realignment, color and exposure correction, whatever it takes to get it right). I save the result as a separate TIFF file. This one will be about the same size as the first
   
5. I then start saving JPEG versions of the final image at various sizes as follows:

• 300 DPI JPEG at same size as original, max quality (c. 35 Mb)
• 72 DPI JPEG at original size, max quality (c. 3 Mb)
• 72 DPI JPEG at display resolution (so it will fit my display at 1280x1024), medium quality (c. 200 Kb); I do this so I can live with the image for a while by having it in front of me whenever I'm on the computer (which is a lot)
• 72 DPI JPEG sized for the web (largest dimension set to 600 pixels); medium or low quality (c. 100 Kb)
• 72 DPI JPEG sized for thumbnail (largest dimension set to 128 pixels); low quality (c. 25 Kb)

After the dust settles, I delete the original scan images (TIFF files before photomerge) and I may well skip creating one or more of the JPEGs, depending on intended use.

As for giclees, I write the unedited PSD file and the edited TIFF file to a CD and bring it, and the original artwork (unframed if possible) to the printer's for final editing and printing.

I have about 500 Gb of diskspace available to me on my system and haven't run into space problems yet. However, I strongly recommend making backups!!! I burn DVDs on a regular basis of any data files I have, including images. I also have a network storage device (NAS), basically a separate network device with disk drives in it that you can backup data to. I have it set up to automatically backup all my data once a week.

Anyway, by doing all of the above, I save from $100 to $150 in giclee preparation costs for each painting I decide to print. The printer charges $25 or so for final edits and varying amounts for printing ($15 to $35 per print depending on paper and size). So that $100+ savings really helps.

Steve

PS: Shameless plug: I use Giclee of New England in Monson, MA (http://www.gicleeofnewengland.com/). Nancy (the owner) does an excellent job at very reasonable rates. I can't recommend her highly enough! Also note that the area around Monson is beautiful in a classic New England way.

[Ali the Cat]

Steve, thank you so much for writing all this information,

it is truly helpful to me and will be to others I'm sure

I've saved a tiff file but because it is so large I am going to attempt to resave it under LZW, that's if I can open it as I was having trouble yesterday, my photo imaging package (the gimp) that I use wouldn't open it!!, ohe well I may have to rescan the painting...

thanks again

[Kallistos]

You should save it as a .JPG for maximum compatibility.

[Steve Collins]

Originally Posted by Kallistos

You should save it as a .JPG for maximum compatibility.

Right. That's why I save as JPEG. I use TIFF for giclee to avoid fidelity loss due to compression, and because that's what the printer prefers. But I use JPEG for all other purposes.

Steve

[DesertDarlene]

What has been said here has been great advice. I started out taking pictures of my paintings with a film SLR with a 50mm lens, two halogen floodlights, a tungsten filter, and a tripod. Those will all work fine and are pretty cheap. I have found very good film SLRs for $50 USD on eBay. If you want digital, probably the same lens/body set-up will work and you can get digital SLRs for less than $500 that are very good.

But, in my opinion, if you want to make quality reproductions, you might want to scan your work in pieces and stitch the pieces together using a program like Photoshop Elements. You get the best detail and can adjust the quality and size. As has been said before, it can be time consuming, but I've found it to be the best way to get a good quality print. But, if your paintings are over 16 x 20, it would be very time consuming indeed.

[Ali the Cat]

i've been putting my images together in photomerge but there seems to be a line where they join, i.e one part of the blue looks darker on one scan so it forms a line when I use photomerge, any idea on how I can overcome this?

thanks

[Steve Collins]

Ah! I forget to mention anything about that. Well, I scan with a healthy amount of overlap and then crop all the scans by 1/4" to 1/2" on all sides that overlapped the edges of the glass. The problem I have if I don't (and it sounds like what you're describing) has to do with the fact that the paper doesn't sit tight against the glass at the edges because it has to ride up over the body of the scanner, which rises above the level of the glass a bit. This reduces exposure at the edges and looks like a shadow. By cropping on the affected sides, you eliminate the lines or stripes during photomerge.

Hope this solves it for you.

Steve

[Steve Collins]

Note that the amount of overlap for each scan needs to more than cover the areas you end up cropping, such that overlap still exists on all sides between the various scans.

Steve

[Ali the Cat]

thanks for that, you are a star well I'm going to try that now....

[pa-paw]

Originally Posted by Steve Collins

The question of taking pictures of your paintings can open a can of worms. At least it did for me.

Because I need to produce digital images suitable for making giclee prints, I generally use a flatbed scanner (Canon CanoScan 8400F) to create images at 300 DPI. This gets a bit involved sometimes, since my paintings are often larger than the scanner platen. What I do in those cases is scan a set of overlapping sections and use Photoshop CS3's Photomerge (which is magic) to make a composite image. I scan with all scanner manipulations and optimizations turned off and use Photoshop to do any cropping or image adjustments needed.

Anyway, that saves me close to $100 per image for giclee prep. I then convert to various sizes for other purposes (72 DPI JPEG, etc.) as needed.

I'm also known to use my camera on occasion (a Canon Digital Rebel XTi (400D)), but only for paintings I know I'll never make giclees of. The can of worms in this case had to do with the fact that I had a really hard time lining the camera up with the painting to get a true centered, 90 degree angle shot consistently. I got sick of messing with tripods and such and ended up buying a copy stand. That set me back a few hundred bucks but solved the problem of lining up the camera with the artwork. I use cool flourescent bulbs on the copy stand (5800 kelvin) and use custom white balance (via the camera) so the camera sees white the way the light bulbs give it.

If you don't care too much about having the images aligned correctly, or if you don't mind tweaking it using Lens Correction in Photoshop (or similar in other software), then a tripod would be enough.

How you approach it is totally dependent on what you're looking for in terms of quality and use.

Anyway, I highly recommend the Canon Digital Rebel XTi, though as other threads in the forum show, the XT is a great camera at a bargain price these days. So for your price range, I'd recommend the XT (350D). As for lenses, you will need one that's wide angle enough to limit barrel distortion when photographing larger works. I have found that the cheapo kit lens has worked fine for this (the EF-S 18-55mm), but that my otherwise better lens, the EF-S 17-85mm IS, does not. Perhaps someone with more lens knowledge can recommend something here. I could use the advise myself.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Steve

I’m glad that I found this discussion. I sold my old Canon 300D some time back and replaced it with an Olympus SP550. The SLR was great for some things, but was a hassle for collecting outdoor reference images. I also have been using a flatbed scanner to archive paintings. Using my scanner I am limited to “9 x 12’s”, so I have been thinking of returning to a SLR for the larger paintings. The image stitching sounds interesting as I really don’t want to go down that SLR road again.

[dejaa]

I have a Kodak Z710 that I have used for 2 years now. Takes great pictures, paid 250.00. Go to Kodak's web page and look at the Z series of cameras. They range from 199.00 to 250.00.

If you would like to see the kind of photo's it takes you can go to the website I created for my Husbands Nation Guard Unit and click on photos and browse through the my gallery. www.waterdawgs1387.com

I have printed 8x10 but most of the ones I have taken with it I can print poster size.