Photographing artwork for reproductions

Hi there!

I'm a beginner photographer needing to photograph my paintings for high quality large reproductions.

My problem is, I can't seem to find the right setting on my EOS 6D Canon. I researched it and used the M RAW setting (fine) on a close

up setting. I tried this using a portrait lens and also a zoom lens, but the images are still not high quality enough to reproduce large

images. The company who does my prints need 300 DPI but they say I shouldn't try to convert the pics online as that will not make for

good reproductions.

Anyone have experience with photographing art for reproductions who can advise me? Thank so much!!!

Amanda

<p>What's the largest size print? What's the largest size painting being captured?</p>

<p>If the paintings are wall size you may have to use a medium format sensor like a Phase One. http://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/XF-IQ3.aspx</p>

<p>You unfortunately don't mention what artwork is about (drawings, paintings, sculpture?) and what materials were used (shiny paint, polished metal?)<br /> For convenience sake (makes an easier starting point for the rest of my post) ) I'm assuming they're some kind of arcrylic paint based paintings.</p>

<p>Most important thing for getting proper artwork pictures is getting the lighting right.<br /> You don't want harsh direct light, as it will reflect in the paint, and could, if the paint has been applied in such a way that there is some kind of structure, when coming from the side, create all kind of unwanted shadows.<br /> The latter may of course be the exact thing you're after, but to keep things simple I'm assuming you're not.<br /> So normally should be diffused (which will help avoiding reflections) and coming from all side, or at least not from the front (again to avoid it reflecting in the paint, or glass in case of framed pictures/drawings)</p>

<p>Second important thing is setting the correct balance and fine tuning of the WB on your camera, and of the color temperature of the light used.<br /> Daylight is 5400K(elvin), leaning toward blue, flash very close to that (5500K4 while artificial light, depending on the type, leaning toward yellow/orange, although with fluorescent possibly all over the place (tungsten 3400K, household lamps 3200K, fluorescent and LED depending on type and model)<br /> If you're camera WB is set on daylight, and you're using artificial lighting, you're picture most likely will turn out yellowish, while with the camera WB on tungsten, and using daylight, the pictures will tun out blueish.<br /> So depending on the type of light used, select the correct WB for the camera. Most WB settings are probably easily found in the menu (daylight, flash, tungsten) though, while exact WB fine tuning on in degrees Kelvin demands a somewhat higher knowledge level.</p>

<p>Ideally you have some type of (mutiple) flashes at your disposal, either studio or speedlights. Flash is the IMO best choice beause of the known, and constant color temperature, and repeatability of the output <br /> <br />You of course could use tungsten lamps or even LED lights.<br /> But with tungsten you have a, compared to daylight, different color temperature (which could give problems if the room/space/studio you're shooting also has a a lot of normal daylight) <br /> And with LED there might be issues with the light frequency, as described here https://photographylife.com/light-frequency-issue<br /> Daylight of course also is an option, but depending on the time of day and type of weather the color temperature of that type of light will also vary, which of course can influence the reproduction artwork you're photographing.<br /> To make things a bit simpler I assuming you have access to multiple/two flash units (studio or speedlight), a couple of lightstands, and a couple of umbrella (and stuff to mount the flash units and umbrella's on the lightstand)<br /> Silver umbrellas are more efficient then white ones (reflect more light, which could be important when using speedlights which usually have less power then studio units) but give a harsher (= more chance of possible shadows) light then a white umbrella</p>

<p>Setting up is pretty easy.<br /> Mount each flash on lightstand with flash unit, bouncing/reflecting it in an umbrella (making the light very soft and diffused) and place one flash on the left, and one on the right, in a approx. 45 degree angle of the painting.<br /> This will help avoid reflection of the lights on the shiny paint (or glass) while also avoid creating all kind of unwanted shadows.<br /> You can then start shooting trial shots. to judge the color reproduction, and correct exposure.</p>

<p>The latter can more or less be judged pretty easily using the histogram on the LCD, and the picture on the LCD itself (or maybe a separate larger monitor)<br /> But as far as finding the correct exposure, I highly recommend using Manual Mode, and not rellying on some kind of pre cooked setting in the camera, to find the correct setting.<br /> Yes it will demand more effort and (re)thinking, but you'll then know what you're doing (and after some trial and effort) be able to find the correct settings, rather then just having to wonder/getting frustrated over why the camera 'isn't doing what you want'.</p>

<p>As far as 'correct' reproduction of the colors is concerned, explaining that would take a book (and plenty have written on that subject).<br /> But the quick and dirty way is to include a color test chart eg http://www.3nhcolor.com/product/165-298.html in each picture (since you'll be shooting a series of differently exposed photo's of each piece of artwork anyway, take with each exposure setting one with,, and one without the color test chart) which when to picture is reproduced/printed will give the 'printer' an indication what the colors actually look like.</p>

<p>Camera of course is important, but considering you're just an amateur, a medium format Phase One obviously isn't a realistic suggestion.<br /> The Canon 6D is (as far as I know, Nikon shooter here) a full frame camera with excellent IQ (= enough pixels for a larger, although of course not wall sized, print) and color rendition.<br /> <br /> The lens use however is more important. It should offer high resolution, and as little as optical distortion as possible. This kind of automatically disqualifies your kitlens.<br /> Don't know what your portrait lens is (85mm?), but as a rule a prime lens (even a humble nifty fity, which can be found for quite moderarte prices) will give a higher IQ then a kit or zoom lens (OK a top of the line zoom probably will also, but will also a considerably higer price tag) when closed down a few stops.</p>

<p>The files should of course have as much technical info (pixels, colors, sharpness) as possible in order to get a high quality end result. So for your definitive files, always go for the largest size with the highest resolution (width and height at highest possible pixels, similarly for DPI)<br /> <br /> As far as the files/format of the files is concerned, how to you deliver your files to your print service, and what kind of files do they want/demand?<br /> JPG's are not ideal (the files are compressed, which boils down to not including all technical details) while RAW will have to be processed to get the correct final settings (which your print service probably won't be willing to do, or maybe doesn't even have the correct software to get the same results you want).<br /> 'Best' option are TIFF's, which do contain all info of the picture as it looks after you processed it to your liking. Only disadvantage is they're much bigger then JPG's, so probably won't qualify for online printing services.</p>

<p>Anyway, so far my recommendations as far as I can based on the info you provided, HTH</p>

<p>In addition to Paul's advice, I would strongly recommend a good solid tripod, especially if you're working with continuous light. For the highest quality, you will want to set the lowest ISO your camera will work at which leads to slower shutter speeds at a given aperture. For a lens, look for a macro lens with the longest focal length that can take in the entire painting while still fitting the room that you're working in. This will make alignment and lighting easier. Note that a lot of zooms have "macro setting" marked on the barrel. While these lenses will focus close, most zooms have more distortion at the edges of the frame. Single focal length macro lenses are usually better corrected for this.<br>

If you're going to do a lot of this, studio flash will be the best light source and will help to eliminate some important variables with light color and exposure.</p>

For your information, the Canon 6D has a maximum resolution of 5472 x 3648 pixels which printed at 300 PPI (pixels per inch) would give a print size of

 

5472/300 x 3648/300 = 18.24 x 12.16 inches.

 

They could be printed at 200 PPI which would give a print size of

 

5472/200 x 3648/200 = 27.36 x 18.24 inches.

 

"The company who does my prints need 300 DPI..."

 

What they are saying is they need to print at 300 DPI/PPI. You only have control over the size of the image that you send them, maximum of 5472 x 3648 out of the camera. If you try to up sample, enlarge that, in editing you will lose quality as the image stretches out.

<p>Thanks you Tim, Paul, Andrew and James for your time and helpful responses, I am truly grateful.<br>

My paintings are 38x38" and I am looking to reproduce them at the same size. I managed to take some great pics, color and details were great, but they could only produce a 24x24" print. Given what James explained I don't think my 6D camera has the capability to take pictures for such large reproductions:(<br>

Thanks for your input! </p>

<p>You actually could photograph your work in sections and combine them in Photoshop. You might also investigate a different printing service, which might be able to take your files and resample them to a bigger size successfully.</p>

Thanks Andrew!

<blockquote>

<p>My paintings are 38x38"...<br /> ...but they could only produce a 24x24" print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your paintings are approx. 3ft x 3ft which means your camera with a long enough lens to allow you to pull back enough to create a flat field (no lens barrel bowing of sides distortion) capture will produce detail but you still haven't indicated desired print size?</p>

<p>If it is a 3ft x 3ft (1:1) print then your camera is capable of producing a high quality print at the same size.</p>

<p>What are you seeing that says it's not giving quality print results?</p>

<p>It seems respondents, sometimes writing at great length ;-), have done everything except answer the OP's question! Her problem is that she is dealing with printers who have no idea what they're talking about and bleat "300 DPI" without any idea what this means. "DPI" stands for "dots per inch" and is a measure of the detail which a PRINTER delivers. It has nothing repeat nothing to do with camera resolution. I have an Epson 3880 printer which always prints at 1440 DPI in its highest-quality mode, no matter what kind of file is involved.<br /> The first question I would ask myself as the OP is "How committed am I to working with these printers?" If she is committed in this way, and if these "experts" have decided that her original camera files are good enough for 24 x 24" prints, she should produce versions of these files interpolated by 50% and ask her printers to produce test proofs at the 38 x 38 inch size she requires. These should look fine. The 300 PPI requirement applies to reproduction in books, et cetera, which are viewed from a close distance. If, however, additional "quality" is required for any reason, the easiest and cheapest way would be, as mentioned above, to photograph her artwork in sections and stitch these together – not difficult, as long as you can keep the camera squared up to the artwork while you make four exposures of the four quarters of this. Easier and probably not all that expensive would be to have the works photographed by a professional lab which is able to produce a 200 or 300 MB file. I would probably in any case think about changing labs at sometime in the future :-).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems respondents, sometimes writing at great length ;-), have done everything except answer the OP's question!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kind of hard to answer the OP's question without having all the facts, David. I don't see how you can assume this to be a printer issue since she still hasn't confirmed the final max print size in inches. It's not like this is new territory printing reproductions of paintings. </p>

<p>I've talked with local fine artists who make print reproductions capturing their work with their cellphones. They had no trouble getting prints. In fact the artists I spoke with made it seem so easy, in fact too easy, but I was looking right at the prints on watercolor paper and canvas and I didn't have to pin the artist down on how they got such quality.</p>

<p><em>It seems respondents, sometimes writing at great length ;-), have done everything except answer the OP's question!</em><br /> I don't think the above observation is correct since the OP explicitly asks<br /> <em>Anyone have experience with photographing art for reproductions who can advise me?</em><br /> and not whether anybody has any experience or advise dealing with the printer and/or any incorrect advise given by him</p>

<p>Given that the OP states she's a beginner amateur, and hints at wanting to use her own equipment to do the job, it therefor is far more practical to start with the basic techniques of shooting artwork.</p>

<p>A discussion on whether she's using the best printer for the job is a subject better suited for a later or separate discussion, and in answer to a question on <em> photographing art for reproductions</em> is much more off mark</p>

<p>Considering that her printer/printservice discusses online conversion of the pictures ' <em>they say I shouldn't try to convert the pics online</em>' doesn't give get the impression that already a high end professional printer is involved in the process.<br /> If however that subject is discussed, I think it's more valuable to give the OP to give a concrete, rather then just a 'smart', suggestion on a print service/printer better suited for making high end prints of artwork reproductions.<br /> And for that matter, who also provides the service '<em>to have the works photographed by a professional lab</em>', and what such services might cost (again against the back ground of the OP being a amateur beginner).<br />For an amateur beginner finding such a professional lab could be quite challenging since most print services seem to primarily operate through a website rather then a physical location.<br /> And of course some advise on the logistic side of that operation, i.e. getting the several 3 by 3 feet sized paintings there (and back), including transport, insurance etc. will no doubt be much appreciated by the OP as well</p>

<p>But getting back to the photography rather then the print service, back in the early days of digital photography when a camera with a 2,5 MP sensor was a major feat, the tool used to get those extra pixels needed for large prints and sometimes even banners and displays was Genuine Fractals http://www.imaging-resource.com/SOFT/GF/GF.HTM<br /> It nowadays is available as a Photoshop plugin, could be handy to get those extra pixels</p>

<p>That said, it's not clear what the prints eventually will be used for, e.g. separate works of art in their own right to be sold as such, or intended for a exhibition in a gallery, or just large size photo's made to be appreciated in a small circle of family and friends.<br /> Depending on that can a relevant recommendation for more or less expensive options be made.</p>

<p>Yep, a lengthy answer again, but again, much more on the mark :-)</p>

<p> </p>

Amanda said,<P>

 

"<I>My paintings are 38x38" and I am looking to reproduce them at the same size. I managed to take some great pics, color and details were great</I>,"<P>

 

So she wants to get prints of that size, 38x38 inches. She also said that she got great pics. I would assume that she needs no advice on how to take the photos of the artwork. She is happy with those. The problem is with the printer. "<I>The company who does my prints need 300 DPI</I>". If that is an accurate quote then the company indeed does not know very much about making prints. They should be saying what resolution size they need not a printer setting. <P>

 

For my endeavors at copying artwork:<P>

 

My wife had some collages she made of various photos and snapshots filling 30 x 20 inch frames. I photographed them with a 10MP Nikon using a tripod to get everything perfectly square and two 60 watt 5000K daylight bulbs on either side for lighting, getting very good results. I sent the digital files to Shutterfly.com to have 30 x 20 inch prints made. The results were excellent.<P>

 

The 10 MP digital files were 3872 x 2592 pixels wide by high. They would have had to print them at 129 PPI (pixels per inch) to get 30 x 20 inch prints.<P>

 

3872/129 x 2592/129 = 30 x 20 inches.<P>

 

They knew what they were doing so I am sure the used some type of resampling program such as Genuine Fractals to create a larger digital file and print at a higher PPI setting perhaps closer to 200 PPI. Any good printer should be able to do that.

DPI = dots per inch.

 

PPI = pixels per inch.

 

DPI should be used when talking about ink dots per inch. A 1440 DPI printer would have a finer spray than a 900 DPI spray that only puts out 900 ink dots per inch.

 

Since a small printed pixel looks like a dot many people call it a dot and erroneously use DPI when they should use PPI. At any rate PPI and DPI are used interchangeably now so one often sees DPI when it should be PPI used. It is easier to see the math when the correct PPI term is used.

 

If this image file is 3000 pixels wide how wide would a print be if I printed it at 300 pixels per inch?

<p>Hi guys!<br>

@Paul - don't be offended by what I said, your tips on photographing artwork are excellent, it's just that the OP said she already had scans she was happy with.<br>

@Tim - I had the clear impression that the OP was saying her originals were 38x38 inches and that she wants prints same size. Also, it is clear we are talking about paintings.<br>

Let me make some brief concrete suggestions:<br>

1) Are we talking big bucks here? If the OP is going to sell prints for upwards of $1000, everything speaks in favour of handing all the repro work to a service such as this one:<br>

http://creeksidedigital.com/pricing/fine-art-capture-and-giclee-printmaking-pricing/<br>

I have absolutely no knowledge of this service, I chose them from a Google search on the basis that they look professional and were prepared to quote prices on the web. For an ultra-high-res scan plus proofing and file on a disk, this company charges $150. Furthermore, if the same company that does the scan makes the prints, it saves an awful lot of argument!<br>

2) Simplest and cheapest option, which I mentioned already – the OP could speak to her lab again and asked them to proof an extrapolated file which she has made. It would be unfair to criticise the lab too much for confusing DPI and PPI, the difference is obvious to professionals but not to every customer service clerk, it doesn't matter too much as long as the client (OP) understands the situation. More problematic is the insistence by the lab on having 300 PPI files even for very big prints. This page from the Metro Imaging website<br>

http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/faqs/how-do-i-supply-my-files<br>

clearly states this lab is happy with 200 PPI files. Metro is absolutely one of the top London labs, I use it (very rarely) whenever I need top-notch work for an international gallery and somebody else is paying :-)!<br>

3) Option three, if a 300 PPI file is felt to be absolutely essential and the budget does not allow the use of a scanning service. I use Meopta enlargers, these and others intended for professional use convert quite readily to a copying stand, with which it would be relatively easy to photograph a 38×38 inch artwork in quarters. This would demand a great macro lens which is truly rectilinear, in other words which renders straight lines straight and does not have any barrel or pincushion distortion (straight lines towards the edge of the picture bending outwards or inwards respectively). If the OP plans to scan paintings in any number and has basic woodworking skills, she could well make a simple copying stand with a baseboard large enough for her pictures and an angled column which would place a camera above the centre of the artwork at a suitable height to include all this in the frame. Copying artwork is a breeze with a good accurate stand – it is a PITA if you have no proper stand for the artwork and only a normal tripod for the camera. It can be done with this equipment, but lining everything up accurately, killing ambient light spill, etc. takes ages.<br>

One way or the other, a solution will not be hard to find. As in so many situations, the easiest way out is to sit back and sign checks, while on the other hand a hands-on DIY approach can deliver good results and save a lot of money!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><em>My paintings are 38x38" and I am looking to reproduce them <strong>at the same size.</strong></em></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't believe I missed that. Sorry about that.<br>

Amanda, I think you have enough info from this thread to make a decision on what to do. <em><br /></em></p>

<p>Doing just the DPI math I end calling the project an at least 13x18cm large format chore. The printshop demands 11400 pixels per side; obviously the short side of a negative / sensor is the critical one. Home scanning seems to end at about 2500 PPI, so <strong>4</strong>x5" would be too small (but could work in case you are willing to pay for professional drum scans).<br>

Using a view camera for art reproductions seems more convenient than aligning a rigid one. - Unfortunately color work is really expensive and Epson scanners aren't shipped with 13x18cm film holders.</p>

Bottom line: You'll need an Epson top of their line flatbed scanner and a used view camera + 5 film holders and process lens in either 13x18cm or 8x10", a changing tent and lots of money to afford a box of 10 sheets of color film (250 Euro in 8x10") and it's processing. The hardware might start at about 2500Euro/$ in total. Handling the scanning results will be harder than tweaking your Canon's RAW files and yes, it is surely time consuming.

 

Would I go that way myself? - Most likely not. - I own such a camera, but I assume I wouldn't find a market paying for the hassle and investment involved. - YMMV.

<p>Thanks everyone! I think it's safest for me to go with a professional since my camera is not designed for these large reproductions.</p>

<p><em>Thanks everyone! I think it's safest for me to go with a professional since my camera is not designed for these large reproductions.</em> <br>

It's the safest and easiest way, as long as the figures add up. With the bureau I mentioned, a scan with all the bells and whistles is $150, a one-off print in the size you want is under $200, so (particularly if you are selling direct and not paying commission) there is presumably a good chance of profit even for the first print of an artwork with costs of $350, the position obviously becoming healthier once you have a file and additional prints are then costing you $200 or less. You may at some stage reach the point where a $4000 44-inch roll printer makes sense - no one buys something like this for fun, but the $4000 is the cost of 20 lab-made prints (disregarding ink and paper costs), so the idea is appealing - more profit and at the same time prints which are made totally under your control.<br>

For 2 years in my youth I worked at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London as one of their team of photographers. Logically we had a permanent set-up in a side room for photographing artwork - this was a Kodak Statfile camera, basically a little railway with an easel and lights at one end and a 5x7 camera at the other. With this gear, it took only a couple of minutes to shoot a painting. Later, after I had left the museum, I always hated copying artwork under makeshift conditions, although digital imaging did make life easier in some cases. I attach a copy I made of a drawing, using my Epson Expression 1680 Pro scanner and stitching 4 A4 scans together in Photoshop to give a 173MB TIFF file, which proves what can be done by simple means.<br>

NOTE TO MODERATOR: This image is within PN rules - the repro is by me, giving me a copyright claim, and the image is in any case out of copyright, being 200 years old - also (sadly) the original no longer exists, having been destroyed in a fire. </p><div></div>