Photographic a Painting - Drum scan or dSLR sliding back?

[robert_landrigan]

<p>I'm trying to photograph a painting of my grandfather, in enough detail that my mother and her 2 sisters can each have a copy that's viewable - curious to see if anyone has any experience on using the sliding DSLR backs for a purpose like this. Not needing to use movements, so the sliding back may be of use, but since a BetterLight rental is ...well, outta my price range, anyway, trying to find a less costly alternative. Not sure how this would compare to a drum scan of a chrome or negative.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>First, how big is the painting, and what do you mean by "viewable"? If you print on canvas, your mother and your aunts will have a devil of a time telling the difference between a 24 inch canvas print and a 24 inch original if you shoot a single shot on a decent 12-24mp DSLR, without using a sliding back.</p>

<p>The sliding back, a complex affair for use with a view camera, is an option if the original is very large, or if the image is going to be viewed by highly critical experts.</p>

<p>Drum scans of film? That's a recipe for an awful lot of color work.</p>

[thom_bennett]

<p>I would recommend shooting film and having a drum scan made. The ultimate in quality unless you have access to a medium format digital back (i.e. Leaf, PhaseOne, etc.). The DSLR's have an anti-aliasing filter that the medium format digital backs do not have. I use a Leaf on a 4x5 to photograph paintings all the time but I am a staff photographer and we have the volume to justify owning the Leaf. If I were doing a one-off job like yours I would shoot film and drum scan. My 2 cents. Good luck!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Also note that the use of polarizing filters on the lights and lens may be necessary to avoid specular flare.<br>

For film, Ektachrome 64T would be a good choice with 3200K tungsten light. The larger the format, the better, of course.<br>

Whether you shoot on film or digital, put a color patch card in the edge of the shot, or shoot one with the same light, exposure, and film. You can use that to correct the color before printing.<br>

The capital or rental costs of equipment could exceed the cost of hiring a professional.</p>

[kparratt]

<p>Medium format film and scan. I do it all the time, with all manner of improvisations.<br /> Depending on the size of the painting, if you want to use digital, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 is worth considering.<br /> They are very good value. Very useful is the grid screen for squaring the painting in view, and most importantly, the lens exhibits very low distortion. And it is possible to go right down to the size of a paperback and hand-hold an exposure with such clarity, that it will reproduce the printers colour separations. (Leica lens)<br /> John advises a colour patch. This is very important, but you can now use a neutral grey or white card, then use the "Remove Color Cast" function in Photoshop. (I use Elements 3 which came free with the Epson V700 scanner)<br /> Photographing artwork <em><strong>lighting</strong> </em> . The painting needs to be well lit, and it needs to be even. Without even lighting the resulting image will be rubbish, and no manner of digital play will fix it. It can be all daylight, all tungsten, all pro flash, all fluorescent, but <strong>not a mix</strong> . If it is too dimly lit, nothing will recover detail.<br /> Can you tell us how big the painting is, and what it is? Then we can advise more specifically.</p><div></div>

[gary_kerr]

<p>Don't point a DSLR at your art, it's the surest way to be disappointed. 4x5 (film or digital) is the way to go as it has 21 times more information than a 35mm frame. I recommend Art World News as a reference on the subject matter:<br>

http://fineartgiclee.com/ArtWorldNews_Printmaker.pdf</p>