Photographing Paintings

[paulcorio]

Hi everyone, I'm new here, and I'm a painter not a photographer.

After spending thousands on slides over the years, I've made two decisions: I want a digital archive as opposed to a slide archive, and I want to start shooting the paintings myself. My photo experience is negligible, so I'm hoping to get some advice on which camera to buy.

I need sharp focus and 1200 dpi resolution, and obviously I need one with a lens that won't distort at the edges. What little research I've done seems to indicate that few (if any) digital cams have interchangeable lenses. Are there any out there? I'm not going to be cheap about this, but I don't want to spend a mint either.

Thanks in advance,
Paul

[UncleDoug]

Three questions and we should be able to help you out.

1. What type of paint do you use, h20, acrylic, oil, etc...
2. You say you need 1200 dpi resolution. This can be a bit confusing. Is that what someone was scanning your slides at?
3. What is your intent with these images? Personal records and advertising collateral? Giclee prints?

[paulcorio]

Thanks much for the quick reply!

1. I'm using acrylic on panels right now, but I also use oil, and often use canvas. I tend to work in a series, and I decide what surface and pigment to use according to what makes the most sense for the series. Always flat, always rectangular. Also, I'm working at a pretty small scale right now, but I have made paintings up to 7 ft. high, and would like something that can handle very small scale or very large scale (if such a beast exists).

2. In terms of resolution: yes, when I got scans back from my slides, they were at a very high resolution. This dovetails into question #3: I want images at a high enough resolution for good quality printing: catalogs, announcements, books, etc. I'm very comfortable with Photoshop, so I can always create lower res images for the web, or for my color printer. I also do color correction in Photoshop.

Thanks again!
Paul

[UncleDoug]

Cool!

Hopefully I'm not going over stuff you already know.

Since some of your paintings are rather large, a "normal" DSLR will not fit the bill if you want to produce Giclee's @ original size. A medium format digi back could do it, but a 4x5 camera with a "scan-back" is the standard for digital capture. Remember you want at least 300dpi at size for printing. We photograph paintings for Giclee with a 4x5 camera and a lense meant for a 8x10 camera on film and then drum scan the positive.
The 8x10 lense ensures that only the "cleanest" un-distorted light reaches the film plane.

When you shoot your pieces you will wan to cross-polarize your lighting. I.e. polarizing sheets over the light source and a polarizer on the lense set at 90° to the orientation of the sheets. This will eliminate the spectral highlights you can get from glossy paints.

Know your color temperature! Match as closely as you can the color temperature of your lighting to your settings for digital capture or as close to the film rating as you can.

This help?

[paulcorio]

Excellent info, thanks! More specifically, could you tell a couple of camera model numbers that might fit the bill, and also the price range?

[UncleDoug]

Pricing on this equipment is hard to say. Poke around for best deals.

Mamyia or Hassie bodies for medium format and the PhaseOne back to accompany it would shure be nice.:D

Any quality 4x5 camera with a bomb-proof tripod will do. Look for G-Clarion lenses.
The Leaf scan back is the way to go for 4x5.

I forgot to say, don't skimp on tripods for this work. If the camera is even breathed upon all could be lost! Actually not that bad, but the image has a good chance of being soft if you use a less-than-overkill tripod.

[PhotosGuy]

I want images at a high enough resolution for good quality printing: catalogs, announcements, books, etc. You didn't say what your budget is, but a used 300D ($600)or 20D ($1,000) should work OK for that if you're not going to a larger than normal (8") page size. Get free RSE & shoot RAW for the best results.
For the "I need one with a lens that won't distort" problem, I'd suggest a longer than normal lens, depending on the size of the painting & the distance you have available to photograph them.

[chtgrubbs]

There is an excellent book called "How to Photograph Works of Art" by Sheldan Collins, published by Amphoto. I suggest you start there. None of the digi-cams have lenses good enough for this work. A digital SLR with a macro lens would be the minimum to start with, and a 4x5 camera with a scanning back or drum-scanned transparencies would be the ultimate choice.

[PhotosGuy]

Years ago, Kodak used to have a dataguide on that, too. Maybe they still do.

[UncleDoug]

There is an excellent book called "How to Photograph Works of Art" by Sheldan Collins, published by Amphoto. I suggest you start there. None of the digi-cams have lenses good enough for this work. A digital SLR with a macro lens would be the minimum to start with, and a 4x5 camera with a scanning back or drum-scanned transparencies would be the ultimate choice.

The macro is a good concept but the depth of field is sooooo shallow that there is no wiggle room at all. Major issue with this type of photography. Also, got to shoot at f-22 to make sure the image is tack sharp all the way around.
Lense choice is a major one here since most situs will not afford you a large, dark shooting room.

[PhotosGuy]

The macro is a good concept but the depth of field is sooooo shallow that there is no wiggle room at all. At 10 feet? :confused:

[UncleDoug]

At 10 feet? :confused:

I said the same thing. You probably will not get the full image in view though.
Played with this via DSLR, Hassie with 135 bellows macro, all sorts of combos.
IF all of the art you are shooting can fit in a 18''x18'' square you are probably ok.
But then you are trying to fill the entire frame and that is when the fall-off from the lense gets in the way.

[PhotosGuy]

You probably will not get the full image in view though. You're still losing me. 1/ The macro lenses I had would focus out to infinity, & 2/ he says, "I'm working at a pretty small scale right now, but I have made paintings up to 7 ft. high, and would like something that can handle very small scale or very large scale (if such a beast exists)." While he doesn't give a measurement as to what very small scale means, but I'm betting that they aren't in the 1-2" range?

[UncleDoug]

You're still losing me. 1/ The macro lenses I had would focus out to infinity,
So will some of the the ones I was playing with. But the lenses I played with were of a focallength that would not allow me to get the entire image into view in the room I had along with shallow depth of field. Also, from chats with other in the Giclee game I decided against the macro route. "They", by informal concensus, led me to the combo of 8x10 lense on 4x5 camera, shooting at f-22.

& 2/ he says, "I'm working at a pretty small scale right now, but I have made paintings up to 7 ft. high, and would like something that can handle very small scale or very large scale (if such a beast exists)." While he doesn't give a measurement as to what very small scale means, but I'm betting that they aren't in the 1-2" range?

You could be right. But the fact that paintings in the realm of 7' mean that DSLR is out. Next would be MF. Getting closer, but not there yet. You will see loss of sharpnes.

My mother is a colored pencil artist in San Diego. She takes her stuff to a local art photography guru. For the most part she just gets slides done for juroring purposes. And the lense used is definitely not macro. The gentleman was a bit busy to endulge my inquisition when I was home on a visit.

Also when we started down this path we were taking images with our Hassie set up, playing with various lenses - including the macro because we though this was the way to go. Things looked AOK. But after the scan, the lack of sharpness was evident. Also compared to 4x5, sheeeeesh!

[PhotosGuy]

OK, I'll take your word for the situations you were working with, but think I'll stand by my comment above, "You didn't say what your budget is, but a used 300D ($600)or 20D ($1,000) should work OK for that if you're not going to a larger than normal (8") page size."
It will be easy enough for Paul to figure out if if it will work for him.

Paul, if you'd like, I'd be happy to email a 20D file of some Neiman lithographs to you for comparison. PM me with an email address & max file size you can accept. ;)

[RonTyler]

The Rebel 350XT would be a great camera for what your doing. It is also a simple camera to use.

[RonTyler]

I use my RebelXT 350D for taking pictures of paintings to make post cards out of and it works great for the money. The lens are interchangable.

[paulcorio]

Hi guys, I haven't checked this thread in a while and really appreciate all the replies. A friend of mine just bought the "Rebel" and he says he's very pleased with it, I'm hopefullly going to go to his studio and check it out in the next couple of days.

Thanks again, all!

Paul