photographing paintings

[Samuel]

Hello, I have a question that may be slightly off-topic. If it is inappropriate, feel free to remove.

I have recently been talking to my father-in-law who is a traditional media artist. He mostly does acrylic painting and has shown in galleries and sold originals. The problem is that money is VERY tight and he has never made prints of his work before. I started looking around and it looks like it will cost $65 to have someone make a transparency with a large format camera and then $125 for another person to scan it in and clean it up... and then they want to charge me $10 for a CD with the scan on it. So, that comes out to around $200 just to get the image in electronic form without actually making any prints. If he has 15 paintings he wants to start off with (he has been doing this for 40+ years and has a lot of high quality work), then that runs out to a startup cost of around $3k which is fairly prohibitive.

So now my situation. I am a semi-serious amateur photographer who has used 35mm and digital SLR cameras. I have been curious about large format, but haven't really had a strong reason to switch since I have a fair amount invested in my current gear and like to take the camera hiking, etc. Looking at the costs above though, I am wondering how hard it would be to do the digitization myself. If I could get the gear significantly cheaper than $3k it would be worthwhile, but I don't want to get a bunch of stuff and then find out I can't get high enough quality shots and wind up paying someone anyway.

So, what I'm looking for is some advice from people who have experience taking large format photographs of paintings. What is the minimum (cheapest) camera type that would be appropriate for this? It doesn't need flexibility or a lot of features; I just need to be able to do one type of shot well. How hard is it to get good shots of a painting? Is this something that will take me years to master or will my 35mm experience serve me well? I just need a really sharp focus on a flat surface. Also, what format would be most appropriate for this? I'm assuming that a larger format would allow me to get away with a cheaper scanner. After reading around on this site, I'm thinking 8x10 would be best because it seems to be the largest size with cheap and available gear. Would an 8x10 transparency and a high-end consumer scanner (<$1000) be sufficient to make good quality large prints?

Any advice would be appreciated. Am I better off trying to do this myself or just paying up for the professionals? Quality is important. As a hobbyist, the idea of starting into large format photography is very exciting and I'm sure I would continue to work with it and try other types of shots. I just can't justify the costs of getting a whole new camera system on the basis of a hobby interest.

Thanks,

Samuel

[Dan Jolicoeur]

It is standard for most artist to photograph their work with transperancies. There are several reasons, and you can do this with a 35mm camera instead of a view camera. Also you do not want to "clean up the scans", but rather have slides made. A lot of artist who do this is so that they can travel around and show their work on a slide projector, rather than carrying all their paintings. This also makes their work look a lot better than the original when showing it, from what I have been told by a few artist. IMHO there is no need to do this in any other format larger than 35mm, and you can by a lot of film to get it right for the amount they are talking. You need no movements of a view camera and are being had. The art students that I know have all done this as part of there 4 year course. That is my limited knowledge and have been to a show, for critique experience, when I 1st started learning to develop B&W. I must say the slide looked WAY better than the originals. I could not believe the lack of highlights that were actualy in the originals.

[Samuel]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of making prints to sell (or keep if the original sells), not slides for showing on a projector. Since the originals are on the order of 28" x 34" or larger, I would like to be able to make prints of at least that size. It was my understanding that 35mm would be fairly grainy in that range.

For digital, my 20d has a resolution of 3504 x 2336, which at 300 dpi would give me a print that was 11.68"x7.78". If I went down to 150 dpi I could get 23.36"x15.57". Any lower than 150 dpi and it is going to start looking pixelated. 35mm film will do prints a bit larger than that, but still not up into the range I'm interested in. I think they are right about using a larger format. Please let me know if there is a way to make large prints with 35mm.

Thank you for the feedback.

Samuel

[Brian C. Miller]

If you use 35mm, make sure you use a very fine-grained film, like Kodak E100G or Fuji Provia.

[Wilbur Wong]

Samuel,

You did not specify what output this project is expected to produce. If your father would like to sell reproductions (prints) of his original paintings, than the use of a view camera is indeed probably justified.

A digital camera solution will avoid the scanning issues entirely, but the output will be limited to the resolution or megapixel printing maximum. So final print sizes would be a determination of whether this path is feasible.

View cameras have other inherent abilities that no fixed lens cameras can do, they can take a photograph of a painting from an angle if necessary, and correct the geometrty and distortion by camera "movements"

For a set up to take the shots, consistent lighting and controlling reflections may be a large issue.

[Samuel]

I'm specifically thinking of digitizing the image so that I can take it to a printer and have a "reproduction" or "print" made that is similar in size to the original. I'm sorry if my terminology has been ambiguous.

For these purposes, I think 35mm and digital (at least in the under $10k camera range) are inappropriate. I'm trying to get a feel for the cost and/or learning curve of doing it with a large format camera. I have taken digital shots of paintings with 35mm and digital, so I know about controlling the lighting and reflections. I'm more concerned with large format specific issues.

Thank you very much for the responses.

Samuel

[Brian C. Miller]

Actually, you could use 4x5 without too much outlay. Buy everything used. Get a good lens, I bought an excellent Caltar for $300, if I remember right. My Orbit 4x5 cost $150. There are backs which use QuickLoad or ReadyLoad packs, so you don't have to load the film into holders. I use a Polaroid back so I can use either, plus Polaroid film.

You could also buy a Mamiya TLR and use that. A MF camera and an excellent film would be great. I have a four-foot panorama that came from my Pentax 645 using Kodak E100S.

[Neal Wydra]

Dear Samuel

Consider renting equipment. In the Chicago area, Calumet will rent a Hasselblad with a leaf back and lens for under $2000/week. Not cheap but you can get more than 15 pieces done if you prepare well.

[Alan Davenport]

Samuel: I'd use 4x5 if you want to print at large sizes. There won't be much (if any) perceived improvement in a 30x40 print when viewed at normal viewing distances, surely not enough to warrant the expense and added hassle of an 8x10 camera.

When you shoot the paintings, you might want to include a gray card and a step wedge in the image. That way you can more easily get the color balance and curves exactly right in the prints. (Naturally you'd crop to the painting for your final prints!)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The digital question aside, I think the advice given here has missed a very important factor, which is lighting. Photographing art is not as simple as just hanging the picture and pressing the shutter. In the case of acrylics the paintings many times show a lot of reflection. You might be able to get away with a polarizer on the lens, but many times it requires polarized light sources, this is expensive. You also need to make sure the painting is evenly illuminated, you cannot do this with an in camera flash, you most likely will need a set of lights and they have to be color corrected for the appropriate film, you then need to choose the transparency film that will render as accurately as possible the colors in the painting and at the same time make the painting look attractive.

If the person who quoted you $65 is doing all of this, you are being quoted a great price taking into account that the time that is going to be required to photograph 10 or 15 paintings is going to take at least a full day. Furthermore, the transparencies should not require any "cleaning." You should be able to get a 4x5 drum scan for $40 to $50, $125 is way overpriced IMO.

IMO you should pay the professional to get you the best possible transparency and then shop for the best deal on scanning and printing. Some places will even quote you scanning and printing together, or maybe someone here can recommend you a good place that will do both.

[Brian C. Miller]

Jorge, why is a polarized light source expensive? I put a polarizer gel over my Speedotron flash heads, and I've had no problems.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I dont know how much the gels are Brian, but not everybody has them. To buy them just for this job will be expensive.

[Paul Butzi]

How big are the originals? If they're small enough, just scan the originals on a flatbed scanner.

Scanners that can handle 8.5x14 reflective media are inexpensive. Scanners that can do tabloid size (12x17) are fairly common and inexpensive relative to the costs you're being quoted per piece.

That would let you skip the film/camera step entirely.

BTW, 19" wide Rosco polarizing gel costs something like 25-30 bucks a running foot, last time I looked.

[Nick Morris]

Hello Samuel;

My daughter studied painting and printmaking in college. In her senior year I photographed her portfolio.

My approach was to hang the work on a wall, and use two lights. The lights are placed at 45 degree angles tothe art work. I rented a stobe set, but hot lights will do. I believe the stobes will be more consistent, and the modeling lights allow you to make sure the art work is adequately covered. Take flash meter readings at the center and 4 corners of the art work to make sure the lighting is the same over the entire piece. I placed a Kodak color chart in the frame just below the art work so, if necessary, color could be corrected.
I placed polarizer gels over the lights and adjusted them to reduce the glare. Your camera should be mounted on a tripod, and leveled. You want the camera and art work as parallel as possible.

I believe 35mm slides are the standard for showing work to galleries, etc; and keeping a record of ones work. You would want to use the best quality film, and have it processed with a custom lab accustomed to doing work for artists. If you live near an art school or college with a serious art program, someone on the faculty should be able to provide you some assistance. Unless you have some special need, I don't believe you need to use large format.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

A Roscoe pol gel is about $25 for a 19 inch. Depending on the set up you might just need a couple, you might need a lot more. It all depends on the art work and lighting required.

BTW Samuel, you can have the scans done, have them give you the CD or CDs, buy a CD burner for $60 and make your own, you dont need to pay those guys $10 bucks each.

[Dan Dozer]

Samuel,

I think I agree with Jorge, that if you don't have a lot of previous experience photographing this type of items (flat artwork), you are likely to be disappointed with the results. The lighting will be extremely important. It sounds like you are wanting to produce something that looks very professional for sale, and you are likely to spend a lot of time an money in trying to get the quality you desire.

My father was a water color painter and got into what you describe in a completely different way. He painted "theme" type paintings - a lot of boats and ships and such. He found that there was a big market for things like that for professional posters and calendars. He didn't want to deal with all the production work himself, so he found a dealer who produced such commercial work, and they worked out a deal together. He provided the master painting for the other person to use, and was given in return 15 - 20 full size lithograph copies of the master painting for his own use. All this was done at no cost to my father, so he got all the lithographs for free.

If you are expecting "professional" caliber images as the final result for sale as "pieces of art", I would recommend that you re-consider the avenue of having them done professionally by someone else. If you are considering selling them as "sidewalk" art posters at your local arts and crafts show, then doing them yourself might probably work just fine. The real question is what are your expectations of the final product.

[paulr]

I agree with Jorge on the lighting issue. It's annoying tricky to get right. I used to help a friend who did this kind of commercial work a lot. He had a full set of strobes, filters, etc., used 4x5 and polaroid, and I was always startled by how much work it took to get these trannies to actually look like the paintings.

Color was a big issue. We once had to do a whole shoot over (of a huge, hideous oil painting) because of some kind of reciprocity issue from the strobes that led to a color shift.

I'm not saying don't do it, but be prepared for a real learning curve, and to spend a fair amount of money on film and processing while you're figuring it all out.

[Vick Vickery]

Samuel, if you can give us a little info about where you're located, someone around here with more experience than you might be close enough to offer to look at the work and provide a little more direct guidance. Off the cuff, for copy work of this type, a press camera with a good lens and a pair of good quality floods is all alot of folks use; the press camera could be used with 4x5 sheet film or 120 roll film to produce 6x7 or 6x9 transparancies; the trick is to hang the original so that it is square against the wall (use wood spacers between the work and the wall at the bottom as necessary) and to get the camera back perfectly parallel to the work. The floods are placed at 45 degree angles to the work and far enough back to cover the whole work evenly (strobes are used the same way). You won't need alot of perspective controll movements for this type of copying. For producing good prints in the same size that you indicated the originals are, you will probably be best off using a slow fine-grain transparancy material as was mentioned earlier and I would tend toward 4x5 material rather than roll film. Good luck with the project, but take care, buying a 4x5 press camera has a way of leading to many more expensive purchases! :-)

[Randy_5116]

The lighting issue goes away "if" you have an area outdoors to shoot. We have done picture/painting repros, and out in the driveway under "natural" light conditions have rendered the best colour balances. They were shot with a 5x7 agfa studio that was purchased for around 30 bucks, an ilex studio lens set on bulb, shot on fuji film, and could be blown up as large as you wanted without loss of detail or colour. Time and patience are the two biggest costs. The rest is trial and error.

[neil poulsen]

I did this for my neighbors and got good results, results that pleased them. Here's what we did. I'm not an expert at this, so perhaps others my also make suggestions.

>> I don't know what copy people do, but I prefer using incandescent lighting with a tungston based film. I like the colors better. I used Kodak type T transparency film. It tends to be fairly close to the stated ASA. Use 4x5 film. They're too many issues with 8x10 for a non-professional. They're expensive, they have to be professionally scanned, unless you have an 8x10 scanner. Check out the film specs at the manufacturers site. Don't make your exposures too long, if you can help it. This can result in a color shift. Stay within the guidelines.

>> You might try using a G-Claron lens, like a 150mm. These are designed for macro type work, and yet they also work for landscape when stopped down. If you don't yet have LF lenses, this would be a good option. Or, some other G-Claron focal length like 180, 210, 240, etc. I have a 150mm Symmar-S lens. The lens elements in my Symmar-S shutter can be swapped for those in a 150mm Componon-S enlarging that I have and used for this project. My results were really sharp using the enlarging lens. I would stick to about f16 or f22 apertures. Don't go beyond f22 (smaller apertures). Most modern lenses are diffraction limited at about f22.

>> I used Lowel DP lights, although I think that Lowel Tota lights or Dynalights would also work. They're less expensive. For an inexpensive solution, you could try the flood lights that one can purchase in photo stores. If you get the blue ones, use daylight corrected film. To increase light output, you could get a couple of reflectors for these bulbs. Smith-Victor lights might also be a possibility. They're lenss expenive than Lowel lights.

>> Put your lights at about 45 degrees from the painting, centered with respect to the painting. I took light readings using an incident meter. Bracket! I'd use about half-stop intervals. That way you're at least within a quarter stop of optimum. It's expensive with 4x5 film, but less expensive than going to a professional. If you have more than one painting to do, do one and have them developed at the best local professional lab. For the same setup, this will give you an idea of an exposure that works. Once you have that, bracket two half-stops above and below on subsequent paintings. You might be able to get away with bracketing one half-stop above and below. But, leave your setup so that you can come back and take another exposure if you need to.

Another approach is to take three exposures at the "optimum" aperture (after testing with your first painting), process one, and then push/pull in sequence the remaining two until you get the result you want. Work with your lab on how much to push or pull.

>>If you plan to scan, or get a professional scan made, color manage your monitor before making any adjustments. If you make adjustments based on the scanned transparency, use standardized lighting to view the transparency. 5000K is typical.

>> Any camera will work, as long as the movements can be set to neutral. Check your camera with a level every which way. You don't want distortion in the image of your subject painting. Consider your photographing needs as well as your duplication needs when choosing. The older Calumet brands are less expensive and would work. If you can, use some sort of lens shade when you take the photos, you'll get better results.

I suspect you might get better results from a professional who really knows what he or she is doing. But doing the above, we obtained good results that pleased the artist.

[Ellis Vener]

I completely agree wit Jorge about the lighting needs. You need to polarize the lights and then cross polarize the camera lens (this means having the poalrizing films on the lights at one angle and the camera poalrizer at 90 degrees to that angle. You have to make sure the lightign is even from top to botom center to edges.

West Coast Imaging can do a high rez (I think up to 100mb) scan for I think about $50.00
if you are goign to start with a digita lcamera , you can get very good results wih the Kodak pro SLR/n or SLR/c. these are high end DSLR thatKodak recently announced that they were discontinuing. I have no idea what they are being closed out for but you'll getthe quality you need. otherthan that the minimum you are looking at is a Nikon D2x or Canon EOS 1Ds mk.2 . The Nikon is just under $5K and the Canon is $8K. But what you'd be best off with is a BetterLight scanning back for a 4x5.

also add in the learning curves for everything from usign the camera and Photoshop Cs2 to color management, scanning and printing.

Come to think of it maybe having someone who already knows wha tthey are doing will be the most cost effective way to do it!

[paulr]

"The lighting issue goes away "if" you have an area outdoors to shoot."

This is how I've done it when my cheapskate artist friends bribed me into doing their work. As a fellow cheapskate artist, I don't own any lights or even filters.

Skylight does a wonderful job of solving evenness and glare problems, but it doesn't solve color problems. You can get things pretty close, but be aware that the color temperature of daylight changes dramatically over the course of the day. How you deal with it depends on how much color accuracy you decide you need.