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.