| Discussions: |
2 |
| Joined: |
6/8/2008 |
| Location: |
Boulder,Colorado |
|
Hello all,
I have done research on the issues of Art reproduction. Not finding any good results. Can someone help me? What do you do? OR, should I say...use?
Thank you, HAppy Holidays!
Tim Conroy Boulder,Colorado
|
| Discussions: |
125 |
| Joined: |
1/4/2007 |
| Location: |
Washington State |
|
Posted in reply to TimConroy's post
Tim while I am not a practitioner of this method, I understand that once the photo has been taken, you would scan the photo back into your computer & then if any software application needs to be applied you would then save as TIF or JPG for uploading. A high resolution scanner is better than a low resolution scanner. Some are made just for this & cost quite a bit. But if you already own one you can try this at optimum resolution & see for yourself. The final print will give you the judgement you need.
Obviously a very clear shot needs to be taken and hopefully by a quality body & lens. And a clean sensor, a clean lens and a clean scan bed. Clearly something is lost in this method as more pieces of hardware are used thus more data can be misinterpreted but generally if the image is of high quality, the finished image is also very good.
Perhaps some with experience will add to this.
|
| Discussions: |
9 |
| Joined: |
3/19/2008 |
| Location: |
Lancaster County, Pa. |
|
Posted in reply to TimConroy's post
Hi, Tim. Generally, what I do with my paintings and drawings is take them to a professional print shop and have them take the digital images of my work in TIF format. It is an investment, but if I do several at a time, I generally get a discount. For my photos, I take at least a 1600x1200 image, then go to a photo program and change the dpi to at least 4oo and the size to at least 4000 on the largest side. This seems to work well for me. I haven't tried to do this with my non-photographic pieces. Blessings, Jyvonne
|
| Discussions: |
14 |
| Joined: |
8/20/2008 |
| Location: |
Tacoma |
|
Posted in reply to jyvonne's post
I scan my paintings and mixed-media artwork...sometimes in segments and then reconstruct these images into the image I want to portray for the viewer...what I have discovered using this technique is not only the cost savings by doing it myself but also the incredibly sharp, perfectly lit images I am able to achieve. The bonus is that your artwork can be assembled into a totally new image.
Cara
|
| Discussions: |
2 |
| Joined: |
12/4/2008 |
| Location: |
Montclair |
|
Posted in reply to dca_cara's post
I normally scan my paintings, but I am searching for a larger scanner, preferably 9x12 since most of my paintings are about that size. However, I haven't been able to find any companies that make scanners larger than 8x11. How do you get clearer images for larger prints so you can post on ImageKind?
|
| Discussions: |
87 |
| Joined: |
12/6/2006 |
| Location: |
Earth, but only visiting |
|
Greetings,
Lot of ideas, but not all will do your work justice.
You want to capture your painting in just one generation — the fewer the better. Multiple generations away from the original only lose details, and lose both ends of the tonal range (i.e., increased contrast). Your highlights will burn out, your shadows (dark areas) plug up.
So, the one idea to scan a print of the painting, already lost one generation, and a print holds less color than the film. Also, the film exposure is the first generation, making the print the second generation, and scanning it is the third.
If you do shoot film, then by all means, shoot chromes: Extachrome, Kodachrome, etc. They produce slides, the positive image in the first generation. Also, most film boxes indicate the color that the specific film shifts or leans to. Kodachrome comes in a red box, Extachrome in a green (blue? it's been a while) box, etc. So, if shooting a landscape painting, you'd probably want to use Ektachrome.
Jyvonne's method will also destroy detail, and make the image soft. If I understand her comment correctly, what she is doing is called "interpolation." It's kind of like what many consumer digital cameras market as a feature, they list the optical zoom, and then the "digital" zoom. The optical zoom is a true zoom produce by the lens. Pay no attention to the digital zoom — it degradates an image since the camera's processing interpolates it on the fly.
In short, let's say you shot a 800x800-ppi image, and you wanted to change it to 1600x1600-ppi. The camera, or computer, needs to take each pixel, and make four pixels out of it — two across, two down. And then what it does is take a best guess at how these new pixels should look based on the pixels next to it. Iffy, at best.
Better software is developed all the time to improve the interpolation results, using fractals as an example. But it should really only be used in an emergency, not as a plan. I have some of the best software available, and even going up 200% produces visual degradation. I'm also a real detail perfectionist.
A high-resolution, digital camera, with a long, zoom lens, is your best bet. But equally important to the camera, is lighting. The larger the original, the bigger the challenge. The more texture from the paint — such as oil compared to watercolors — also increases your challenge. Light refracts from a surface at the exact angle it hits the surface. When you introduce texture, the angle on the surface changes constantly with the rise and fall of the oil. So when light strikes it, it is reflecting all over the room, including right into the lens. So even if that oil is black, if the angle makes it reflect into the lens, it is now white. Glaring white.
Allow me to explain my suggested starting point to copy paintings:
A large room. You should be able to set your camera about 15-20-feet away from your painting — as the painting gets larger, so does the distance required. You use the zoom lens to fill almost the entire frame with your painting. The edges of your painting should be parallel to the viewfinder. If the edge of the painting looks curved, you need to move back.
A dark room. When your camera lights are out, the room should be dark. You would most likely use hot lamps (3200-degrees Kelvin) and use the Tungsten setting on your digital camera, or purchase tungsten-balanced film. Our brains balance the light we see, but film and digital cameras record exactly what they see. Daylight is about 5500-degrees Kelvin. If some fell on your painting as you photographed it, you wouldn't notice it necessarily, but you'd wonder where the blue streak come from.
Lights placed at a 45-degree angle on both sides. The larger the painting, the more lights. There should be no visible hot spots ... smooth, even lighting.
Camera, your choice of film or digital. There are plusses to both, especially in relationship to the size of prints you want to produce. Either film or digital, you need to polarize the light coming in, either through a rotating polarizing filter, or polarization filters over the lamps.
If your goal is to sell large prints, then film may be your best bet. Digital cameras have one resolution, i.e., 8-megapixels, 12-megapixels, 22-megapixels, etc. Producing large prints requires many megapixels. Those new cameras and lenses are pricey.
Film, though, does not have a built-in resolution — the resolution is based on the quality on the scanner. Kodachrome 25 and 64 are the finest films ever produced. I shot all my images on Kodachrome in the 70s—90s. Most of my images on ImageKind are from Kodachrome originals, that I scanned.
Mine is a 4000-ppi optical scanner, capturing 48-bit color depth. That means my scanner captures billions of colors, while any PC display can show only 16.7 million colors. Even though my screen may not see most of the color, a printer does utilize the extra color data in a 48-bit color image.
You can get a 35mm camera for dirt cheap, shoot chromes, have them drum scanned at the exact resolution you want to produce prints at the size you want. Those who operate drum scanners usually know how to make the most of your scans. They scan images for billboards, transit ads, etc. A drum scanner may go up to 16,000-ppi or 20,000-ppi, or more. From there, they would hand you a file on a CD or DVD. You'd finish it on a computer.
Lastly, bracket your exposures. Make sure you get at least one two stops over and another two stops under. If you want to be blown away by the results, incorporate HDR. You eyes see about 100,000 times better than a chip. HDR, when done right, makes the final image look more like your eyes see the original.
And lastly, flatbed scanners do come in tabloid size (11x17), but expect to pay $2000 or more.
Uh ... I know I forgot something.
Edited by About 10 months ago.
|
| Discussions: |
1 |
| Joined: |
5/2/2009 |
| Location: |
Lucasville |
|
The Method Ive used is to take my paintings out in the sun light. I usualy set them on my front porch so I have a little shade. this way the colors arent washed out. The sun is the best sorce of light we have, in turms of how the colors will apear in the end product. I use a digital camera. The higher the megapixel the larger the image. For one of my paintings I borowed my sisters 14 megapixel camera it worked great for the larger sizes.
After this I load them into Photoshop for some auoto contrast & auto lighting. then I crop them and save them as a Jpeg, before loading up to Imagekind.
|