Art printing or reproduction of photo?

[eriksen]

I have an old painting which I want to photograph and make into art prints for sale.

What will be best for me to do? A large printer will be to expencive, so I assume that I need to order a service from a company on the web.

Are there anybody here who can give me some advice regarding this topic?

 

[goooner]

Do you own the rights to the painting?

 

[john.margetts]

How old a painting? Copyright lasts for 70 years after the painter's death in Europe and similar in other countries. That means that any picture painted after 1900 is likely to still be in copyright.

 

[unpopular]

assuming that you are legally permitted to do this, the search term you are looking for is 'giclee', which (any more) is a fancy word for inkjet print service designed for fine art reproduction. Those that offer "giclee" prints will be better equipped to handle printing on 'fine art' mediums.

Bear in mind, though, these can also be very expensive and are really suitable for artists selling reproductions of original artwork that will sell in gallerys, and not at,say, a flea market for a few bucks. Depending on the size, you could be looking at a couple hundred dollars.

 

[acparsons]

Go to a good printers. They should have a drum scanner, which is the best kind of scanner for paintings. You can have them print on canvas as well.

 

[unpopular]

I'd love to see someone mount a painting onto a drum scanner :/
---

No. Drum scanners are generally suitable for transparencies. There might be some out there that can do reflective, I don't know (that would be kinda weird), either way, mounding a painting onto a drum wouldn't be a good idea, especially an old oil painting that would be prone to cracking.

Typically paintings are photographed or if they're small enough they can be scanned on a flatbed.

 

[acparsons]

I'd love to see someone mount a painting onto a drum scanner :/
---

No. Drum scanners are generally suitable for transparencies. There might be some out there that can do reflective, I don't know (that would be kinda weird), either way, mounding a painting onto a drum wouldn't be a good idea, especially an old oil painting that would be prone to cracking.

Typically paintings are photographed or if they're small enough they can be scanned on a flatbed.

That was a mistype. I meant to say large scanner.

 

[unpopular]

There are large format scanners that are sheet-fed, though most printers wouldn't have one, and are generally used by the architectural and engineering industry to scan blueprints. Even this is becoming less common and any more they're probably only available at specialty service providers.

But again, this is really not the approach you'd want to take since it could easily damage the painting.

There are, I'm sure, specialty scanners and camera rigs specific for this purpose - but the majority of paintings are photographed and either scanned in (ideally with a drum scanner) or using a medium format or large format scanning back (do those things even exist anymore?) using a tripod and some lights. Certainly you can also use conventional DSLRs as well.

 

[dennybeall]

If you just want a digital copy of the picture you can do it in sections on a flatbed scanner and then stitch them together in Photoshop.

 

[eriksen]

I´m the owner of the painting and the painter died in 1892. Why would it be better to scan the painting instead of taking a photo of it? It`s a guash on paper.

I need to know if there are any good and inexpensive options on the web that offer a service for reproduction of art works.

 

[unpopular]

Scanning is almost always better than photographing it. The reproduction is greater than 1:1 so you'll have far better resolution. Obviously, though, if the painting in large then this wouldn not be possible.

DO NOT use a roller-fed scanner as most "large format" scan services provide. If it is scanned, make sure it's flatbed or some kind of special scanner designed specifically for this. Guash on paper though usually arent that big, so I'd imagine you could find a scan service that can handle it.

In pracice there isn't anything 'wrong' with photographing it. Though if you're demanding a lot of money for these reproductions ($75+ each) then you probably should consult with a professional.

Someone like Nickelson Editions might be a good person to consult with and can offer advise and service to have it done right. (I do not have first-hand familiarity with this person)

But again, this is not an inexpensive process, so you're going to have to consider what the reproductions will be worth. If it's a previously unpublished work of a well-known artist in the era, then definitely. If it's a nice painting you found at a thrift store, you're better doing it yourself and sending it to an online print mill.

 

[ashleykaryl]

Depending on where you are based you may be able to find somebody not too far away who can do a really good job. I know somebody in the UK who does this sort of work. The initial image has to be captured very accurately before printing for good results. Large format digital copying of pictures

I'd also add my voice to the others who mentioned copyright issues. Not so long ago I remember somebody who was selling poster sized prints of famous people using images taken from the internet. He claimed they were in public domain, simply because they were on the internet, which is complete nonsense.