Camera for Art Scans ?

[Photoncollector]

My wife paints and we want to start selling prints. The art studio charges $125 for scanning and colour match each. She has about 35 paintings so far and scanning all is too expensive. So we want to buy a camera for digitizing. It should make quality pictures but does not need the bells and wistles like zoom lenses, face detection, etc., only for one simple application.

What would be an appropriate camera? I thought of the 14 megapixel Canon PowerShot SD1400 (~$140) for that purpose. Or, would the result be very different from a more expensive camera?
​

What are your thoughts?



​

 

[Derrel]

You need a high-resolution camera, and a good-quality macro lens. Otherwise the stuff she churns out will look sub-par. A $140 Canon PowerShot???? Honestly, what you wish to do can be done right, but not with a cheap P&S. I would think of nothing less than a Nikon D2x, used, $900, and a 60mm Micro-Nikkor, and some polarized lights, and a polarizer for the lens as well.

 

[Helen B]

It would be helpful to know how large you are going to be printing, and how large the originals are. What medium are the paintings?

Best,
Helen

 

[Robin Usagani]

Derrel, what is your reasoning to need macro? I mean a painting is a lot bigger than our sensors. Dont you need something more like longer focal length like 70-200mm and zoom all the way in and less distortion?

 

[Derrel]

MY suggestion of a macro lens is so that his wife would have a setup that would produce a good flat field image that's be sharp in the center and also sharp at the edges at relatively close indoor distances, like 1 to eight feet or so. And a lens which gives a very sharp, realistic image at the normal indoor distances,with well-controlled chromatic aberration and just overall good image quality. Something like the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 models, older or newer, represent an affordable lens that does well on flat artwork copy work,and will not "break the bank"' it costs much less money than a 70-200 zoom lens, and is more suited to copying flat artwork than a 70-200 for example.

 

[The_Traveler]

MY suggestion of a macro lens is so that his wife would have a setup that would produce a good flat field image that's be sharp in the center and also sharp at the edges at relatively close indoor distances, like 1 to eight feet or so. And a lens which gives a very sharp, realistic image at the normal indoor distances,with well-controlled chromatic aberration and just overall good image quality. Something like the Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 models, older or newer, represent an affordable lens that does well on flat artwork copy work,and will not "break the bank"' it costs much less money than a 70-200 zoom lens, and is more suited to copying flat artwork than a 70-200 for example.

what he said.
I have one, it works very well for exactly that purpose.

 

[Robin Usagani]

IC, now I know . Thanks!

 

[joealcantar]

The main reason to go with a Nikon 60mm 2.8 is because it has a 1:1 ratio. So if you are shooting an 11x14 painting etc. when you do your crop in PS etc. it will crop within that range.
-
Shoot well, Joe
-
Nikon Store - AF Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8D

 

[Photoncollector]

Thanks all,

Derrel, what are the polarized lights for? What's the cost of the lens?

Helen, most paintings are 12"*18", 9"*12" and 16"*20", most are acryl on canvas, some on paper, most can be seen at the site artecatherina.com

Joe, what does 1:1 mean, when the picture is much bigger than the sensor?


Heinrich

 

[c.cloudwalker]

What are your thoughts?

My first thought is that I'm a painter and also, much longer, a photographer. Yet, I don't shoot my own art when the shots are going to go into catalogs or books where the quality needs to be optimum. Photographing art is an art in itself, not something you're going to pick up overnight.

 

[Helen B]

Heinrich,

We use polarizers to decrease or eliminate direct (specular) reflections of the lights from texture in the surface of the painting. The light sources are fitted with polarizers and a polarizer is used on the lens. They all have to be correctly oriented, of course. It's not always necessary.

For a faithful reproduction of a 16x20 you are going to need about 35 to 60 Mpix uninterpolated (print between 300 and 400 ppi). One way of doing this would be to get an old 4x5 film camera and half-decent lens, and a good consumer-grade scanner like the Epson V700 that will permit a 4x enlargement. Before I go any further, is this something you might consider? You would have to look on it as a long term project with some learning to do to begin with.

A slight variation would be to get the 4x5 camera and a Chinese-made stitching back for a Nikon or Canon digital camera, then assemble the image from multiple frames. This has some benefits over the film-scanner route.

Best,
Helen