How do you shoot shoot fine art for prints?

ctb95 · Apr 17, 2017

Hello all! This is my first post.

My dad is an artist. Recently, he has gotten into making prints of his work. He does not own a professional camera of his own, but has been using my Pentax K-m/K2000 with 18-55mm lens. It's an old camera, with only about 10 megapixels, if I am correct. However, a friend of his let him borrow his much nicer professional camera (I don't know the model) and shot several paintings for prints, with a noticeable increase in quality and sharpness. My dad has been able to create beautiful prints based off these shots.

Now, my dad is adamant about getting his own camera for shooting artwork and has tasked me to figure out what he should get. I do know a little about cameras and photography (I have my own DSLR, after all), but I am a novice and I'm lost when it comes to this. He wants to spend as little as possible, since he is on a budget, but he wants the highest quality that he can get.

Several questions:
1. My dad wants a full-frame camera. Would the increase in quality justify the cost of going full frame?

2. Nikon vs Canon vs Pentax vs Sony? Are there any major differences to consider? I am partial to Pentax, personally.

3. Any other thoughts about camera choices when shooting artwork?

I'd probably give a price range of $1000-$1500 upfront, counting camera, lens, memory card, and other equipment. I'm sure that dad would like that number to be lower, but I can't see him getting the quality that he desires with anything lower than that.

Finally, what about film? Would it be advantageous to find a good used film SLR or rangefinder and buy a scanner to convert the film to digital? It seems like one can get very high quality with much lower upfront cost that way.

I know this is all a lot, but thank you for your thoughts. The research that I've been doing has really rekindled my love of photography and cameras, and I have found this to be very enjoyable so far.

jeffW · Apr 18, 2017

If you like Pentax, then get a Pentax, I think it's the best value on the market and if I was starting new with no lenses it would be high on my list. There are no bells and whistles on the different cameras for copying artwork. Plus you can use K-mount used lenses.

You are going to want a solid tripod, look at craigslist for a bogen 3021 or buy something new but spend some real money on a tripod preferably bigger than you think.

Zero point going for film, it's easier to shoot in digital and find a lab that can output 35mm slides if the art competitions/galleries are asking for slide submissions. The great benefit of digital is straightening the image to perfection. Even with a lot of bubble levels you can quickly be off by a noticeable amount.

I really don't want to shoot with any lens wider than 35mm on a full frame camera. So
depending upon the size of the artwork and the space you are going to shoot in I would look for primes and move the tripod to work with the subject. Also you will be shooting at least at f8 to help with the corners so no need to waste money on fast lenses such as a f1.8

Lighting, this is why people hire pros. Try and use available light in the shade or photograph on heavily overcast days. imho: don't go out an buy a bunch or any lighting equipment until you are absolutely sure overcast days won't work for you. Buy a color checker to correct the color in post

Hope to see some of the work.

Designer · Apr 18, 2017

ctb95 said:
My dad is an artist.

Hello!

What kind of art work? (What media?) What is the purpose? Is his purpose to catalog and record the artwork? To display on the internet? To sell the artwork?

If he is photographing flat artwork, then I think what you want is a lens that will accurately render a flat subject and accurate colors. The camera body is a secondary consideration.

The lighting will be important, too, as in; knowing how to light the artwork.

The level of photography expected is where you need to start. How you approach this project will depend on his eventual use of the photographs.

limr · Apr 18, 2017

I second the recommendation for Pentax, although its first full-frame offering (the K-1) is beyond the price range you mentioned, and that's body-only. A crop sensor Pentax will be cheaper, and as mentioned, it's easy to use legacy lenses, and Pentax has made some beautiful lenses that can be had for less money than lenses made specifically for digital. The problem is that you lose auto focus, if that's an issue.

Beyond that, I can't say much about the digital options. I can tell you about film, however, since you asked

For less money, you can get a very good quality medium-format set-up and still have leftover for a pile o' film and a scanner, and maybe even a printer. If the purpose is to produce prints, then I'd definitely consider it. The image quality and editing possibilities of hi-res medium-format scans are definitely more than that of 35mm film (not to knock 35mm - I shoot a lot of it, but the 120 6x6 or 6x4.5 is some good good stuff), and arguably better than digital crop sensors. The downside is that you'd have ongoing costs of film, scanning, and printing, although some of those costs can be defrayed if you spend some money upfront on a good scanner and ink-jet printer.

Either way, you might want to consider used gear in order to get more camera for that price range. Check out KEH: Used Cameras & Photography Equipment Store | Buy & Sell on KEH Camera

ctb95 · Apr 18, 2017

Thanks for the replies so far! My dad does mostly acrylic and oil painting, although some pencil sketches and charcoal as well. He does photograph his work for posting his website, social media, etc., but he has started to get into photographing his work for making prints and selling. This is what requires a very high quality setup, because you want the print to look as accurate to the original painting as possible. You can never recreate every detail with a photograph, but a good camera and/or lens can help. This is mainly what my question is about. He has already invested in a professional Canon printer for prints, so this is not an issue. He has made decent prints before, so he does know that basics of print making.

Do people know specifically what camera bodies and lenses would be good for this sort of thing? (for a reasonable price, of course).

I am intrigued by the medium format film option as well, although my dad probably won't go for it. Any ideas or recommendations about that?

limr · Apr 18, 2017

ctb95 said:
Thanks for the replies so far! My dad does mostly acrylic and oil painting, although some pencil sketches and charcoal as well. He does photograph his work for posting his website, social media, etc., but he has started to get into photographing his work for making prints and selling. This is what requires a very high quality setup, because you want the print to look as accurate to the original painting as possible. You can never recreate every detail with a photograph, but a good camera and/or lens can help. This is mainly what my question is about. He has already invested in a professional Canon printer for prints, so this is not an issue. He has made decent prints before, so he does know that basics of print making.

Do people know specifically what camera bodies and lenses would be good for this sort of thing? (for a reasonable price, of course).

I am intrigued by the medium format film option as well, although my dad probably won't go for it. Any ideas or recommendations about that?

What is the typical ratio of the paintings? I ask because generally, medium format cameras shoot either 6 x 4.5 (similar to the 3:2 aspect ratio of a 35mm frame), 6 x 6 square, or 6 x 9. Oh yeah, and some (like Pentax) also make a 6 x 7 camera. If it will be used to shoot the paintings, that might be a consideration. Mamiya makes some 6 x 4.5 options that are affordable and very good quality. I've got a Pro TL and quite love it. If you don't mind shooting older cameras, you can look at the Mamiya RB67s or the classic Hasselblad 500C (shoots square). The Hassy will cost more, but the Zeiss lenses it takes are of legendary quality.

rs Poinsettia by limrodrigues, on Flickr

Very often, medium format cameras are sold in pieces: body, film back, lens, view finder. Many of the box-type cameras (the classic style Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica) have the focusing screen on top, and you can have the option of a waist-level view finder (you have to look down to frame and focus the shot) or a prism finder (you hold it to your eye as most of us are used to.) For a 6x6 camera, it doesn't matter - just go with your preference. For anything else, it's easier to get a prism finder so if you want to shoot in portrait orientation, it's easier to manage. It's possible with a waist-level, but it's awkward and things are backwards so it's hard to frame. I love a waist-level finder and am a stubborn woman, so I do still use one on my Mamiya 645, even when I shoot portrait, but I wouldn't really suggest it for others

Here are some bodies-only on KEH so you get an idea of what they look like: Medium Format Film Cameras

The film back is where you load the film. It's a separate component so that rolls could be switched or reloaded quickly and easily. It's also possible to buy a digital back for some of these bodies. They're expensive, but then you get the flexibility of shooting film or digital with the same gear.

Bigger Than 'Full-Frame': Picking a Medium-Format Camera

Dave442 · Apr 18, 2017

I read a good article somewhere on the internet about how one museum was photographing some of their artwork. You can find some good things looking for Copy Work, Art Copy and such.

I've used my 10mp camera for this type of work with a 60mm macro lens, look into stitching images together. Having some good lighting from each side and a decent tripod will make things much easier.

lundrog · Apr 19, 2017

Be temped to grab a m42 enlarger lens, something like a Schneider and some good lighting in a softbox, etc and a full frame Sony a7? Shrug

jcdeboever · Apr 19, 2017

Fujifilm GFX 50s with view camera adapter. FUJIFILM GFX 50S

Derrel · Apr 19, 2017

Full-framerNikon, Sony, or Canon with a 55,60mm macro lens: high-resolkution with 36-,42-,or 50-million pixel resolution from the Nikon/Sony/Canon models. A good tripod. Two good lights with flat-front modifiers, like softboxes. Perhaps some sheet polarization filters. Light equally, from about 45-degrees angle from the camera to painting axis. Basic "copy lighting" or "copy stand lighting".

Alternative lenses could be a 90 or a 100 or a 105mm macro lens, which would give longer working distances.

Make SURE the camera is perfectly squared up and level with the artwork!

DGMPhotography · Apr 19, 2017

Any camera will work honestly. It just depends on how big you want to blow up the images, then take into consideration the megapixels. But assuming you have good lighting, you could get the Nikon D5300 and a 50mm lens, and still have money left over to get a decent lighting set up (couple Younguos, with stands and umbrellas).

dnlphoto · Apr 20, 2017

See if you can find some cameras on Ebay. I use the Nikon D7100 for my photo booth. When stopped down, even the kit lens was sharp with large dynamic range.

You can invest in a bit more and get the Nikon D750 with a 50mm 1.8G.

Keep us updated with which system you decided to go with. =)

epatsellis · Apr 21, 2017

If you want true reproductions, you're waaaay off base using a DSLR or medium format camera. Bayer sensors, by their nature, interpolate pixel colors. Precisely what you don't want in art reproduction. The only direct sampling sensor available is a scanning back. There's a reason why scan backs are considered the gold standard for art reproduction and documentation. I've been doing this work for nearly 25 years, first with 8x10 transparencies and then digitally.

Spend some time perusing the articles on Betterlight's website and then if you have any questions I'd be happy to answer them.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

loonatic45414 · Apr 29, 2017

I love film. The nuances & beauty shows through better, in my opinion.

I tried digital, while it makes photography easier for those without the patience or aptitude in science that real film proficiency requires, it doesn't have the same quality for me. Much of the essence is lost in subtle textures and tones.

Has digital overtaken 35mm film? I'd say yes. It was always a cheap format meant for quick news & action photography, with the ability to catch candid moments. But real art begins with medium and large format film. It won't go away, just like people feared painted portraits would disappear with the advent of photography.

That being said, he should have some prior experience with film. Someone mentioned you can make a film slide from a digital image, but it's much easier to make digital from film. There are wonderful medium format 120 cameras with great lenses available. The Pentax 645 lenses adapt with 35mm film cameras & many types of digital cameras. There's a digital Pentax medium format camera also, but that's very expensive. 120 processing is widely available, just have to find a good lab with consistent results.