A scanner would probably be better, but some of the work i am trying to digitize is larger than the scanner bed.

SO, I was wondering what the experts would suggest. Do I need a different lens? I am getting a lot of dark corners, and/or a brght center with and without the lens hood, and with and without the flash.

Should I be using a lightbox or a bounce or something?

I am trying to use a low ISO/slow shutter to get a clear image. Am I thinking right ?

Low ISO - aperture in the "sweet spot" of the lens - usually around f8, shutter speed whatever you need given the light (you should be using a tripod).

Lens - I would usually use a 50/1.8 or other high-resolution, flat field lens. Many zooms introduce distortion. If you only have zoom (like an 18-55 - use it somewhere nearest to "normal" - between 35-55)

Artwork on a wall, or as near to vertical as possible on an easle. If at an angle, try to match that angle with the camera on a tripod, to minimize keystoning.

If I have lights - I put them on either side of the artwork, at about 30° angles to it (so any reflections off glass, or anything, are not aimed right back at the camera.

Lower angles if you want to show heavy impasto more in relief. Slightly higher angles if you want to flatten similar.

If no lights (and halogen worklights are usually fine for this). Then Try to find even lighting, maybe outdoors in open shade - but not direct sunlight.

Shoot in raw. Also, take one shot once you've got the lights where you want it, with a bright white piece of paper in the middle, up against the artwork. You can use this to get your white balance right, in the raw editor, rather than muck about.

these are excellent tips.

What is an aperture sweet spot?

most lenses are sharpest at a certain aperture or range of apertures. Just as a function of optics and compromises in design. This is the sweet spot.

For the most part that falls in the middle of the aperture range. on an f1.8-f2.8 lens, that usually means 5.6-8... by the time you get past f11 and f16 on 35mm or smaller formats, sharpness is limited by diffraction from the aperture blades.

There are always exceptions, and things which can affect apparent sharpness, but this rule holds for 95% of camera lenses out there.

So I went out with the camera with this advice and grabbed some shots closer to the middle range of the lens and I now understand what you mean. THANKS

So let's see some of this art work, yo!

r_d gave me a good link in this thread: http://twelvestone.com/forum_thread/view/41305

ah thanks!

I have had the best luck shooting art out of doors. Either: 1)Bright but cloudy, diffused light. 2) Sunny out but in the shade. You will have to find a place without strange reflecting lights.

Now, if your art is like mine, it will have some gloss all over, or parts gloss part matte, but you don't want to wait to take a pic before it's dried and varnished.

So I will take a picture at an angle, until the shine is gone. (this wasn't taken out of doors, it's just for example on the angle)

Then bring it into PS. IMAGE>>IMAGESIZE unclick constrain proportions, type in actual image size.

Unlock background layer.

EDIT>>TRANSFORM>>DISTORT pull the image until its squared up to the borders.

and you're done.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of using transform to straighten art. A polarizing filter is a good solution to combatting shine as well.

I've only been doing it for about 6 months, but I've only seen + and no -

Sure, filters, and a nice studio setup with all sorts of mounted lighting would be nice, but a fine job can be done without.

the big minus for me, is the stretching and re-interpreting of data to make the transforms. This degrades image quality.

How much it degrades, depends on the amount of the transform (and other factors like compression and file format). But from my own point of view, any avoidable degradation, is a good thing.

That said. My criteria and needs are not yours, and everyone has their own limits on what is acceptable under what conditions and for what intended use.

shrug

yeah often times you just need to get some work out to someone who will be perusing the image for about .8 seconds as they're rifling through zip files of applicants, or possible gallery representation candidates.

Of course this is different with photography where every detail could be conveyed as a technical inability by a reviewer who is might pass something up because of a slight image distortion.

The case is totally different when trying to apply an artwork to a print run, or genuine digital archive.

So it's also going to depend on what's happening with the image, and what the image is meant for.

IN my case, I finally have a camera with a decent cmos and ability to tweak the light hitting it. It's time to properly retake and archive work. So I am going to be looking to shoot straight on, and fill the frame as much as possible.

Anyways If i were doing this for someone else's work, and thank god I am not, i would be taking far more measures to get it perfect in camera. As it is, I am knowledgable of the work and know how i want it conveyed digitally which may mean bringing up something more intangible in photoshop lost in digitization. Which is a fancy way of saying I don't mind messing with it in photoshop, as long as i got the base pixels with a verbose enough spectrum to work with it in post. Taking a picture at an angle is going to mush one side of an image, no matter what when you zoom the hell in. You've lost data. So anyways, like I said it all depends on how it's going to be used later.

the matte black is photoshopped. It required a lot of color correction. I think I am still not happy with it.

Lets see a section at 100%.

How did you do it? It looks like you did it with indoor lighting, I'm telling ya, outside on a bright cloudy day is the money.

it's not spectacular.

Especially when a scanner can do this:

Hmmm. It's hard to tell without looking at the actual art.

My guess: Are you using auto focus? It seems like cameras have a hard time really zeroing in on a 2d surface when it takes up the whole picture. I would play with manual focus, and really try to dial it in. How far away are you shooting?

i believe it was auto focus. I believe I was very close, to close and zooming out past the len's optimum. I will reshoot it. Luckily i am more just curious. I'd probably get it professionally lit and shot if it were for a grant or a gallery or something.

You're never going to get anywhere close to a scanner. With even the best of the digital backs out there ($60K IQ series Phase) - the Scanning backs made by betterlight will get something closer - but you're adding in optics and a host of other problems, not the least of which is cramming that much visual data into something the size of a large postage stamp. Detail is going to vanish.

How much detail loss is where you calculate your cost/benefit... required presentation, budget, preference, nature of the work, nature of the audience, etc. all factor in.

If you're emailing an image to pique someone's interest - the scanner is overkill. If you are intending to make high-quality reproduction lithographs, the dSLR will never give you enough detail to even come close. Most people want something in the middle of those options. a decent dslr with a decent lens under decent light should meet most people's needs - but they shouldn't expect miracles.

Well, you've got one thing going for you, no glare!

The two big issues I think you'll have are lighting and focus. These are a few small sections of my paintings, I think the detail holds pretty well, and I don't even have a dslr. I've shot a few hundred of these damn things, and I'm finally getting the hang of it.

very nice!

What are you using for a lens? If it's not a replaceable lens do you know what your non-dslr is using for mm in those shots? The exif should say?

It's a canon s5is. It looks like the lens is '36 - 432 mm equiv' The manual focus on the thing is kind of a joke, but I can make it work sometimes. What kind of lens are you using?

hey jestros - can we see the full pieces anywhere?

hmm, this is a 18-55 at about 35. can you post an exif, I am curiouses. No big deal if not. It's just the detail is purdy spectacular.

Originally posted by: persist hmm, this is a 18-55 at about 35. can you post an exif, I am curiouses. No big deal if not. It's just the detail is purdy spectacular.

Give me your email, and I'll send you one of the unaltered photos. Or tell me now to extract the exif, I only know how to look at them