should I scan or photo artwork

[sceptacon]

need to capture and digitise artwork for fine art printing.

here is the crux for me. the art I want to scan most of it are big canvases but not ginormous. now I'm pretty sure I can lay the canvas section at a time on an A4 flatbed scanner and complete the capture this way, even if it takes time.

but B4 I purchase a new scanner I would love some feedback about this process. while I think the art canvases are flat enough, is this a good way to do it. I do know photoshop sufficient to join the sections of the art post-scan but the big question is do the sections match up correctly generally speaking using this method. or does each scan section vary somehow and create problems after.

Finnicky and time consuming this way but it also seems to me relatively straightforward. it's just that from what I hear capturing using photography is not as simple as point and shoot you have to get a rig to make sure the camera and artwork being photographed are exactly parallel, you have to get the lighting right of which I have no idea, then you have to scan this afterwards (unless digital but gear too expensive) and so on. it requires an investment and learning curve. to me (on the surface and this is where I need help) given that capture photography is such a specialist field and has all these variables, and it's easier just to scan, do you recommend I use a small scanner to capture large pieces of art section at a time and then stitch together? I want to get going with my giclee business and before the pieces are framed and sold on.

another option perhaps: hire a professional photographer to complete capture photography for me? (would this be expensive and who should I look for and should I choose a digital photographer?)

a scanner I am looking at:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/p...onv350photo.asp

thanks very much

[Jonathan Wienke]

You're biting off more than you can chew here. Photographing the artwork for reproduction means you're going to have to learn about and invest in proper lighting, and you'll be limited in resolution quite significantly compared to a scanner unless you also learn how to do multiple row & column stitching, which is only practical with digital gear. A flatbed scanner smaller than the artwork is a really bad idea; you will probably damage the artwork as you move it around on the scanner, plus you'd have to disassemble it partially to remove the lid, which might cause malfunctions, and would void the warranty. A scanning back for a medium or large format camera (like a Betterlight) would work well, but you'd still have to invest substantially in lighting, the back, the camera, lenses, and the computer hardware to handle large files. Any route you go, you're looking at a minimum of $5000-10000 in equipment to do the job professionally.

Given that, hiring a competent professional photographer to digitize the art for you is not going to be cheap; expect an hourly rate of at least $100. IMO you should look elsewhere for money-making ideas. Given the budget and equipment you're looking at, and your experience level, at best you'd be able to do a half-assed job, which isn't going to make your clients very happy.

[jorgedelfino]

Another way to go is the 4x5 film camera, (a cheap camera with a decent lens), tungten lights, (you can balance the color temp the old fashion way, emulsion #, 18% gray card and gel filters), then have your film scan by a lab.
If you know what you are doing, you'll end up with a very decent product.
It really depends where you are, what's available locally and how many artworks you want duplicate.
But forget the scanner.

[chilehead]

Well, Jonathan certainly has a good point about getting in over your head here.  If you are really serious about it though, here are some thoughts:

If you go with a flatbed, you will need to have the artwork framed BEFORE you scan.  That is the best way to ensure you do not damage the artwork.  Pastels could create a problem, as pastels are somewhat "dusty" and tend to come off the canvas and leave deposits on the inside of the glass if you are not careful in moving the work about.  Advantage of flatbed is that you have control over the entire process.  The flatbed will also give a better final result than any capture from a camera, so far as detail and color fidelity is concerned.  Disadvantage is that you will need to know how to assemble all the pieces in Photoshop, which involves working with layers...time consuming.

The other option is to take the work to a studio that has done this sort of thing before, and have them create a digital image for you.  You will need to have them create a final, digital file, and not just give you a slide unless you want to start looking for slide scanners, too.  Disadvantage here is that you are at their mercy so far as quality of the final image is concerned.  Cost may or may not be a disadvantage...how much is your time worth to do it yourself?

Other things you will need:
- Lots of HD storage for all the scans and Photoshop files.
- Color managed workflow (monitor/printer calibration-profiling).
- Printer of sufficient size and quality.
- Lots of cash to buy supplies.
- etc...

Still interested???  If you have access to a scanner, you should try scanning a "typical" piece of artwork to see how the process goes from start to finish.  That will give you the best idea of the feasability of your plan.

Mark

[sceptacon]

Another way to go is the 4x5 film camera, (a cheap camera with a decent lens), tungten lights, (you can balance the color temp the old fashion way, emulsion #, 18% gray card and gel filters), then have your film scan by a lab.

if I go the film method do I need a scanning back for the camera, or does the back itself only relate to a (medium or large format) digital camera? also do you think this scanner with film ability would do for the scanning of the film afterward:

http://www.epson.com.au/products/scanner/p...onv700photo.asp

they say it scans 4x5 and 8x10 inches film. thought you might know, it would be good to be able to scan in my own shots alright

IMO you should look elsewhere for money-making ideas

I really have to make this fine art biz work, my friend is busy knocking out paintings so that I can take them to the marketplace and we can both get rich on reproduced prints. We meet regularly and I made him a promise to realise his creativity. I also like doing art myself but hey we've got to be realistic about it and make some money so that's where I come in. I have a lot on my shoulders from capture to setting up a website to getting a large format printer and producing good-looking prints. all new to me and this is a very helpful website! I do have an ace up my sleeve as a graphic designer but that is a boring profession and I'd rather be designing to sell. I am not sure how many photographers produce and sell their own work vs running a shop type arrangement printing for clients but I'd like to know how other people are making money - photographers and artists alike.

[Jack Flesher]

Fine art repro is how this company stays in business.  Their primary customers are museums and universities which are specifically interested in reproductions, even for 3D items.  If you spend some time researching their site on how good art repro work is done, you can see there is a *lot* more involved than just snapping some pics or piecing together scan or capture frames: http://www.betterlight.com/

FWIW, they offer a 2-day workshop each year that covers many of the issues surrounding art repro including gear, advanced techniques, lighting and color management.  Cost is on the order of $150, lunch is provided  and I believe they have one coming up in a few months.

Cheers,

[sceptacon]

Advantage of flatbed is that you have control over the entire process. The flatbed will also give a better final result than any capture from a camera, so far as detail and color fidelity is concerned. Disadvantage is that you will need to know how to assemble all the pieces in Photoshop, which involves working with layers...time consuming.

that is what I thought, that the flatbed because it's closer to the art as it scans and everything is stationary and aligned in close proximity will be more precise. if joining the segments up inside Photoshop is all that's required, ie a bit of old elbow grease then it's a small price to pay in labour, so long as the final outcome is up to snuff. if the stitching itself results in a clunky looking image where you can tell that it's been stitched together using the method then this is a different story, but if it looks good then it's easy for me.

If you go with a flatbed, you will need to have the artwork framed BEFORE you scan. That is the best way to ensure you do not damage the artwork.

oh right, I was worried about framing in advance because of the glass (reflection?) and that the face of the canvas would be higher up off the platen of the scanner and not right on the glass, due to the frame being a barrier. I thought that if I took care and diligence that damage would not be a major concern, just resting the canvas on the scanner each time.

Other things you will need:
- Lots of HD storage for all the scans and Photoshop files.
- Color managed workflow (monitor/printer calibration-profiling).
- Printer of sufficient size and quality.
- Lots of cash to buy supplies.
- etc...

are you able to tell me what resolution I print a file at from Photoshop to an LF printer. I'm aiming for the HP Z printer. do I make the file at 300dpi for good results. if I scan it will be at higher than this but knowing the final printable file size will let me co-ordinate the scanning variables.

Still interested??? If you have access to a scanner, you should try scanning a "typical" piece of artwork to see how the process goes from start to finish. That will give you the best idea of the feasability of your plan.

yes this will be a good test bed, I have a scanner about 2400 optical res it's 3 years old but this will still let me see if the segmented scanning approach is a good one for my needs.

thanks!

[sceptacon]

Fine art repro is how this company stays in business. Their primary customers are museums and universities which are specifically interested in reproductions, even for 3D items. If you spend some time researching their site on how good art repro work is done, you can see there is a *lot* more involved than just snapping some pics or piecing together scan or capture frames

site looks good I'll check it out in the morning. 2am - time for some shut eye now though ..

MJ

[thompsonkirk]

After you get some sleep, maybe reconsider Jonathan's first reply?

"Given the budget and equipment you're looking at, and your experience level, at best you'd be able to do a half-assed job, which isn't going to make your clients very happy."

It sounds a bit like you're asking how to re-plumb a building before you've learned to fix the faucets.  Color management really does take some time to learn, some of it by trial & error.  And accurate art reproduction is pretty far up on the learning curve.  With considerable experience & the right equipment, you could do just what you want to do.  But given the questions you're asking, marketable initial results don't seem highly probable.  

I hope this doesn't sound demeaning.  Even if you're a good photographer, & smart & rich to boot, it still doesn't sound like a good first project.

[sceptacon]

yeah I'm not out to change the world with my photographic skills I think I've just learned that now. nothing's stopping me from this point hiring a studio photographer or locating a large flatbed scanner locally to fast-track the digitising of the works.  I think it would be a mistake to buy loads of photo gear when for a fraction I can pay for digitising using someone elses equipment, and get on with the business of marketing prints and art.

It sounds a bit like you're asking how to re-plumb a building before you've learned to fix the faucets

having an understanding of the whole problem can help me to make smart decisions before I throw down money on equipment, services, or otherwise. What isn't half-assed is the originality of the art works, done by a friend of mine he is framing and selling originals and now we want to take it further.

I hope this doesn't sound demeaning. Even if you're a good photographer, & smart & rich to boot, it still doesn't sound like a good first project

no problems. the art capture is just one objective in the setting up of the printing business. once I've got them, I can move to the next stage. I need a way to capture ongoing art pieces as they are completed to add to the portfolio. I guess with being a professional photographer you either don't have the problem of capture (subject matter is obtaiden by a click and it's all in the frame as you choose) - or have it known and sorted out already if you do require it.

cheers

[Jonathan Wienke]

yeah I'm not out to change the world with my photographic skills I think I've just learned that now. nothing's stopping me from this point hiring a studio photographer or locating a large flatbed scanner locally to fast-track the digitising of the works.  I think it would be a mistake to buy loads of photo gear when for a fraction I can pay for digitising using someone elses equipment, and get on with the business of marketing prints and art.

I think you're on the right track here. If your primary skillset is your painting (or whatever your art is), hiring someone with the proper tools and skills to digitize your art is probably your best bet.

[phila]

This is long but well worth the read to discover what 'might' be involved with a big stitching project.

www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050411fa_fact

[framah]

Funny that this person already posted this same query in another post on this site and got pretty much the same answers. Why would you repost on the same site if you wanted other views?

You have already been told to let a professional photographer shoot the art  and I already told you that you will have serious problems laying the art flat on the bed as it is a canvas which is flexible.
That is why the professionals have their art shot onto large format film and then scanned. Or... if you can afford it, you can find someone who has a large drum scanner that will hold the canvas and scan it that way.

I don't care how good you think you are or how much time you have to do this... you will not get good enough results for what you want to do here.

You even say you want to print them larger than the original. Right there, you will have a problem with any of the methods you keep trying to use. You don't have the proper equipment nor the training to do this and if you think you do because you are a graphic designer you are mistaken. In fact if you are a professional GD, then you should already know why you need to go to a professional to do the job right.  
You say you want to make money for this guy... then just do the right thing and have a professional do the work. You can then concentrate on selling.

One of the signs of a real professional is to realize when to call in someone who can do the job better than you can. This is one of those times.  Now stop looking for someone to give you the answer you want to hear and listen to those who are giving you the answer you need to hear.

Now... go buy that boat and relax!!

[marcmccalmont]

If you are on a budget, buy the biggest scanner you can afford. Do the original art in pen and ink or pencil, on that size paper. Scan it, adjust the colors in PS, print it on canvas. some of my wifes art looks great this way. Better than most of what I see at the galleries here in Hawaii.
Marc

[jmolaver]

First off I'm sorry that my first post is going to be a blatant advertisement. I just started reading this forum and stumbled onto this thread.

http://www.gallerystreet.com

We do fine art repro using the Betterlight Super8K-HS scanback on a 4x5 large format camera. I'll save the whole sales pitch, but needless to say I think our prints are the best in the business. We're in the states, but you should be able to find a competant shop on your side of the pond to handle this and i strongly recommend you do.

do the research.. see what it will cost to get a proper capture device (you don't have to get a betterlight, it's just the best ), lighting, wide-format printer, all the software & hardware you'll need for color profiling, RIP software, time investment to learn how to use it all of this, etc, etc.

Remember even with the best color profiling and years of experience it's not point, shoot, print.

[jpgentry]

You can produce very good quality reproductions by scanning and stitching.  Don't use Photoshop.  

Buy a Microtek 1000XL scanner (12x17) and a program called Arcsoft Panarama Maker 4.  Stitch your row across the top, then across the bottom.  Then do your final stitch of the top to the bottom.  Give yourself about 2-3 inches of overlap on each scan.  Results will be excellent and you will want to save in tiff format.  Scan at 300dpi.  Take the final image to Photoshop to do your color corrections and any sharpening you need.  Don't buy an Epson scanner for this or anything smaller than the above.

While you reproduce your art this way and continue to get better you can start to piece together your large-format scan back system system.  You can get a cheap Cambo camera and sturdy tripod to start.  It will probably have a Better Light scan back or used Phase One digital back which are available for about $1000.00 on Ebay.  The Phase One will produce a 5000x7000 pixel image.  You may even need to stitch these.  Next you will want a Schnider 150mm to 180mm lens and start with some florecent lights from fotodiox.com (flat lights.)  You will want HID lights down the road but they are expensive.  Don't forget you need to cover the lights with polarizing filters and the lens also.

Remember everybody started somewhere, though from some of the replies above you wouldn't think so.  Hope the business works out for you...

-Jonathan

[sceptacon]

Thanks Jon. I think I had some house plants dying in my fame sector earlier.

it seems you have given me a way to get going now with some simple purchases followed by a manual handling approach to capture, and a way to achieve the same results a little further on in a more streamlined method by taking whole pictures once properly set up. both of these will help me. What I am getting is that both techniques you have mentioned, they would be likely to give similar performance and results to each other, with the method 1 requiring more work and input from me during each digitizing but quicker intitial setup, and the method 2 which requires more research, forethought, setup, and practice but less work and duplication of tedious actions for each piece after that.

[jpgentry]

Yep.  Have fun.

Thanks Jon. I think I had some house plants dying in my fame sector earlier.

it seems you have given me a way to get going now with some simple purchases followed by a manual handling approach to capture, and a way to achieve the same results a little further on in a more streamlined method by taking whole pictures once properly set up. both of these will help me. What I am getting is that both techniques you have mentioned, they would be likely to give similar performance and results to each other, with the method 1 requiring more work and input from me during each digitizing but quicker intitial setup, and the method 2 which requires more research, forethought, setup, and practice but less work and duplication of tedious actions for each piece after that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[sceptacon]

Jon, would I need to remove the canvas from the frame to do a good scanning job. they are fairly big canvases, much bigger than A3 say. I think they are A0.