Camera for photographing artwork
Hi everyone, I am new to this forum.
I am a full-time Artist based in Memphis. I make landscape paintings on location or in plein air.
I photograph my paintings, primarily for displaying on my website. When I need to make prints, I take my paintings to a pro that has a medium format with a digital scan back.
Do you have suggestions on a great camera for photographing artwork? I want to stick with Nikon, Fuji or Olympus, since I already know, or am familiar with the menus - or Panasonic would be OK.
Here’s what I’ve done so far:
I started with a Nikon D90 with a 60mm macro. I found I was getting a bit of a blue cast in the images, though. I made a video of my process here: https://youtu.be/_kFDEQGgUbs?si=xN_LcquRt37XO9Ir
I’m using jpegs- no raw yet. I’m just using my Apple software called Photos. I don’t have Lightroom.
Lately, I’ve been using a Olympus E-M5 ii. Micro 4/3. I’m still shooting in the daylight like I was in the video above. I also have tungsten lights or Tota lights, which I occasionally set up. I do a custom white balance each time. I’m using the Panasonic 12–32 lens which is quite sharp. I know a macro lens would be ideal, but the zoom allows me to photograph different size paintings without moving the tripod.
The Olympus camera has a pixel shift option for when I want a high resolution shot.
All that to say, I’m debating about upgrading to another camera. It could just be gear acquisition syndrome.
I have a Fujifilm x100T as well.
I have a colorchecker passport- but have not figured out how to use it with Apple Photos.
I’m primarily interested in getting accurate images, similar to the way it looks in real life. I’ve tried cross-polarization with my Tota lights, but it made the paintings look flat and took all the texture away.
Thanks for input.
Matthew
http://www.matthewleestudio.com
You could get something like a Nikon D600 (Full frame 24MP) or other older full frame 20+ MP camera.
It hard to say if it will make that much of a difference in the end, I would assume most people would not see a difference.
If what you have is sharp and enough resolution then the most to gain will be from using the RAW and play around with it.
A good starting point is to try to make it look like the JPEG out of the cam first and then from there try to fix what you don't like.
For the photography itself, have you tried the same shot with more and more closed aperture?
For each lens there will be a sweet spot for sharpness and color.
For more soft, even light maybe a table in front with white paper or fabric could help (DIY reflector).
To get the light even you could put up an blank canvas and move the table/reflector around until your camera measures the same light everywhere on the blank canvas.
As for the "getting accurate images, similar to the way it looks in real life" its unfortunately kind of an impossible thing to achieve. The most effect on how it will look especially the colors, comes from the device it is displayed on, which if you put it on a website, could be anything from CRT to the most modern OLED display. And most people have brightness, color, contrast etc. just at the factory default which is typically much to vibrant.
Disclaimer: I have no clue about taking pictures of paintings, never done that.
Thanks for your reply Kamera brand.
My 60mm Nikon lens is full frame, so full frame body would work.
I usually keep aperture at 5.6 or higher for depth of field - so things are in focus. But I’m using a tripod and self timer so I could go to higher aperture. I’m keeping ISO low.
Most of the traditional professional photographers used “cross polarization“ for photographing art- where are you put a linear polarizer filter in front of each light source, and then a polarizer filter on your lens. The idea is to eliminate reflections. But in the process the image goes flat. I mean it looks unnatural. I’ve definitely learned in painting that you can never really re-create what your eye sees. But I would like the photographs to at least closely resemble what your eye sees, so, allowing, for some reflection, makes it look more natural. The best way I found to do this is shooting in natural light in the shade. It’s cheap too. Anyone can do it without any equipment. The trouble is that shooting outdoors the light conditions are often different, or there can be wind.
I could try to post some images here, but I’m not sure how to do it yet
How can I get started with raw files?
I believe there is a 6 month free trial on Affinity for raw editing, I use Lightroom but used Affinity before and found the UI pretty nice. There are free softwares light Raw Therapee and DarkTable, I use both these for some photographic processes however while being capable I think their UI is a little clunky to be polite.
For your lighting I do think you'd be better using an indoor setup with lights as it will be more controllable. Colbor lights are good value (I use these myself), and you can control multiple lights through their app, setting up preset lighting setups which would save time. For a camera the Sony A7R II (I've seen this for a low as 500-600USD) would be a good choice as it could potentially fit your larger printing needs as it has a full frame 42MP sensor. You could adapt your Nikon 60mm to it, I have also have the Nikkor AF 60mm F2.8 Macro lens and have had good results adapting it to my Sony A7 II and more recently A7C cameras.
The above setup with the lights and camera would be 800-900USD depending on where you shop, so pretty good value
Thanks Kieran. Maybe a Nikon D810 or D800 too for camera.
Yes- maybe an indoor set up would be ideal. I make a lot of paintings and having a place where I can just put them up and click the shutter would be great. Will look at lights you listed. The Tota lights I have are nice but burn hot. I need to find dedicated space in my studio where I can leave it set up.
I think it kind of depends on how much money you want to spend. I think something with at least a 4-shot pixel shift mode to cancel out the bayer filter would be a good idea for more accurate color and generally higher resolution. A good sharp macro lens, like you've already stated and a good lighting setup so you can get nice flat light that you can exactly match the color temperature of. Panasonic might have some underrated gems that might serve you well like s5, s1, or especially the S1R as they all can do pixel shift and are generally cheaper used than their competitors used due to the reputation they have for "bad" autofocus (which is a gross overstatement).
I know you said you wanted to stick to Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji or Nikon, but I have a wild suggestion of a Sigma SD Quattro or the SD1. I've always thought they would be a great art reproduction cameras, but I would temper that by saying they are kind of a specialty camera that doesn't work like other digital cameras and has a learning curve. But in my opinion the SD1 produces some of the most lifelike photos I've ever seen. Another wild pick would be the Canon 5ds R.
If you want to spend less money the d800e and d810 would be good options, ore really any of their full frame series.
I would like to close by saying I've never done any art reproduction/scanning and this is all just my guess work. I would imagine there are some articles/videos about this topic specifically and you might find out that there is a limit to what is helpful with resolution and other color accuracy help.
Quote from Kieran Coughlan on October 19, 2024, 11:31 amI believe there is a 6 month free trial on Affinity for raw editing, I use Lightroom but used Affinity before and found the UI pretty nice. There are free softwares light Raw Therapee and DarkTable, I use both these for some photographic processes however while being capable I think their UI is a little clunky to be polite.
For your lighting I do think you'd be better using an indoor setup with lights as it will be more controllable. Colbor lights are good value (I use these myself), and you can control multiple lights through their app, setting up preset lighting setups which would save time. For a camera the Sony A7R II (I've seen this for a low as 500-600USD) would be a good choice as it could potentially fit your larger printing needs as it has a full frame 42MP sensor. You could adapt your Nikon 60mm to it, I have also have the Nikkor AF 60mm F2.8 Macro lens and have had good results adapting it to my Sony A7 II and more recently A7C cameras.
The above setup with the lights and camera would be 800-900USD depending on where you shop, so pretty good value
If the photos are for a website only, there is really no point in going crazy with the MP.
A 42MP image will have to be downscaled to load reasonably fast especially if multiple images are on the same page.
Keep in mind most people have FHD monitors some QHD and very very few have UHD monitor.
On phones similar resolutions but stretched aspect ratio.
For comparison an UHD screen can only show 8.3MP in full screen. Any image larger than that or not using the whole screen, will be downscaled.
Such large resolution would only be a benefit for large printing but I would assume its not the goal to give out free images for people to print.
Quote from Cory Maben on October 20, 2024, 8:10 amI think it kind of depends on how much money you want to spend. I think something with at least a 4-shot pixel shift mode to cancel out the bayer filter would be a good idea for more accurate color and generally higher resolution. A good sharp macro lens, like you've already stated and a good lighting setup so you can get nice flat light that you can exactly match the color temperature of. Panasonic might have some underrated gems that might serve you well like s5, s1, or especially the S1R as they all can do pixel shift and are generally cheaper used than their competitors used due to the reputation they have for "bad" autofocus (which is a gross overstatement).
I know you said you wanted to stick to Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji or Nikon, but I have a wild suggestion of a Sigma SD Quattro or the SD1. I've always thought they would be a great art reproduction cameras, but I would temper that by saying they are kind of a specialty camera that doesn't work like other digital cameras and has a learning curve. But in my opinion the SD1 produces some of the most lifelike photos I've ever seen. Another wild pick would be the Canon 5ds R.
If you want to spend less money the d800e and d810 would be good options, ore really any of their full frame series.
I would like to close by saying I've never done any art reproduction/scanning and this is all just my guess work. I would imagine there are some articles/videos about this topic specifically and you might find out that there is a limit to what is helpful with resolution and other color accuracy help.
I’ve read about the foveon sensors. Would love to try one out! How hard is it to process files?
Quote from Kamera Brand on October 20, 2024, 4:41 pmQuote from Kieran Coughlan on October 19, 2024, 11:31 amI believe there is a 6 month free trial on Affinity for raw editing, I use Lightroom but used Affinity before and found the UI pretty nice. There are free softwares light Raw Therapee and DarkTable, I use both these for some photographic processes however while being capable I think their UI is a little clunky to be polite.
For your lighting I do think you'd be better using an indoor setup with lights as it will be more controllable. Colbor lights are good value (I use these myself), and you can control multiple lights through their app, setting up preset lighting setups which would save time. For a camera the Sony A7R II (I've seen this for a low as 500-600USD) would be a good choice as it could potentially fit your larger printing needs as it has a full frame 42MP sensor. You could adapt your Nikon 60mm to it, I have also have the Nikkor AF 60mm F2.8 Macro lens and have had good results adapting it to my Sony A7 II and more recently A7C cameras.
The above setup with the lights and camera would be 800-900USD depending on where you shop, so pretty good value
If the photos are for a website only, there is really no point in going crazy with the MP.
A 42MP image will have to be downscaled to load reasonably fast especially if multiple images are on the same page.Keep in mind most people have FHD monitors some QHD and very very few have UHD monitor.
On phones similar resolutions but stretched aspect ratio.For comparison an UHD screen can only show 8.3MP in full screen. Any image larger than that or not using the whole screen, will be downscaled.
Such large resolution would only be a benefit for large printing but I would assume its not the goal to give out free images for people to print.
Yes agree I don’t really need large megapixels, the only exception would be if I did want to make prints and not take it to the local print shop for reproduction. Currently, I’m mostly selling originals, but I do have some prints that occasionally sell. If I start doing crafts fairs, then having prints would be good.
I find the Olympus cameras are pretty easy to navigate with their quick menu. I can set the white balance very quickly.
I wanted to share this article that I found. In case anyone is trying to figure out how to photograph artwork.
I’ve tried this method and I like it a lot better than using polarizing filters over lights. He turns the umbrellas where they face the camera instead of the artwork, and just uses fall-off for the lighting. I tried it with my Tota lights and small umbrellas, and it worked pretty well. I got a little bit of reflection from the umbrellas that have chrome metal parts.
here: https://thephotographeronline.com/bob-coates/photographing-artwork/
