best camera for reproducing paintngs

2 questions:

1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very important.

I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!

At what size of image would the differences in quality between these 3 become really noticeable?

2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted by other people?
--
Rosie

I don't really know what you are looking for as for the image quality..But I get the results I can execpt with my G2..I work outside in the shade no direct sun no flash..I center picture in LCD using auto mode.
Ivan
======

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

I also saw your post in the Sony group. I have owned twelve digital cameras to date. I own a g2 and the only sony I have owned was an s75.

As an artist Im sure the colors you use are important and want them reproduced faithfully. Sony is not noted for accurate color. Sonys colors are vivid, but in my opinion, very odd. In the Sony group, someone named Pete posted a reply, with a link to his photos. he has the 707 and g2 gouped. In my opinion, I like his g2 photos much better, even though he thinks just the opposite.Take a look at his two galleries and let me know what you think. Of course the 707 is a 5 mp camera, and of course the zoom is fun, but to answer your question, I believe the g2 will produce better results.Good Luck.

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Here is my fathers website of his artwork. All photos were taken by myself with a Canon pro90 Camera (2.6 megapixel)

Might give you an idea of what to expect.

Ken

http://www.brigham.net/~jode/

a. orr said:

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.wasatchcomputers.net/gallery

Thanks, that was a really useful lead, although I would have found the quality of the photos easier to compare had I been able to get them alongside on the screen and had they been of the same thing.

Certainly the colours of the Sony look a bit strange, but everyone seems to rave about it so, including Phil, and as a beginner it is difficult to know what to think.
a. orr wrote:
. In the Sony group,

Arthur White said:

someone named Pete posted a reply, with a link to his photos. he
has the 707 and g2 gouped. In my opinion, I like his g2 photos much
better, even though he thinks just the opposite.Take a look at his

two galleries and let me know what you think. the g2 will produce better results. Good Luck.

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Rosie

Yes it sure is difficult. Thats one reason I owned 12 cameras!

Im not super pro canon, but the g2 does make one of the most beautiful photos of the cameras Ive owned. The colors are rich and accurate, iso 50 is a beautiful thing, dynamic range and the lens is good. I just wish it had a lens more like the 707, or actually the dimage 7i lens, something like 28-220. Ive owned the sony s75 and used a 707 for awhile. I couldnt believe the strange colors of the Sony. And yet this site rates Sonys above all else!

If you are taking portraits this means a blonde will have reddish brown hair, dark green grass becomes vibrant yellow green, deep blue skys have all kinds of tints. To me this was unacceptable Plus I feel the Canon focus was better although slower. If you are interested in reproducing your art works faithfully, taking photos of people etc, I believe youd be better off with a g2. If you want a really large zoom and vivid color, but not accurate, the 707 is the winner. The 707 is also a good camera for creating art, due in part to its strange colors. The G2 produces beautiful , accurate, vivid photos, more true to life. Ive also used many Nikons, 990, 995 etc. These too are more accurate in color to the Sony. Good luck.

rosie britton said:

rosie b said:

someone named Pete posted a reply, with a link to his photos. he
has the 707 and g2 gouped. In my opinion, I like his g2 photos much
better, even though he thinks just the opposite.Take a look at his

two galleries and let me know what you think. the g2 will produce better results. Good Luck.

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Rosie

Click to expand...

P.S.
See the new post under Sony "Selling my 707"

Alan

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Bottom line:

Canon for more neutral colors.

Sony for straight Point and Shoot, next to no manual options, and Sony color.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2

If you DO NEEED accurate and faithful reproduction of colors FORGET digital cameras. A very difficult task for traditional cameras is, for the time being, out of the range of digital cameras. Reproduction of paintings is a very specialized task and do need a lot of knowledge. Sorry, but I am afraid that are the sad facts. Of course, you can always compromise.
--
Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

thanks, having borrowed a 2mp digital to take some pictures I realize the need to play around in Photoshop to get the colours as good as possible, but at least one can play around whereas taking film, waiting to have it developed and then scanning it in adds to the complications. And if it is wrong then one has to start all over again!
mabradi wrote:
faithful reproduction of colors FORGET

mabradi said:

digital cameras. A very difficult task for traditional cameras is,
for the time being, out of the range of digital cameras.
Reproduction of paintings is a very specialized task

Click to expand...

Rosie

You wanted good close-up pictures with decent color matching and you want it to be compact? On top of that you wanted good landscape shots? You're in the wrong forums! Check out the Nikon CP5000, it has been called the ultimate studio camera and can get really close to images with excellent detail... The wide angle lens is also very good for excellent landscape shots.

--

http://www.pbase.com/elterrible

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

Pete Perry said:

You wanted good close-up pictures with decent color matching and
you want it to be compact? On top of that you wanted good
landscape shots? You're in the wrong forums! Check out the Nikon
CP5000, it has been called the ultimate studio camera and can get
really close to images with excellent detail... The wide angle
lens is also very good for excellent landscape shots.

Click to expand...

Is Nikon going to release an updated version of the CP5000 INSTEAD of an addendum on the flash sensor issue? Sony replaced most of the units that had BFS.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2

Regardless of that "FORGET IT" dude, if i understand you correctly,

you want to take clear accurate photos of your paintings for use say in a catalog, or online, as opposed to actually duplicating your work. Digital cameras are well suited to do the first, and take your landscape photos etc.

And the other gentlemen was correct in saying that a coolpix 5000 would also be a good choice. I foolishly tried to take a photo of someones painting at a show once and the artist rightfully got frantic at me. This because he knows how well a good digital can reproduce the painting itself.

rosie britton said:

2 questions:
1.As a painter my main aim is large, clear images of my work, but I
also want an all-purpose camera for landscape etc.. In an ideal
world I would like a compact camera but image quality is very
important.
I have read rave reviews of the Sony F707 and good ones of the
Canon G2 and the S 40. The latter being cheapest and smallest would
be ideal if the picture quality is good enough. The size and cost
of the Sony is daunting but I want good images!
At what size of image would the differences in quality between
these 3 become really noticeable?
2. how does one get pictures posted on the site or see those posted
by other people?
--
Rosie

Click to expand...

If you want some photos for showing friends, OK go ahead wit digital. If you want some SERIOUS work, for the moment FORGET DIGITAL. By the way, reproduction of paintings DO NEED a lot of know-how and special accessories. And that is the sad fact, the others are opinions. And permit my latin pedantry, "contra factum non valet argumentum" (against the fact is useless arguments). But I said, for the webb and for showing friends digital is OK.

Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

I remember the BFS. Sony has few manual controls. People complain about the colours. The good news is the Sony is easier to use than the CP5000. The bad news is the CP5000 needs plenty of work arounds. Even CP5000 owners admit it is not an easy camera to use and many are getting excited about the new 5700 claiming the exposure and colours are getting close to or slightly better than the G2.

PB said:

Is Nikon going to release an updated version of the CP5000 INSTEAD
of an addendum on the flash sensor issue? Sony replaced most of the
units that had BFS.
--
http://printerboyweb.net/G2

Click to expand...

I can make very satisfactory photos of paintings, as well as existing photos, engravings etc with my digital camera. The most important factor is lighting.

These photos would be fine for brochures, web page etc. They would not of course be 1:1 reproductions that could be sold as lithographs or anything, but I dont feel that was what Rosie was talking about.

What camera do you have mabradi, and why do you think a digital camera with a good lens is incapable of reproducing art? I cant photograph a renoir, and sell it as an original, But I can make a nice accurate print that could be printed large and hung up in my room.

mabradi said:

If you want some photos for showing friends, OK go ahead wit
digital. If you want some SERIOUS work, for the moment FORGET
DIGITAL. By the way, reproduction of paintings DO NEED a lot of
know-how and special accessories. And that is the sad fact, the
others are opinions. And permit my latin pedantry, "contra factum
non valet argumentum" (against the fact is useless arguments). But
I said, for the webb and for showing friends digital is OK.

Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

Click to expand...

Rosie,

Just a quick follow up. Up above are several people that do what you are talking about. One by Ivan, One by Sutton. Here is an example from the Sutton page in case you overlooked the thread.

http://www.brigham.net/~jode/cwdata/promontory.html

You can definately take nice photos of paintings with a digital camera.

Good Luck
Alan

a. orr said:

mabradi said:

If you want some photos for showing friends, OK go ahead wit
digital. If you want some SERIOUS work, for the moment FORGET
DIGITAL. By the way, reproduction of paintings DO NEED a lot of
know-how and special accessories. And that is the sad fact, the
others are opinions. And permit my latin pedantry, "contra factum
non valet argumentum" (against the fact is useless arguments). But
I said, for the webb and for showing friends digital is OK.

Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

a. orr said:

I can make very satisfactory photos of paintings, as well as
existing photos, engravings etc with my digital camera. The most
important factor is lighting.
These photos would be fine for brochures, web page etc. They would
not of course be 1:1 reproductions that could be sold as
lithographs or anything, but I dont feel that was what Rosie was
talking about.
What camera do you have mabradi, and why do you think a digital
camera with a good lens is incapable of reproducing art? I cant
photograph a renoir, and sell it as an original, But I can make a
nice accurate print that could be printed large and hung up in my
room.

Click to expand...

Now I have a G2. I consider it is a very good camera with a few defects (evetything has some defects), but photography has its own limitations. The problems in reproducing painting (for art books or for postcards selling in a museum) are many and very complex, not only optics. In fact, some paintings are, as today, impossible of reproducing. Of course you can take very nice photographies, and sometimes nicer than the original, but, can you call theese reproductions? I think not, but that is a compromise between you and the viewer. Perhaps I am too much demanding, sorry.

Of course I am deeply convinced the future of photography is only digital but I am living today and today every one has its own place.

--
Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

Again it depends on what you are looking for. I do believe you can digitally reproduce paintings, etchings, etc. for beautiful representation in publications. In fact it is done all the time. Of course you cannot reproduce a painting and get an exact duplicate. And that is a good thing.

mabradi said:

a. orr said:

I can make very satisfactory photos of paintings, as well as
existing photos, engravings etc with my digital camera. The most
important factor is lighting.
These photos would be fine for brochures, web page etc. They would
not of course be 1:1 reproductions that could be sold as
lithographs or anything, but I dont feel that was what Rosie was
talking about.
What camera do you have mabradi, and why do you think a digital
camera with a good lens is incapable of reproducing art? I cant
photograph a renoir, and sell it as an original, But I can make a
nice accurate print that could be printed large and hung up in my
room.

Click to expand...

Now I have a G2. I consider it is a very good camera with a few
defects (evetything has some defects), but photography has its own
limitations. The problems in reproducing painting (for art books or
for postcards selling in a museum) are many and very complex, not
only optics. In fact, some paintings are, as today, impossible of
reproducing. Of course you can take very nice photographies, and
sometimes nicer than the original, but, can you call theese
reproductions? I think not, but that is a compromise between you
and the viewer. Perhaps I am too much demanding, sorry.
Of course I am deeply convinced the future of photography is only
digital but I am living today and today every one has its own place.

--
Cheers from Madrid, Spain.
Saludos desde Madrid.

Click to expand...

Pete Perry said:

You wanted good close-up pictures with decent color matching and
you want it to be compact? On top of that you wanted good
landscape shots? You're in the wrong forums! Check out the Nikon
CP5000, it has been called the ultimate studio camera and can get
really close to images with excellent detail... The wide angle
lens is also very good for excellent landscape shots.

--

Click to expand...

Thanks Pete,

Trouble is the Nikon CP 5000 is beyond my price bracket and sounds difficult to use.
Rosie