Camera for taking high quality pictures of art

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help me get started... I'm an artist and I'm looking for a decent camera + tripod to take pictures of my work that I'll later be able to print as postcards. The camera would ideally need to catch lots of tiny details painted on A3 sized paintings and drawings.

I used to be a photographer so I should be okay with setting up the lighting, but I don't know the first thing about digital cameras or if there are any specialized ones out there for taking stills pictures of art. So I thought I should ask.

Thanks

I think you overestimate the amount of those tiny details that will remain visible on a postcard-sized print. Any camera with more than 6 megapixels will have more than enough resolution for that print size.

Any current model DSLR is more than good enough. Ligjhting will be key. If you are on a budget, yoy could get the canon entry-level Rebel SL2/200D. It's $700 and 24 megapixels. More than enough resolution.

My personal prefence is to use a macro prime lens. They tend to be sharp, have a flat field of focus, and little barrel/pin-cushion distortion. However you should shoot stopped down a bit, so even a kit lens should be sharp enough. Furthermore, modern cameras and software can easily correct for barrel and pin cushion distortion.

You might consider an A3 size scanner, provided your pictures are not in frames. There is at least one reasonably priced model on the market, WF7610DWF A3 Multi-Function Printer With ADF & A3 Flat Bed Scanner. It costs less than a camera. Also look at the Mustek model.

But if the paintings are oil paintings with thick brush marks, you will probably have to use a camera on a copy stand. Again, look at scanners, this time what are called "document scanners". They are basically very cheap cameras on stands. I haven't used one of these, but they should be plenty good enough for postcards.

A real camera will need a copy stand to hold it in place. A 24 Megapixel camera such as Sony's A6000 will give images that could be printed up to A2 size or more.

aufgh said:

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help me get started... I'm an artist and I'm looking for a decent camera + tripod to take pictures of my work that I'll later be able to print as postcards. The camera would ideally need to catch lots of tiny details painted on A3 sized paintings and drawings.

I used to be a photographer so I should be okay with setting up the lighting, but I don't know the first thing about digital cameras or if there are any specialized ones out there for taking stills pictures of art. So I thought I should ask.

Click to expand...

Almost all digital cameras of any merit come with 24MPix, and the better lenses can easily manage images with a practical resolution of 4500x3000, which is more than adequate for postcards. Printers can manage 300dpi, or perhaps 600dpi. The necessary calculations are easy.

If your paintings are uniformly A3, you might find that a "copy stand" will be better than a tripod. A dedicated stand with lighting will be much easier to use than juggling with a tripod, and trying to keep everything at right angles.

For your task, I'd choose my Sony a7 with a 16-35mm zoom lens at f/8 or thereabouts. This type of camera has a real-time image preview to assist with exposure. Most cameras incorporate distortion correction, and colours/white balance can be managed both in the camera and with graphics programs.

You will need some sort of basic graphics program to carry out cropping prior to printing. Also consider whether you want borders around the prints, or of you are prepared to lose a small margin of the original on printing.

To give you some guidance, this image was taken with a very basic DSLR camera, using a well-known budget lens. It has been cropped/resized to 8MPix to be used as a desktop background. It looks very good on a 28" computer screen.


Sigma 17-70mm.

Any interchangeable lens camera which you can attach a dedicated macro lens to will work. A 60mm macro lens (on an APS-C or FF camera) is what I would get as that will not be too long to use, and these high quality lenses have a flat field with very low distortion. Make sure you turn off any IS/OIS should the lens or camera have that option.

If you can output a RAW file, just about any camera with that option will do. I started shooting artwork digitally with a Nikon D70, back in the days when 6MP was a lot! It had more than enough resolution to make postcard sized prints.

RAW will let you fine-tune colours without loss of detail. And if you use LightRoom or a similar editing program, I find using the X-rite ColorChecker Passport helps with getting the colours close to the actual piece.. although I often need to tweak it some.

For the tripod, I bought the heaviest brute I could find... a Manfrotto 028B.. and put a 410 geared head on it. This is NOT a portable tripod. It is, however, super stable and not prone to vibration.

Links for lots of ideas -

help finding the best camera type for photographing paintings

Cross polarized artwork photography

Best 2017 camera for taking pictures of Oil paintings

Kelly Cook

aufgh said:

Hi,

I was wondering if you could help me get started... I'm an artist and I'm looking for a decent camera + tripod to take pictures of my work that I'll later be able to print as postcards. The camera would ideally need to catch lots of tiny details painted on A3 sized paintings and drawings.

I used to be a photographer so I should be okay with setting up the lighting, but I don't know the first thing about digital cameras or if there are any specialized ones out there for taking stills pictures of art. So I thought I should ask.

Thanks

Click to expand...

My 2 cent canned answer : Sigma DP-3 Merrill.

I still use it from day 1 to nowadays to shoot something like your description.

Don't think it's compact camera of yesteryear. With proper lighting, some today's FF camera can't beat the picture from it.


Comparing the DP-1m (the worst of the 4 Merrill series) to the canon 5D mk.4, Nikon D810 and the Sony A7R-II.

However, perfect lighting is the must to use DP-3 Merrill. Because, the editing the raw file of the poorly lighted picture with Sigma's (free) photo editor (SPP) is worse than every nightmares !


Out of camera JPG. Full size. (c)


Out of camera JPG. Full size. (c)


Out of camera JPG. Full size. (c)



BTW, when I bought it, the price is $400. Now the second hand price on e-bay is around $600!

--
Flashes of my Memory.

However, before buying my suggestions, carefully consider these.


1. The DP Merrill serie is the very specific camera, not generic.

What it can do, it's best. What it can't, it's worst.

Poor lighting, poor color light, minuscule vibration, etc will easily destroy everything.

2. It's s l o w.

Slower than crippled snail. While the worst camera of 2015 can focus, take picture and ready for another shot in time less than 2 seconds, The DPm may take 8-10 seconds per shot!

3. One battery can power up to 60-70 shots max.

Less if you keep the LCD to always on. So there's dedicate button to early shutdown the LCD while you're doing something.

4. Do I already talk about the slowness of the camera?

No, it's a joke.

Because when being compared to the SPP processing software, it's flying rocket with ten boosters.

If you shoot raw (to get the maximum final image quality), prepare to wait patiently about 20-30 seconds for any change you make to the on-screen image.

BTW, the DP users in my group always joke with tears that The OOC JPG's IQ is only 20-30% of the raw. You see? You need the raw file to the the max IQ.

Best quality is never cheap.

--

Flashes of my Memory.