Photographing Art for Reproduction

[GlimpseUK]

Hi, new member so please go easy and excuse my lack of knowledge!

I have a picture framing business and reproduce quite a lot of photos and art for customers. I use an Epson V550 for smaller stuff, and can "stitch" scans together for bigger items but it's not very practical.

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

I've done a bit of research, but would welcome any advice from people who have done this sort of thing. I come from a print/design background, so have a good understanding of colour repro etc, so if I can get the right equipment, I should (I hope!) be able to achieve reasonable results. I understand that cross polarising would be beneficial, so I'd like to choose equipment that would work well for this.

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?
• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?
• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

Any other advice would be hugely appreciated!

Many thanks in advance...
Adam

 

[mamallama]

Hi, new member so please go easy and excuse my lack of knowledge!

I have a picture framing business and reproduce quite a lot of photos and art for customers. I use an Epson V550 for smaller stuff, and can "stitch" scans together for bigger items but it's not very practical.

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

I've done a bit of research, but would welcome any advice from people who have done this sort of thing. I come from a print/design background, so have a good understanding of colour repro etc, so if I can get the right equipment, I should (I hope!) be able to achieve reasonable results. I understand that cross polarising would be beneficial, so I'd like to choose equipment that would work well for this.

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?
• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?
• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

Any other advice would be hugely appreciated!

Many thanks in advance...
Adam

I have photographed large flat artwork up to about 6' x 4' and found that virtually any current digital camera was adequate. A zoom lens was appropriate to allow precise framing. The problems however were uneven lighting, reflections, centering and distortion control, and support for the artwork. Those framed under glass presented special reflection problems.

I set up the equivalent of a large vertical copy stand using the stairway landing in my home and a sturdy tripod strapped to the banister. Using the floor to support the artwork, I was able to geometrically center the lens axis to the center of the artwork. Diffused natural light from large windows supplied adequate flat lighting on cloudy days.

It was a temporary setup that worked well for the dozen or so large pieces of artwork that I needed to photograph for an art catalog.

 

[D Cox]

Hi, new member so please go easy and excuse my lack of knowledge!

I have a picture framing business and reproduce quite a lot of photos and art for customers. I use an Epson V550 for smaller stuff, and can "stitch" scans together for bigger items but it's not very practical.

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

I've done a bit of research, but would welcome any advice from people who have done this sort of thing. I come from a print/design background, so have a good understanding of colour repro etc, so if I can get the right equipment, I should (I hope!) be able to achieve reasonable results. I understand that cross polarising would be beneficial, so I'd like to choose equipment that would work well for this.

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?

If you want the best quality, with good rendering of brush strokes etc, then yes; one of the top full frame models with 40 or more Megapixels would be best.

I'm assuming the larger works may be up to a couple of metres wide.

• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?

Probably a 50mm or 60mm macro lens, to be sure of avoiding distortion (curved instead of straight edges to the artwork).

• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

Studio flashes with modelling lights will be best.

It's ages since I last bought flash, so I can't recommend current products from personal experience. I do notice that the Neewer kits seem astonishingly cheap and get quite good reviews on Amazon -- probably good if handled with reasonable care.

Any other advice would be hugely appreciated!

Many thanks in advance...
Adam

 

[Henry Falkner]

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

Last century I did this type of work on a copy bench with a 10x8 inch sheet film camera. It had a mounting screen (about A0 size, which is 46x33 inch approximately) and four tungsten flood lights at each corner. The film was compatible with incandescent light

In my perception, full frame sensor elements reduce bleed from one pixel to the next.

I have done art copy for a (successful) police prosecution with a small sensor travel zoom, but on an A1 size print (33x23 inches) the artifacts from the camera processing interfere with the detail in artwork.

My preferred focal length (to minimize pin-cushion or barrel distortion on my travel zooms) is 80 to 120mm, similar to that used in professional portrait photography.

I no longer own studio lighting, so I prefer a slightly overcast sky. Has your studio got a large window in the ceiling?

These days I would look for strips of LED lighting at your preferred color temperature. While their color distribution is still not the same as daylight, LEDs have a more even distribution than phosphorescent lights.

Henry

 

[justinwonnacott]

I do a lot of this work professionally. If your clients are looking for files suitable for reproduction in print (as opposed to screen resolution stuff) A full frame camera is definitely a plus, studio strobes, two softboxes and giant umbrellas are really useful. I use prime lenses, especially 35mm, 50 mm, and a 100mm macro lenses. I have a tilt shift normal which gets used as well. Never use zooms, the ca and distortion are not acceptable compared to primes. Some scrims, a dead black background and a large studio area in which all daylight can be excluded are needed too.........then there is the post production and delivery in sizes and formats needed for the purposes the client specifies. You will need a colour standard and calibrated gear so that you deliver well corrected files to your customers too.

It is actually a big investment to undertake and lots of work to do well and I find most amateurs cannot afford to pay for it.

 

[John Brubaker]

I used to do a great deal of this before digital. I used a 4x5 camera with tungsten lights and tungsten balanced film. The lights need polarizing filters as well as a polarizer on the camera lens. Since you will be now using a digital camera, I recommend a full frame camera or even a medium format digital. Since reproducing artwork often involves very large prints (sized to match the original), maximum resolution is desireable. Just a word of caution: Since the original and repro can be viewed side by side, a direct comparison can be made. Trying to exactly reproduce colors and tones in original art is very challenging. ---jb.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Hi, new member so please go easy and excuse my lack of knowledge!

I have a picture framing business and reproduce quite a lot of photos and art for customers. I use an Epson V550 for smaller stuff, and can "stitch" scans together for bigger items but it's not very practical.

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

I've done a bit of research, but would welcome any advice from people who have done this sort of thing. I come from a print/design background, so have a good understanding of colour repro etc, so if I can get the right equipment, I should (I hope!) be able to achieve reasonable results. I understand that cross polarising would be beneficial, so I'd like to choose equipment that would work well for this.

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?

It depends on how big you want to print. I have a Nikon D750 (24 megapixels) which is good up to 16X20. I guess a 24 MP crop-sensor camera would do just as well. A high-megapixel full-frame camera would give you the most flexibility in print size. But if you get one, you still have to spend money on the lens.

• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?

A macro lens is the best sort of thing. I use a 55mm Micro Nikkor, which has a very flat field, good sharpness and a convenient field of view.

• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

You can't use continuous tungsten lamps because they melt the filters. You can't use LED's because they destroy color accuracy. So you're stuck with strobes. I use Elinchrom monolights and am quite happy with the results. You can't use any kind of diffusion with polarized lights because that destroys the polarization; you have to aim the lights right at the artwork, 2 lights at 45 degrees.

Any other advice would be hugely appreciated!

I use an xRite Passport to generate a color preset. This is very important for accurate color reproduction. I also use a flash meter to balance my lights and set exposure.

Note that, when you use cross-polarization (essential for photographing oils), the color saturation is unnaturally high and must be brought down when processing the RAW files (oh, yeah. Shoot RAW). When you're not shooting oils, which have shiny highlights, your life is easier if you don't use polarizers and just put softboxes on your lights.

 

[Henry Falkner]

I do a lot of this work professionally. If your clients are looking for files suitable for reproduction in print (as opposed to screen resolution stuff) A full frame camera is definitely a plus, studio strobes, two softboxes and giant umbrellas are really useful. I use prime lenses, especially 35mm, 50 mm, and a 100mm macro lenses. I have a tilt shift normal which gets used as well. Never use zooms, the ca and distortion are not acceptable compared to primes. Some scrims, a dead black background and a large studio area in which all daylight can be excluded are needed too.........then there is the post production and delivery in sizes and formats needed for the purposes the client specifies. You will need a colour standard and calibrated gear so that you deliver well corrected files to your customers too.

It is actually a big investment to undertake and lots of work to do well and I find most amateurs cannot afford to pay for it.

All I do these days is documenting Sandra's collection for the insurance.

Henry

 

[mamallama]

I used to do a great deal of this before digital. I used a 4x5 camera with tungsten lights and tungsten balanced film. The lights need polarizing filters as well as a polarizer on the camera lens. Since you will be now using a digital camera, I recommend a full frame camera or even a medium format digital. Since reproducing artwork often involves very large prints (sized to match the original), maximum resolution is desireable. Just a word of caution: Since the original and repro can be viewed side by side, a direct comparison can be made. Trying to exactly reproduce colors and tones in original art is very challenging. ---jb.

I come very very close to matching the color by including a Kodak white and grey card in the image and color correct in post processing.

 

[Mattia Valente]

I'll leave comments on lighting to others, but a good flat field lens (most macros) and a camera with a hi-res mode (this sounds like an ideal task for the Sony A7rIII - more accurate color and no moire due to the pixel shift mode; even a smaller sensor m43 cam or Pentax with pixel shift could provide good results) would be must haves. Also hardware for color calibration / color profiles.

 

[D Cox]

I do a lot of this work professionally. If your clients are looking for files suitable for reproduction in print (as opposed to screen resolution stuff) A full frame camera is definitely a plus, studio strobes, two softboxes and giant umbrellas are really useful. I use prime lenses, especially 35mm, 50 mm, and a 100mm macro lenses. I have a tilt shift normal which gets used as well. Never use zooms, the ca and distortion are not acceptable compared to primes. Some scrims, a dead black background and a large studio area in which all daylight can be excluded are needed too.........then there is the post production and delivery in sizes and formats needed for the purposes the client specifies. You will need a colour standard and calibrated gear so that you deliver well corrected files to your customers too.

It is actually a big investment to undertake and lots of work to do well and I find most amateurs cannot afford to pay for it.

However, I bet you didn't go out and buy all your setup for cash on day one. It is possible to start with the bare necessities and slowly collect all the desirables.

A good camera, a good macro lens, and a tripod would get the project started.

 

[GlimpseUK]

A huge thank you for all the advice, it's very useful!

As I plan to do this on a commercial basis, I don't want to compromise on equipment, so I expect the costs to be significant...

The reproduction work I do at present is generally producing short, limited edition print runs for artists, so colour accuracy and quality is imperitive. I don't struggle too much with smaller work on the scanner, it's just the bigger stuff!

And I'd like something that could give repeatable results. I have a reasobale amount of space, although sideways space for lights positioned at 45° might be a bit problematic as the room is only around 5m wide.

Oils/acrylics will certainly be a significant proportion of the work, so I'd be looking at a set up that could be adapted for CP as well as using simple softboxes for watercolours etc.

My initial thoughts are to go for something like a Nikon D610, being an affordable full-frame with decent resolution... 40meg+ would be great, but people seem to have been getting great results with 26meg cameras... Would this be a good starting point?

Thanks again

 

[Michael Fryd]

Macro Prime lenses are preferred for this type of work. It's not that you will be close, but that macro lenses usually have a flat plane of focus, tend to be very sharp, and should have little barrel/pincushion distortion.

For lighting advice, get the book Light Science and Magic.

You will definitely benefit from cross polarization, particularly if the lights can't go too far out to the sides.

I would suggest avoiding softboxes. They spread the glare out so it isn't as noticeable. Cross polarization will eliminate the glare. You want standard reflectors with polarizing gels on the lights. Choose reflectors that give you even lighting with a wide enough pattern to cover your artwork.

Don't aim the lights at the center of the artwork, aim them to the far side. The lights tend to be a little brighter in the center, and the far side of the art tends to be a little further away. By aiming the lights towards to far side, these work against each other to give you a more even lighting.

If you are shooting artwork with a reflective surface (such as acrylic paint), you may need to adjust the polarizing filter on the lens to allow some level of reflections. The artist may want the reflectivity of the painting to come through in the photograph.

You may want to have black walls in the studio to minimize uncontrolled fill. This is particularly important for the wall behind you. Uncontrolled fill is not polarized. While it provides even light, it may increase glare, which results in an overall reduction of contrast.

You want the wall around the edges of the art to be white, in order to make it easy to crop. You will also want a white background for artwork that is not perfectly rectangular.

While you can get great results with a 24 megapixel crop body,I would suggest Canon's 50 megapixel 5DS body. Not that you need 50 megapixels, but because you are doing this commercially. Consumers tend to equate megapixels with quality, Offer more megapixels and your customers will believe they are getting better quality. Higher pixel counts will also help you justify higher pricing.

I would suggest the 5DS over the 5DSr as the 5DS has the anti-aliasing filter. You don't want moire or aliasing when shooting finely detailed artwork.

If the image is being used to make a large reproduction of the work, the higher megapixel count might be useful.

Get something like a passport color checker and create a custom profile for your camera. Make sure to use a known neutral target for your white balance.

Obviously, you will need a tripod, and you want to make sure the sensor is absolute parallel to the artwork, and perfectly centered on it. Put a reference line on the floor perpendicular to the the wall where you hang the artwork. Make sure both the camera and the art are centered over that line. I use a laser level that projects a horizontal and vertical line. The level is on a light stand behind where the camera will go and positioned over the reference line on the floor. I adjust the height and aiming of the laser level so that the projected lines intersect in the center of the artwork. I then move the camera into position. I know the camera is at the right position when the intersection of the projected lines is on the back of the camera, directly behind the center of the lens.

Good luck.

 

[Nansen]

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?
• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?
• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

I do some of it for a painter/graphical artist in the family. I use my Nikon gear that I already own and use for general photography; i.e., I use no special "technical reproduction photography" gear.

APS-C (Nikon "DX") sensor size camera will be more than plenty If the purpose is to produce photographs that will be viewed only on a computer screen and to produce the prints of up to 20x30 cm or thereabout. For larger prints, "full format" ("FF", 24x36mm) sensor camera is almost a necessity; this will produce (all else optimal) good prints up to 70x100 cm or thereabout. (Larger than that, and you are probably looking at stitching multiple photographs/sections, a whole different undertaking I wont get into here). (I might be conservative in those print sizes?)

I found 50mm Sigma 1:2.8 DG macro lens (on a Nikon "FF", 24x36mm sensor camera) to produce very good results. It has the advantage to being quite inexpensive and at the same time focusing as close as 1:1. If you are not interested in artwork of smaller dimensions than about 25cm on the longer dimension, I would expect the 50mm Nikon D 1:1.8 lens to be also more than adequate. If you are not prepared to invest in a FF sensor camera, I believe a DX NIKKOR 35mm lens would also be quite adequate. For very large artwork - over 1.5x1 meter - and limited space, restricting object-to-camera distance, it might be worth experimenting with Nikon 35mm f:2 D lens?

I use two Nikon SB-800 flash units, fired as remotes by the camera, reflected off a 70x70 cm corrugated cardboard covered with slightly crumbled kitchen aluminum-foil, placed at 45 degrees to the artwork/camera axis. Look for a camera that has a built-in flash unit that can act as a "master" flash and has a setting that only triggers the remotes, not to illuminate the artwork. (there are other systems to synchro-fire off-camera flashes, this is what I believe is the simplest. Nikon flashes are expensive, but since I already own them I did not have the need to look into the cost and practicality for synchro-firing less expensive, "third-party" ones. (Cables, radio-slave trigger units? Perhaps someone else can address that?)

With the lights arrangement I use, I had no need to use polarizers. Highly reflective, glossy surface oil painting might require this, I would expect flash light would work well with polarizers.

I always correct slight geometry fault caused by the imperfect external orientation of the image (i.e., because the sensor and artwork x-axes are not perfectly parallel and that the lens optical axis is not perfectly perpendicular to the artwork plane) in computer "post-processing", first by rotation, second by perspective adjustment tool in Gimp. These two geometry adjustment should alway be done as separate operations. I find it next to impossible (and not worth the time and trouble, given the ease of computer re-sampling) to achieve perfect external orientation if the rig (artwork and camera platforms) is "temporary".

Always take a second exposure with a gray card placed over the artwork and use it to find the proper colour correction, if necessary. With electronic flashes used for lighting and camera colour balance set to "electronic flash colour temperature", this is unlikely to be required, unless you are trying to make a print that will be compared to the original, side by side. Even then, the perception of colour between the two will depend on the nature of ambient light when the two are observed. The two objects (original and reproduction) have different reflection characteristics since they are made of two different dyes and base surfaces, and their reflective characteristics will change differently as the ambient light chances - in other words, the match might appear perfect under daylight but not under fluorescent ambient light. This level of colour matching can only be achieved by having the control over printing and the ambient light under which the comparison is done, and might be the only reason to complicate the project by processing the sensor .raw files on the computer. (Moderate your expectations in that respect, at least before you get to the point where you can teach us how to do it.

Good luck!

 

[GlimpseUK]

Thanks, it's great to hear the views of people that have experience with thi type of work... Michael, the 5DS sounds amazing, and I completely agree about the pixel count equating to higher perceived value... But the cost of the body alone would probably cover the price of a decent 26meg full frame, lens and some lights...

I'm planning to offer a full repro service, providing Ltd Ed prints as well as framing or mounting, rather than giving the customer a big old TIF on a disc, so if I can demonstrate quality results, I might be able to side-step the megapixel issue.

Perhaps if the venture proves profitable, a "super camera" might be a future investment!

 

[stevo23]

Hi, new member so please go easy and excuse my lack of knowledge!

I have a picture framing business and reproduce quite a lot of photos and art for customers. I use an Epson V550 for smaller stuff, and can "stitch" scans together for bigger items but it's not very practical.

I'd like to invest in a set up to photograph artists' work (larger paintings, oils, print, collages etc) but only have a basic understanding of photographic equipment. I have an aging Canon DSLR but it's nowhere near high enough resolution, so needs replacing.

I've done a bit of research, but would welcome any advice from people who have done this sort of thing. I come from a print/design background, so have a good understanding of colour repro etc, so if I can get the right equipment, I should (I hope!) be able to achieve reasonable results. I understand that cross polarising would be beneficial, so I'd like to choose equipment that would work well for this.

So, main questions are:

• Is there any benefit with a full-frame for this type of work? Or would I be better spending the money on the lens?
• Is a 50mm prime the best lens for this job?
• What type of lighting would be best for cross polarising filters?

Any other advice would be hugely appreciated!

Many thanks in advance...
Adam

I used to do this kind of work with a 100Mp scan back on a view camera. The artists received a CD with a color matched Tiff file. The technical requirements were essentially highest resolution, flat field with no distortion, diffused light to keep CA at a minimum, careful positioning against the film plane etc.

But this was based on client requirements. Our clients back then wouldn't have accepted anything less as they were mostly high end painters who were making a lot of money from their commissioned works. The tiff files were going to high end printers who were creating offset and/or Giclée reproductions that sold for thousands each. These images were highly scrutinized.

So the main issue is whether or not your clients want or need this level of work.

So the relevant questions are:

- What is the intended end result? Reproduction?

- How large are the paintings?

As for which equipment, this depends on your budget and client requirements. If I were doing this work today and had the same clients, I would probably try to convince them to accept D850 files and use a Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm (or Otus 85 if budget permits). But those were the clients back then. What are they wanting today? It could be that you have clients who merely want nice images to put in a web catalogue. It's all about your intended end result.

 

[GlimpseUK]

So the relevant questions are:

- What is the intended end result? Reproduction?

- How large are the paintings?

I will be producing limited edition giclée prints... Size? Well, most of the artists I deal with tend to work up to around 1.2m wide - rarely any bigger...

I have a picture framing shop, so have an existing "captive market" of artists whose work I frame. I find a lot of artists - particularly keen amateurs - want to make the step up to reproducing and marketing their work, but are pretty clueless about the best way to go about it.

I'm hoping that with my knowledge of colour repro (from a print background), I should be able to offer an attractive package, with the added benefit of increased framing/mounting work.

 

[Michael Fryd]

So the relevant questions are:

- What is the intended end result? Reproduction?

- How large are the paintings?

I will be producing limited edition giclée prints... Size? Well, most of the artists I deal with tend to work up to around 1.2m wide - rarely any bigger...

I would expect an artist to examine the print closely. You may not want to go below 100ppi (pixels per inch). If the artwork has a lot of fine details, you may want something higher than 100ppi. Many people try for at least 300 ppi.

A 4 foot by 6 foot print at 100 ppi is about 34.5 megapixels.

A 4 foot by 5 foot print, at 100 ppi would still require a 34.5 megapixel camera, if the camera has a typical 2:3 aspect ratio.

I have a picture framing shop, so have an existing "captive market" of artists whose work I frame. I find a lot of artists - particularly keen amateurs - want to make the step up to reproducing and marketing their work, but are pretty clueless about the best way to go about it.

Now this is a marketing question. A "keen amateur" has an emotion interest in the result. Someone doing this for a living, may be more concerned with costs and return on investment.

A "keen amateur" may be more willing to pay more for higher quality, even if that higher quality is not strictly needed.

I'm hoping that with my knowledge of colour repro (from a print background), I should be able to offer an attractive package, with the added benefit of increased framing/mounting work.

Be prepared to learn about colorspaces. Of particular interest will be how to fit the color gamut of the artwork into the color gamut of your printer. Keep in mind the color gamut of your printer will vary with the paper being used.

 

[Michael Fryd]

Thanks, it's great to hear the views of people that have experience with thi type of work... Michael, the 5DS sounds amazing, and I completely agree about the pixel count equating to higher perceived value... But the cost of the body alone would probably cover the price of a decent 26meg full frame, lens and some lights...

Sorry. I based the suggestion on your comment "As I plan to do this on a commercial basis, I don't want to compromise on equipment, so I expect the costs to be significant..."

If cost is a concern get the spend $650 on a Canon SL2 with the 18-55 STM kit lens.

It's 24 megapixels, so that's in your ball park.

Modern software will allow you to correct barrel / pincushion distortion and chromatic aberrations.

Stop down a bit and your image will be sharp, and your depth of field will be enough to accommodate and curvature in the plane of focus.

You really don't need full frame.

In terms of camera quality, the only metric you care about is megapixels. You don't need the fast frame rates, waterproofing, GPS, or ruggedness of high end cameras.

I'm planning to offer a full repro service, providing Ltd Ed prints as well as framing or mounting, rather than giving the customer a big old TIF on a disc, so if I can demonstrate quality results, I might be able to side-step the megapixel issue.

If your prints are not too big, and the originals have little fine detail, then 24 megapixels should be enough. Keep an eye on the texture of the original artwork. If you need to reproduce the fine detail of brush strokes or paper texture, you may need 200ppi (pixels per inch) or better in your image.

Perhaps if the venture proves profitable, a "super camera" might be a future investment!

Be careful, the venture may not be profitable if you don't have the right gear. Perhaps it takes a "super camera" to make the venture profitable.

My suggestion is that you plan for success. If you plan for failure, that's where you are more likely to end up. Buy a camera that will do the job you want/need. Don't base your camera choice on the expectation that the venture will fail.

 

[GlimpseUK]

Now this is a marketing question. A "keen amateur" has an emotion interest in the result. Someone doing this for a living, may be more concerned with costs and return on investment.

A "keen amateur" may be more willing to pay more for higher quality, even if that higher quality is not strictly needed.

The artists I tend to deal with use me for framing work for exhibitions and for sale... Some make a *reasonable* living, a larger portion are scraping a living or earning enough to indulge their hobby whilst making their living elsewhere!

I often suggest scanning/printing as a way to eek out a bit more money from their work and to open up their work to a wider market.

Whilst I acknowledge that I'll need to invest quite heavily, funds are finite, and it would be difficult to afford a top-end camera as well as all the other items I'll need...

If I can get the ball rolling with a body that costs around a grand, I can always upgrade in future... The painting size I mentioned is the maxium size I ever get for framing - most artists I deal with work within 4'x3' so it can be framed with standard board and glass!

I would epect the majority of work to be around A2-A1...