Can anyone recommend a lens for photographing traditional artwork to make reproductions? I assume one of the better macro lens might work? I have a 400D camera.
Any macro lens for its high performance for flat field should do just fine. The question is what magnification ratio are you looking for and how far is the focusing distance you have to work with. Let's take a look at the Canon's macro lens lineup; you have to get a considerable working distance if you use the 180mm, less if you use the 100mm and even more so if you use the 50mm. This will play a role if you use a copy stand but less so if you use a tripod with the artwork on the wall.
I have shot a little of this for an art prof at a university: I would recommend getting as close as you can to a normal view: ie, a 50mm lens. Anything too wide or telephoto will change the look of the work. I think on a 400d the 60mm 2.8 EFS macro would be a great choice--suppose to be very sharp. That will come out to about 100mm, but the "look" achieved by the lens will still be pretty "normal". A 35mm, such as the 35 f2 or 35 f1.4 would also be an ok choice if you do not have as much working room, bu those do not have the macro capabilities that you may need for smaller work. The lighting is the thing you really have to work with here--getting really true natural light can be difficult in a studio setting. Good luck
I tried using my Tamron SP AF 90 Macro but that puts me about 8 feet away from the art work (roughly 21 by 25 inches). Results weren't that great but it could have been due to the poor lighting I was using (not natural).
With a 60 mm I could get closer. I assume closer would result in better quality, is that true? I did try using my 50 mm regular lens in direct sunlight and that seemed to work pretty well. Though to get the individual brush work detail, I think a macro would work better.
a well correct Normal length lens like a 50mm macro is perfect for this work. I have done quite a bit of this and lighting is as critical as lens choice
I'm not sure I understand the definition of "traditional artwork". Paintings? Sculptures? Reliefs? All these, and other categories, are "traditional". I am assuming 2-dimensional works but...
Also, depending on the size of the subjects and the expected quality of the reproductions the better question might be "what type of camera should I use?". Most paintings and tapestries, for example, tend to be photographed with either large format film cameras or, these days, with a large format camera outfitted with a digital scanning back.
John is right...in the Forensic training I took the stress about once-an-hour that you use the 50mm, constantly. Remember, on a crop camera a 50mm (emphasis) looks longer but its not, its just cropped. Consequently, a wider lens will still distort but give you a crop of a wider-but-distorted point of view.
Lots of guys I know are doing 5D FF with (believe it or not) 50 1.8! Bahah! But true!
Seems like the 50 or 60 mm macro would do the job. Someone asked what type of traditional artwork, it would be paintings mostly. The one im working on is around 20 inches by 24 or so. Lighting is the killer at this point. Anyone have any recommendations on how to get the best light for this type of work? It was mentioned "natural" light was best. How does one achieve this inside? I guess I could try photographing it outdoors in overcast light. Would sunlight work better?
I used to do that many moons ago during the FD days - Indeed, I used a 50mm most of the time and mounted the camera on a copy stand. Once setup you can feel good about the object being parallel to the sensor. For smaller objects indoor, I used two soft boxes at 45 degrees from the artwork to the left and right. For something large, I used a tripod and outdoor under diffused light and not directly under sunlight. Getting the object parallel is not so critical here since your working distance has increased.
Been there, done it, worn the T-shirt for over 20 years doing this kind of work professionally.
100 macro is my choice by far - flat field, good subject/image distance for getting lights in, big focusing ring, super sharp.
Personally I find the 50mm too short on FF but on crop it would probably do, but I would still go for something longer as there is little or no chance of distortion with any smaller originals.
If this is flat artwork, IE paintings, the longer the lens the better. Yes, the macros will reproduce the art with minimal linear distortion (macros are designed to be as free from barrel and pincusion distortion as possible) and have better flat field of focus characteristics.
The danger of being too close is that any irregularities in camera/painting squareness will be evident, thus minimized the further away you are. Also, if you are in too close, you risk incident angle flare on the edges of the art from the copy lights. On a crop sensor camera, the 50 macro will get you where you need to be, but on a FF camera, it may be a bit short. In that case, the 100 macro would be a better choice.
Reproduction quality? A friend of mine who does restoration work for a living and "dabbles" in art photography uses large format equipment, studio strobes, and an Imacon drum scanner at a local university. The guy doesn't even own small format gear, film or digi.
I have shot a few original paintings on canvas for a local artist and tried the 50mm f1.4, 24-70mm f2.8 and the 100mm f2.8 Macro using a 1Ds. Both he and I liked the 100mm images best although the differences were not that great between all three. These images were then used for printing open edition prints of his artwork as well as Postcards and brochures to advertise his work.
Other artist I know take their original work to a lab and get a medium or large format negative to use in reproducing their work into prints.
As others have said, the 400D is not the obvious choice for reproducing paintings etc. But on the assumption that you have the 400D and want to use it for this purpose, there is a lens just made for the job: the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro. There is no sharper lens, and its focal length will give you adequate working distance without having to be too far from your subject. And you'll get sharp edge-to-edge reproductions without linear distortion.
You could try doing it outdoors on an overcast day but it is easier (and more repeatable) to set up a rig indoors with two or four identical flash guns, either side of the subject firing at it at a 45 degree angle so that if the subject has a shiny surface you don't get reflections of the light source in the picture. Don't get the flashes too close to the subject because you want even illumination. You can fire them with an ST-E2 flash transmitter fitted to the camera.
There's other stuff you'll have to master - getting the exposure right for instance, but that's where digital is easier than film! You could put an 18% grey card in place and use FEL to lock the exposure, then remove it and take the picture. That should be a good starting point.
I agree, the 60mm macro lens looks to be an excellent choice. For test purposes, I rigged up a couple of 200 watt lights at 45 degree angles to the painting. However, the painting is varnished so I was still getting reflection issues. I had to move the lights up and point them down at the painting to fix that. I then used what lenses I have currently (50mm regular prime and tamron 90 mm macro). Results were pretty good. I need to figure out how to shoot it so its perfectly square. Had problems with that too. Of course many pros use large format cameras and more expensive gear and get great results. However, it all comes down to resolving all the detail the painting has. I would think a 400D w/the 60mm and assuming perfect lighting conditions, exposure, and post processing would do a very, very good job. Just a hunch at this point...
Mike Tuomey wrote:
Reproduction quality? A friend of mine who does restoration work for a living and "dabbles" in art photography uses large format equipment, studio strobes, and an Imacon drum scanner at a local university. The guy doesn't even own small format gear, film or digi.
Major museums often use scan backs shot in tricolor mode. There are even large speciality scanners that will "roll" across flat artwork. Then there's always 4x5 and 8x10 drum scanned transparencies.
But if you've got to work with what you have available, then do the best you can with the advice using the macros.
pregan wrote:
I agree, the 60mm macro lens looks to be an excellent choice. For test purposes, I rigged up a couple of 200 watt lights at 45 degree angles to the painting.
A benefit of using flash rather than floodlights is that you can dial-in the correct colour balance for flash and the effective exposure duration is so short you won't suffer camera shake even if your rig is a bit wobbly.
I spent many years shooting flat art on a Forox SS animation camera (rostrum camera for our British friends) and can offer the following advice.
1. Look for the lens with the best flat field performance that you can find. Macros can be used, normal lenses will not perform anywhere near as well because of lens curvature issues. We used 50mm Macro Nikkors for standard stuff and adapted super high quality enlarging lens to a bellows for very critical work.
2. Something in the 50mm range is probably best for you simply because of shooting distances.
No, it is not my camera (sold mine in the mid 1990s) but it is hard to find pictures of Forox SSs these days.
4. The lighting is critical which is another reason for the link above. Take a look at the pic on the bottom. You want your lights to both be at approx. 45 degress but both lights should be at exactly the same angle and exactly the same distance away from the artwork. If you are going to do this seriously, it is going to take a lot of time to set this up right.
5. Buy a sheet of 30 x 40 mat board that is close to an 18% gray. Mount it where you are you would your artwork and use a spot meter to take readings across the entire board. Obviously, there should be no variation so adjust your lights if there is. Balancing lights, even on something like the Forox is a bitch. Move a light by accident and you have a big problem. ANY little change will have a big impact.
6. Using flash is just asking for it. You will never be able to get it right, though you may be able to get it good enough. There is a big difference and only you know at what level you have to perform. Lowell Tota-lights are good copy and general purpose lights and are pretty cheap. Hotter than hell though. Don't burn yourself.
7. Tungsten copy lights should be used together and not for other purposes singularly so that they age together. Lights should be polarized. Biggest mistake most people make is not polarizing their lights.
8. The more uniform the artwork the tougher it is to get it right. Busy and/or colorful stuff hides errors. Subjects with a uniform light color will show lighting errors of less than 1/4 if your lighting isn't balanced.
9. Mark everything, even if you can leave your setup there on a permanent basis. You are going to accidently kick something sometime. When you do, you don't want to have realign everything without a reference point.
10. Use a cable release. Use good quality studio components (tripod, light stands, etc.)
Doing it right is an awful lot harder than one would think but that's why people who need it done right are willing to pay to have it done at all.
