are there any good cameras for just taking photos of your traditional art?
Uncategorized
15
Posts
5
Posters
0
Views
-
@FlyingTerra Any camera with enough resolution for what you want and no sharpening should be fine, and the latter can be turned off in just about any camera that has it. Even smartphones can do well. For photographing 2D artwork, what matters most is the lighting. But if diffuser or a ring light aren't an option, waiting for a bright overcast day and photographing outside works.
@FlyingTerra I am curious what makes your scanner so terrible though! Unlike printers, scanners have been pretty kind to me, and the only issues I've had have been scanners not having drivers for more recent OSes.
-
@FlyingTerra I am curious what makes your scanner so terrible though! Unlike printers, scanners have been pretty kind to me, and the only issues I've had have been scanners not having drivers for more recent OSes.
@eishiya ah it's massively overexposed and also eats away any color nuance. also the settings feel like they're only there for decoration orz.
-
@FlyingTerra Any camera with enough resolution for what you want and no sharpening should be fine, and the latter can be turned off in just about any camera that has it. Even smartphones can do well. For photographing 2D artwork, what matters most is the lighting. But if diffuser or a ring light aren't an option, waiting for a bright overcast day and photographing outside works.
@eishiya Do you have any more resources on best practices for the actual process? I’d love to know more, and detailed info has felt hard to come by
-
are there any good cameras for just taking photos of your traditional art?
i'm done with my scanner eating away my spoons. °m°
@FlyingTerra If you have the budget I'd suggest DLSR + prime (non-zoom) lens as being the best combo for low distortion (cheaper 2nd hand)... but compacts and smartphones are not that far behind quality-wise ... But a good bright and even light source is also quite important ...
-
@eishiya ah it's massively overexposed and also eats away any color nuance. also the settings feel like they're only there for decoration orz.
@FlyingTerra Ah, software issues :'D If your scanner software doesn't have the option to disable automatic adjustments, maybe try a different one? Nearly all scanners support TWAIN, and there are generic TWAIN applications out there. I don't have experience with them though.
IME photographing with a camera requires more post-work to correct colours than a scanner, and it's usually necessary to correct the perspective, so I always prefer to use a scanner whenever possible.
-
@eishiya Do you have any more resources on best practices for the actual process? I’d love to know more, and detailed info has felt hard to come by
@mostol I'm not the best person to ask, as I generally use a scanner and have only needed to photograph art a few times, years ago. It's nothing so complex that you can't figure it out with some experimentation though. But I'll share what I remember.
1/?
-
@mostol I'm not the best person to ask, as I generally use a scanner and have only needed to photograph art a few times, years ago. It's nothing so complex that you can't figure it out with some experimentation though. But I'll share what I remember.
1/?
@mostol Even with a diffuser, you'll still want the light as far away from the artwork as you can get it while still getting enough light, for even coverage. Too close and you'll have a hard-to-correct radial gradient over the image.
While a daylight bulb (or actual daylight) helps a lot, you will have to do colour correction no matter what light source you use. A calibration strip might help, but I always eyeballed it since I knew what the art was meant to look like.
2/?
-
are there any good cameras for just taking photos of your traditional art?
i'm done with my scanner eating away my spoons. °m°
@FlyingTerra lighting is likely more important than model of camera.
-
@mostol Even with a diffuser, you'll still want the light as far away from the artwork as you can get it while still getting enough light, for even coverage. Too close and you'll have a hard-to-correct radial gradient over the image.
While a daylight bulb (or actual daylight) helps a lot, you will have to do colour correction no matter what light source you use. A calibration strip might help, but I always eyeballed it since I knew what the art was meant to look like.
2/?
@mostol Avoid being near the artwork when photographing it, as this both introduces shadows/gradients (even with very diffuse lighting) and perspective distortion. Stay at least a few artwork-lengths away. For an A4 sheet, 2-3m is as close as you should get, ideally you want to be further. If your camera has optical zoom, use that instead of getting closer. If not, hope you have enough resolution for a crop :] Do *not* use digital zoom (for anything, really).
Autofocus is usually fine.
3/?
-
@mostol Avoid being near the artwork when photographing it, as this both introduces shadows/gradients (even with very diffuse lighting) and perspective distortion. Stay at least a few artwork-lengths away. For an A4 sheet, 2-3m is as close as you should get, ideally you want to be further. If your camera has optical zoom, use that instead of getting closer. If not, hope you have enough resolution for a crop :] Do *not* use digital zoom (for anything, really).
Autofocus is usually fine.
3/?
@mostol The angle at which to have the light depends on the art and the light source, so you'll need to experiment to avoid glare and unwanted shadows. Start with it in front of the art and adjust so you and it aren't in each other's way and so you get a nice image. To highlight texture, put it more off-centre.
I had the ceiling light on, worked as more fill light to avoid the dreaded gradients. It's hard to have too much light in a non-studio set-up.
4/?
-
@mostol The angle at which to have the light depends on the art and the light source, so you'll need to experiment to avoid glare and unwanted shadows. Start with it in front of the art and adjust so you and it aren't in each other's way and so you get a nice image. To highlight texture, put it more off-centre.
I had the ceiling light on, worked as more fill light to avoid the dreaded gradients. It's hard to have too much light in a non-studio set-up.
4/?
@mostol If your walls are white or close to it, use them as a free reflector/diffuser. If not, try to put some white sheets/boards around the art to keep the unwanted colour out. I had orange walls ):
For me it's easier to set things up at home if the artwork is nearly vertical on a low table or chair rather than lying horizontally on a table, since getting a camera directly above the artwork at a distance is difficult. I used a white board as a backing to keep the paper from bending.
5/6
-
@mostol If your walls are white or close to it, use them as a free reflector/diffuser. If not, try to put some white sheets/boards around the art to keep the unwanted colour out. I had orange walls ):
For me it's easier to set things up at home if the artwork is nearly vertical on a low table or chair rather than lying horizontally on a table, since getting a camera directly above the artwork at a distance is difficult. I used a white board as a backing to keep the paper from bending.
5/6
@mostol I'd say I hope this is useful, but honestly this stuff felt pretty self-evident when trying it out. Once you take a couple of bad photos, I think you'll quickly see what the problems are - usually perspective distortion (which can be corrected after) and gradients from uneven lighting. The former is can be avoided by changing your shooting angle, the latter is tougher, and your bulb(s) might only get you so far. Floodlight bulb in a desk lamp + daylight worked well enough for me.
(fin)
-
@mostol I'd say I hope this is useful, but honestly this stuff felt pretty self-evident when trying it out. Once you take a couple of bad photos, I think you'll quickly see what the problems are - usually perspective distortion (which can be corrected after) and gradients from uneven lighting. The former is can be avoided by changing your shooting angle, the latter is tougher, and your bulb(s) might only get you so far. Floodlight bulb in a desk lamp + daylight worked well enough for me.
(fin)
@eishiya Super helpful, thank you so much!
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
Esattamente. È un problema antico, io stesso alle superiori nei primi anni '90 sono stato istruito su Windows 3.1 e MS Dos
-
@simonperry@mastodon.uno @francommit@livellosegreto.it @francal@mastodon.uno
vorrei anche ricordare che in molte scuole pubbliche italiane si usano tuttora i prodotti MS come "standard di fatto", e la reazione a eventuali proposte di cambiamento è simile a quella descritta sopra... 🤔
-
@DrALJONES the same grin in their lips
-
La tecnica può essere fascista, la scienza è solo anarchica
-
Dallo scorso millennio mi occupo di sicurezza, ma principalmente dei sistemi, dei dati e delle applicazioni. Ho bisogno di approfondire la sezione relativa alle comunicazioni via telefono. Studiare meglio attacchi "man in the middle" e del tipo "stalkerware" (principalmente applicati alla telefonia mobile) e ovviamente le tecniche di difesa. Chi può suggerirmi un percorso di approfondimento "ordinato" così da rendermi questo studio più veloce? Mi serve per un cliente.
-
Ho provato a leggere tutto lo scritto del link , ma non ho le basi per capire veramente tutto , oltre allo spirito base .
Magari qualcun'altra/o fara meglio di me .
-
Hongdown 0.2.0 is out! Hongdown is an opinionated #Markdown formatter written in #Rust, and this release brings #WebAssembly support, so you can now use it as a library in #Node.js, #Bun, #Deno, and browsers.
New features:
Smart heading sentence case conversion with ~450 built-in proper nouns SmartyPants-style typographic punctuation ("straight" → “curly”) External code formatter integration for code blocks Directory argument support for batch formattingTry it in the browser: https://dahlia.github.io/hongdown/
Release notes: https://github.com/dahlia/hongdown/discussions/10
-
For those who keep using "we" when it is not.
It plays into the hands of the fascists: they want us to believe that we are all responsible for the atrocities *they* are committing.
It is not we the people who are destroying life as we have known it.
It is a miniscule percentage of fascistic psychopathic billionaires.
Our problem is that we didn't recognise just how dangerous they were.
Even Chomsky said he underestimated the ferocity of their counter-revolution.
