Reproducing a Painting

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Hello,
I am doing some work which requires water-color paintings
to be used.

I called the printer and asked him how to go about getting these scanned so I can use them in my work.

He told me paintings cannot be scanned, but rather, that they need to be photographed by a qualified photographer, who then needs to supply the printer with a transparency of the painting for scanning, along with a
color bar.

Has anyone had any experience with this? Is this true? He says painting ink and printing ink are very different and therefore need to be treated with care.

It seems very expensive, and I am not sure how the client will react to this.

I need to explain everything to the client, but I really am not sure how. Particularly since I have never dealt with paintings for print before.

Could someone please advise me on this subject a bit more.

As well, could you inform me on what a "color bar" is?

Thanks in advance
Pam

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

Has anyone had any experience with this? Is this true?

We often shoot artwork for customers here. My recommendation is to get a good 4x5 transparency. Possible reasons to do repros of paintings:

1) The artwork is to big to fit on a scanner
2) The artwork will be damaged when taped to a drum
3) The artwork has too much relief to be scanned properly (this usually happens with oils, collages etc.. (Water colours shouldn't have this problem)
4) It's easier to carry a slide around than the painting. The Same goes for shipping

He says painting ink and printing ink are very different and therefore
need to be treated with care.

In a painting, every pot of colour used adds a different pigment, in (CMYK) printing, you only have four pigments. They are VERY different.

It seems very expensive, and I am not sure how the client will react to
this

Try a professional photo lab, some of them offer repro services and they may be cheaper than a photographer. Another option is to find someone with a digital repro bench (basically, a copy stand with a digital camera, make sure it's a high quality one) this avoid the cost of scanning.

As well, could you inform me on what a "color bar" is?

Basically, it's a gray ramp with some colour patches printed on a piece of cardboard. There are several out there (Kodak, Gretag-Macbeth and others manufacture them) They are used to check colour balance, contrast and saturation in a reproduction of a painting

[John_...@adobeforums.com]

Well it really depends on how big they will be used.

In a properly lit setting a basic digital camera, 3.3MP for example, could yield enough rez for what you need.

Otherwise, there are high-end digital cameras (very expensive) which can capture more rez but I'm guessing that your printer does not have one.

If the originals are on thin enough paper, they can be wrapped around a drum for a drum scan, but there is always the possibility that the originals will fly off the drum and be destroyed, so such a method should be used only where liability issues are clearly understood.

The safest method and maybe the best is as the printer has suggested, to have large format (at least 4x5) transparncies made to be scanned, but if you go this route make sure that you send the originals as a color reference, as transparencies can contain color casts that the eye cannot detect, but a scanner will see clearly.

Also be aware the reproducing watercolors, especially where pastel shades are involved, is notoriously difficult.

PS: a color bar is a series of blocks of color (and sometimes patterns) printed on a printed sheet, along side your job, which the pressman may use as a quality control device.

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Hello
thank you for your quick responses.

I may be completely off here, but sometimes on my newspaper, I notice that, in the margin, there are circles of colour. Red, yellow, blue.. etc. As well, on some packaging of all kinds of products, I see this as well... Is THIS a color bar?

And, sorry to be anal, but I anticipate the client will be asking me these things, so I had best know how to explain it properly, but could you tell me HOW the color bar is used to control quality?

Perhaps break it down a "color bars for dummies" type way.

Printer says he needs a transparencey with a color bar on it so he can "see" the colours he needs.

So what does this really mean? How are color bars produced on transparencies? Is it a setting in the camera which offers this to be seen on the transparency?

And lets say the painting is a landscape, what colors would I expect to see on the bar? Green , blue, yellow? For grass, sky and sun?

Basically, are the colors always the same, or do they differ from picture to picture?

I attempted to find some online information about this, so I can better visualize what exactly the color bar is for. But i cannot find anything which explains it. So, perhaps if someone knows where to look, I can save you the hassle of trying to teach an old girl new tricks :)

Thanks again
Pam

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

Red, yellow, blue.. etc. As well, on some packaging of all kinds of products,
I see this as well... Is THIS a color bar

No, those are register marks and crop markes. You will also sometimes see small squares of solid colours along one edge. Those are there for the pressman to check his inks.

To make a repro with colour bar, you simply place the colour bar next to the painting and shoot both, so you have them both next to each other on the slide.

The swatches of colour on a colour bar are of KNOWN values. Thus, if your lights add a bit of a colour cast (and many do), this allows the person doing the scan to compensate for it since 1) they don't know what the real colour of the painting really is and 2) they usually won't have it handy to compare with what they have on the screen.

In other words, you look are the grey swatches and say to yourself: "those look a little magenta (or whatever), I'll add a little green to compensate". The theory is once the colour bar is OK, the colours of the painting will all fall into place.

And by the way, if someone is doing repro work for you and they are not using a colour bar, then they don't know what they're doing and you should find someone else.

[Al...@adobeforums.com]

You don't need to hire a photographer. A good photo lab would be fine (many photographers shot the image then take the film to a photo lab for processing anyway). Have them shoot a 4x5 transparency with a color bar next to the painting.

I've done this exact process with client-supplied paintings and pastel work.

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

In my opinion the presence of a Kodak control strip in the photograph,
is no guarantee of a dead-on match (if there ever is such a thing), and
will only serve as a basic guide for scanning. Total reliance on such
a target is a bit on the calibrationist side...

I agree with you, but there is nothing I hate more than scanning shots of artwork without one of those bars and then being told that it's not the "real" colour of the painting. So I can understand why the printer is asking for it. All those bars do is put you in the right ballpark (and let the repro people know they don't have a problem with their lighting and exposure)

[John_...@adobeforums.com]

Sorry about the misleading color bar definition, I should have read the original post more carefully. I addition to the type of control target that is being spoken of here, there are such things as color bars to help control offset lithography.

[John_...@adobeforums.com]

I agree with you, but there is nothing I hate more than scanning shots
of artwork without one of those bars and then being told that it's not
the "real" colour of the painting.

Which is why you need to have the original, not just the chrome.

I agree that there is nothing more frustrating than slaving on a good match to a chrome, and THEN they come out with the original art or the actual product, or whatever. It is as if there is a common misconception regarding photography (photographs don't lie) and an assumption that the color on a chrome is bound to be true to the original. You get the impression sometimes that chromes are only given a cursory glance, but the scans you make from them are scrutinized carefully.

Of course, now that so many formerly-fussy customers do their own color, a surprisingly large percentage of color work is OKed first shot out of the box <g>.

This is the type of work where we used to output 3-4 times before submitting a proof to the customer. Nowadays with better, calibrated monitors, and proper profiling, the number of re-iteration cycles should be reduced, but if you're really gonna get picky, the best monitor-to-proof agreement in the world will probably only get you 95% there on 95% of the shots... then again I never had a real state-of-the-art setup, with a calibration spyder and the like...

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

Which is why you need to have the original, not just the chrome.

In an ideal world, in reality this is unfortunately not often the case.

It's also the reason I like to scan our own chromes, since we insist on keeping the original until the job is done :)

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Hello everyone
Thank you all for your great advice.

I did not know that I could eliminate the middle man (photographer) and go to a photo booth where they'd shoot the
paintings and a color bar with a digi-cam.

This may give the printer an aneurism if he knows no transparencies are in use, however.

Let me ask you this:
• What, if any, is the harm in doing it this way, then sending it to the printer for him to print out for my client to see, and therefore decide if its good enough quality?
Assuming the photo booth does this for a low cost, this idea could work, could it not?

• As well, I may want to run a few filters over the paintings, so, am I wrong to assume that running filters over a painting, detracts from the need to have it color-matched to perfection anyhow??

• One last thing here: I am going to be using a pic of a dog in the work as well. And the printer said I could very well use a digital camera or scan a print in this instance. So Why oh WHY are the paintings so much harder to deal with, in his opinion?

I think I should be ok, because the paintings, I do not believe, are color-critical. Meaning, if they're off by a bit, no one will mind. They are actually pale, and the client mentioned he would like me to play with the colors, to liven things up a notch. So, I take it to mean that he doesn't care if his tans are a bit more brown, and his mauves a bit darker.

What do you think?
Pam

[Al...@adobeforums.com]

If it's not color-critical, you can certainly take a digital photo of the paintings. Generally speaking, the size of the image you want on your final output should determine the resolution of the camera used. If the image will be a 2x2" image, you can get away with a 2 megapixel camera. If you want a full background, the LEAST amount of camera resolution you're going to want is 3 megapixels, preferably 5.

If the need for image integrity and color accuracy is high, that's when I'd take it to a photo lab, using a color bar shoot to a transparency, then drum scan (or for lower quality, flatbed scan with a transparency adapter).

If you're going to run filters on the painting and image integrity isn't absolutely critical, your best bet may very well be the digital photo method. Running filters on an image, particularly ones that effect color nullify the need for color accuracy.

Oh, and if you're shooting an image of a dog digitally, why would you scan a print? Use the digital image.

[To...@adobeforums.com]

If the watercolors are yours and small, scan them on a flatbed scanner.

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

I did not know that I could eliminate the middle man (photographer) and
go to a photo booth where they'd shoot the paintings and a color bar with
a digi-cam.

It's not a photo booth! It's a professional photo lab you need to go to! Big difference!

This may give the printer an aneurism if he knows no transparencies are
in use, however.

Just tell him you'll be supplying files.

Assuming the photo booth does this for a low cost, this idea could work,
could it not?

Yes.

As well, I may want to run a few filters over the paintings, so, am I
wrong to assume that running filters over a painting, detracts from the
need to have it color-matched to perfection anyhow??

It will depend on the filters you will use. Some filters do not affect the colours of an image at all (a distort for example) others do.

So Why oh WHY are the paintings so much harder to deal with, in his opinion?

Because usually, people having paintings reproduced are fussy about getting the right colour, but this does not seem to be the case right now.

[Chuck...@adobeforums.com]

And don't forget the line screen on the press and the paper quality. What kind of paper is used? There are a million papers and with art prints the paper choice is a big big deal!

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Hello

"Oh, and if you're shooting an image of a dog digitally, why would you scan a print? Use the digital image."

I did not mean to imply I'd scan a print made from the digicam.
What I meant was, that the printer said for the dog, I could either use a digicam or even scan a print. That's why I mentioned it; because there was a drastic discrepency between how he thought the dog and the paintings should be handled.

"And don't forget the line screen on the press and the paper quality. What kind of paper is used? There are a million papers and with art prints the paper choice is a big big deal! "

These are all valid thoughts you bring up.
I'm not sure what you mean though. Do you mean the canvas on which the painting was done? Or the paper the printer will be printing on?

At this point, I do not know the paper being used. When I spoke with the printer, he didn't even mention it. He actually didn't even tell me it would be a good idea to have the scanning done with him necessarily. I would have thought he'd have pitched for himself, saying all the normal things such as "if you use me for scanning, all yourpictures will be optimized for use on our machines etc"

Maybe I was going about this wrong. I was simply going to ask the client to have the paintings scanned/shot so that I was left with a 300dpi eps (at 100%)
I didn't mention anything about line screen. (The paintings are far bigger than what I need. So scanning the painting at 100% at 300dpi would even be overkill )

Is this going to be a problem?

Thank you
Pam

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Wow this thread is a bit out there - perhaps because multiple huge topics are touched on.

The statement "painting ink and printing ink are very different and therefore need to be treated with care” applies to ALL color work. Our working files are never CMYK. Admittedly art is a bit more of an issue because close matching to the original is often necessary to preserve the integrity of the art. Unlike many ads, where the final CMYK can be different that the RGB original and still work fine.

I shoot art a lot, then print on an Epson SP2200 and/or it goes to a printer. I have found that the best workflow is to compare the original art to the proof, then adjust and reprint. Better still is to to involve the artist in the print process if possible, since in reality what we are doing is reproducing her/his original art in a new medium, and it WILL be different than the original.

Talk of megapixel digicam sizes is probably not appropriate. To get good pix of art a SLR camera (35 mm or digital) or better (e.g. medium format) is really necessary. Any SLR digicam with real lenses can be made to do a fine job, including a 2 megapixel Nikon D1. On the other hand many 3+ megapixel digicams will provide marginal results, mainly due to their tiny wide range inexpensive zoom lenses. Best would be a view or SLR camera with swing/tilt capability, but most folks seem to accept the distortion inherent in shooting art carefully with regular lenses just fine.

Shooting art good lighting is even more essential than normal. Particularly with reflective materials like acrylics or ceramic glazes, lighting can be _very_ challenging. I use 5000 degree hot lights and bracket white balance with the digicam and bracket exposures with 35 mm slide film. I always shoot both digicam/film because digital allows dialing in the lighting as well as fast printing, while most art show submissions require slides. I shoot 12 slides per piece to allow plenty of extras for submissions.

[Ronald...@adobeforums.com]

I got my LOL for the day when I read about using a 'Photo Booth.' I'm still laughing just typing this.

[Al...@adobeforums.com]

C'mon Ronald, admit it. You often take product shots over at Kmart or the county fair. You hold the product in front of the photo booth camera. Great price too! 4 shots for $5!!!! If you really want to save $, have the dog AND the product in the booth with you!

[Allen...@adobeforums.com]

Then you could scan the prints on a flatbed and send the resultant digital files out to make transparencies for the printer to scan... :-)

[Ronald...@adobeforums.com]

[:-}}}

[Sh...@adobeforums.com]

Pumpkinpie,

I agree with John that it would be great to supply the printer with the original, but I also agree with Rene that depending upon the situation that's not always possible. That's when placing the color bar in with the painting can be the next best thing. I would also place a gray scale in if possible---but that's from a photographer's perspective and may not be of use to the printer. I like to give people as much info as possible and leave little room for doubt. The color bar (or original) is important because---you know how wierd artists are :)---it might be a simple landscape painting, but the artist may have used psychedelic colors or as you said pale pastels. I imagine this can give a printer fits if he has no base of comparison. When I worked in a pro photo lab, it was always nice to have either the original or a color bar in the trans/neg when making prints.

Anyway Pumpkinpie, click on the link below and it will show you what is meant by a color bar/gray scale. Again to use this, place it in the shot (as it's framed in the camera), but obviously outside the border of the piece you're shooting. I don't know where you are, but you should be able to pick one up at any professional photo supplier. You may want to supply it to the printer too when you give them the film; I'm sure some of the people here who have already answered can tell you whether that would be necessary. And...as you said, if you want tans to be darker (brown), at least the printer has a base of comparison.

Kodak color patch <http://www.art-photo.jp/index_files/KODAK%20Gray%20Scale.jpg>

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Boys will be boys...

Thanks for all your help

Pam

[Gary_P...@adobeforums.com]

Your printer is wrong. Any watercolor that will fit on the scan bed of a flatbed scanner can be scanned in much greater resolution than any but the most high end digital cameras will supply. Why use film at all? Think about it. To scan film introduces another step in the process in which detail and accuracy are lost. Printers are slow to adapt, but it's time to go all-digital.

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

Gary you have a good point except of course when it comes to size limitation and also paper texture and finish might play a role in this as well. But you do have a very good point.

However scanned images require sharpening any way.

Of yes there is another consideration when reproducing very valuable paintings,
placing them on a scanner maybe a little to risky, they can get damaged.

And one more thing, a water color is not going to lie flat for you or anyone else.

Rushing into something without thinking is a little reckless in my opinion.
Don't you agree!

In case you are interested in the old days they could have gone directly to the plate film by using a the copy camera and a vacuum frame except of course the vacuum frame might have damaged the painting of course they could have forgo the vacuum frame except the surface caused problems for the lights…what was my point…oh, yes perhaps film or digital capture is still a good idea!

[Veni...@adobeforums.com]

This thread touches on several different areas of expertise besides color reproduction itself.

The handling of art originals is an entire subject that few people have appreciation for. We use a reproduction service that has been in business since the 1950s. My good friend owns it. They have large format equipment of every type for photographing artwork to 4x5 and 8x10 transparencies. They also have a state of the art digital workflow.

They have a policy that they will not shoot a piece that is in its frame. Most artists bring them art before it is ever put in a frame, but that is not always the case. They will not remove a piece from the frame. The artist must do that. They will only accept artwork which is uncurled. They will not flatten any curled pieces.

They were forced to adopt such policies (as were other similar businesses) over the years because of problems handling artwork. Many years ago, they accepted a framed piece from a good customer. When they opened it they found a silverfish infestation inside. They had to spray the wood with insecticide. The back of the canvas had a large discoloration which had not yet become visible from the front. The artist refused to believe that it had been infested and accused them of spilling something on the back of the canvas. He sued them.

Opening framed pieces has resulted in glass breaking and frames splitting. He won't even allow artists to unframe or flatten pieces themselves in his shop. His insurance won't accept the liability that somehow the worspace he has provided contributed to some mishap.

Acrylics and oils crack off pieces that are curled when they are straightened and he refuses to try to put such pieces in a scanner or in a copy frame. Just bringing the painted surface in contact with the glass can damage it. If the art can't hang flat, he won't handle it.

He is willing to put watercolor pieces in a scanner or copy frame. He says watercolors don't crack. But he says very few works ever fit in his 17 x 22 flat bed scanner. Most artwork is larger than that. But he says direct scanning is the best way to reproduce anything that will fit.

VL

[Pumpk...@adobeforums.com]

Ok... hmm... So, what IS the verdict here?
I'm happiest with the photo booth solution. Take it to a good studio where they have knowledge and high abilities in taking digital pictures of paintings.

This option sounds less expensive than what the printer had in mind, there is no risk of scan-damaging the art, and there are fewer generations involved, so less chance for quality
degredation.

OK, I'm off to have nightmares about Silverfish infestations!
This bug-aphobe was happier not knowing that sort of painting-infestation was possible!

Pam

[Wade_Zi...@adobeforums.com]

We are only to glad to help you have pleasant dreams.

[Rene_W...@adobeforums.com]

I'm happiest with the photo booth solution.

Please! It's a professional photo lab!

[Al...@adobeforums.com]

You mean, they won't do a professional job at one of those parking-lot kiosks? What about one of those places where you can dress up in Old West clothes, a coon-skin cap, with a flint-lock in one hand and a bottle of Jack Daniels in the other?

[John_...@adobeforums.com]

What about one of those places where you can dress up in Old West clothes,
a coon-skin cap, with a flint-lock in one hand and a bottle of Jack Daniels
in the other

That's where you go if you can't figure out how to make a sepiatone in Photoshop... just bring a print of your picture, hold it next to the whiskey bottle and bingo! you will get a nice sepia print back to scan. Don't worry if it's too snall, you can always make it bigger with the resize wizard!

[Chuck...@adobeforums.com]

Dress up in old west clothes? Try Great Falls, MT tourists decked out in cowboy outfits with plastic toy guns. The women dressed like cowgirls and bar dancers. They stroll around town acting like movie set cowboys. The other make believe city is Durango, CO. " Howdy partner I'm new to these parts! " In a eastern NY drawl... or a european accent.