Scanning Paintings

[iamback]

Interesting...I would have thought a scanner would be "better" but maybe it's getting too much detail???Or it's shadows - scanners can throw funny shadows of not-quite-flat objects (or more of not-flat-at-all objects). So if there's a lot of texture in the paint, the shadows may be all "wrong". With normal photography you can control the direction and "sharpness" of the lighting, which you cannot do with a scanner. You might also get funny glints on shiny bits of paint. No way anyway to get the even lighting one uses for reproduction photography.

[terrie]

marjolein: With normal photography you can control the direction and "sharpness" of the lighting, which you cannot do with a scanner.Good point...I was wondering what one might get if you didn't put the paper flat on the scanning bed and had it just slightly above the bed...not sure if it would be out of focus (probably) but it might be worth trying maybe using a piece of mat board to keep it up off the scanning bed...

Terrie

[Mike]

Or it's shadows - scanners can throw funny shadows of not-quite-flat objects (or more of not-flat-at-all objects). So if there's a lot of texture in the paint, the shadows may be all "wrong". With normal photography you can control the direction and "sharpness" of the lighting, which you cannot do with a scanner. You might also get funny glints on shiny bits of paint. No way anyway to get the even lighting one uses for reproduction photography.

Her partner, Ian, who is a professional photographer, says he can only get decent results by photographing her paintings upside-down (I think he means the paintings have to be upside-down) so I guess it must be something to with the texture. Even then, he still has to do quite a lot in Photoshop before the results are acceptable to Jo.