Whatcameratrackworld.

Mcm – if you can wait until Tuesday, I’ve a Canon 350d and a couple of lenses you are welcome to have on loan to try things out. Relatively old tech, but should give you a feel for what to expect from a DSLR.

Some of the Lumix range do RAW

Go with Geoff’s offer I think

Still the Nikon IMHO. The sensor has over 10 times the area of the Lumix. The lumix is a truly fantastic camera if you needed something compact with a wide zoom range but thats not what you want here. You need great resolution so the bigger sensor will help and it may also help with the garden shots where light through trees can often result in some funny colouring. The Lumix also doesn’t allow you to change lens so if it doesn’t do what you want you are stuffed

Leffeboy, fair point about the sensor (really? Ten times? I’m surprised) but there’s very little a 25-600 constant f2.8 lens doesn’t do 😀 That’s astounding! Unprecedented too.

And given that catalogues are likely to be A4, you’ll not see any difference in print quality even with a full page image.

I think the lumix is 6mm wide sensor but the nikon is 23mm wide so it’s over 10 times area (unless I read those numbers wrong but I think it is correct). For a4 catalogs you would be right but there is always a risk that someone decides to blow one up to poster size and then things change. The lumix lens is truly astonishing but it might be better to have something that works better at this one specific task

Mcm – if you can wait until Tuesday, I’ve a Canon 350d and a couple of lenses you are welcome to have on loan to try things out. Relatively old tech, but should give you a feel for what to expect from a DSLR.

Cheers that’s a great offer. Will you be in Fife?

As leffeboy will be my primary lifesaver I think I will go with the Nikon.

As leffeboy will be my primary lifesaver I think I will go with the Nikon.

Slightly high risk as I get the impression that folks here understand photography way better than me but for the moment I think the Nikon still matches your original spec best. I’m with igm on the other stuff as well but await the return of molgrips from the cinema…

I’m with igm on the other stuff as well but await the return of molgrips from the cinema…

😀

Fair dos, and I am Nikon for all my slrs :-). But do remember to factor in almost the same spend again for a macro lens for your detail shots – something that most compact and bridge cameras do very well – the Lumix is no exception. You can buy cheap magnifying filters for slr lenses but they’re a faff and image quality will suffer – so a macro lens is à necessity.

I don’t anticipate taking super close up pictures of my paintings or of single flowers. The closest I’d imagine I’d get to a painting would be about a foot away.

Edit, something like this…

My brother is an artist, I photograph his work for his website. These were all taken in a gallery so the light wasn’t ideal. Nikon D7000 and f2.8 17-50mm lens.

In an ideal world they need processing in Photoshop to straighten the frames and remove the shadows.

[/url]
Headland[/url] by brf[/url], on Flickr

[/url]
Pillbox, Barn, Fell and Rocks[/url] by brf[/url], on Flickr

[/url]
Fell[/url] by brf[/url], on Flickr

In that case, no macro lens required. If you want to avoid any warping you’ll probably want to be a fair distance from your painting, and zoom in. Still don’t think you need an slr though, unless (as above) you’re likely to be making billboard posters. And tbh, I’d struggle to remember which of my 12×16″ prints come from the lumix and which come from my full frame Nikons.

Nice work footflaps.

Usually when my gallery needs high res pictures taken for illustration purposes they get a pro in with fancy lights and stuff. It makes sense for them.

I’m really only after some half decent images for my forthcoming website. I don’t mind if they are too rustic, they may compliment my painting style.

I-phone 😀

Still don’t think you need an slr though, unless (as above) you’re likely to be making billboard posters.

It has been known 😉

Crumbs! But yes, leave that to the gallery’s / agent’s pros. (I may be slightly impressed!).

I think your problem is going to be lighting. Natural light is pretty inconsistent, so you probably could do with artificial light. You can either use flash or filament lamps, if you use flourescents or energy savers then the colours won’t be right – although this is a tricky subject anyway even with the correct type of light.

If you are in a room it is hard to get even lighting. You can use high powered lamps if you have them, or flashes, but flash is trickier to set up and you need a camera with a hot shoe. SLRs and better compacts have them. You also must not point the light directly at the picture cos it won’t be evenly lit. You can either bounce the light around the room (although this can introduce a colour cast depending on what’s on the walls or in the room) or use a diffuser or reflector.. Did someone mention a bed sheet above?

Try photographing a blank white piece of paper first, you will be able to see how even the lighting is and if there is a colour cast much more easily.

As for the camera – I would go for an slr personally. My wife got a mint condition Olympus E-420 and lens £120 from ebay. Like new. The excellent 35mm macro if it’s ever needed goes for about £120 too. There are bargains out there.

Most lighting in galleries is poor for photography as the lamps do not have a high CRI rating and you get spikes in the output, plus the lighting isn’t even as shown by footflaps pics, the colour balance is also off and different in all 3 pics.
Using a gretag colour card would help as would consistent lighting.
Doing just a ‘good enough’ job is always going to show in the quality of the images but with a bit of care you can get something acceptable. I would start with a DSLR and 50mm lens as these usually are the cheapest but best corrected lens so will have a flat field with little barreling or pincushion distortion that compacts and zooms usually have.

the colour balance is also off and different in all 3 pics.

That’s mainly laziness as they’re just jpegs, if I shot RAW it wouldn’t be an issue.

Try photographing a blank white piece of paper first, you will be able to see how even the lighting is and if there is a colour cast much more easily.

Assuming that the lighting actually is even then it should be possible to get rid of the cast by just fixing the white balance in the camera at that point? Get rid of the smoke from the wood stove may be a different matter though…

Cheers that’s a great offer. Will you be in Fife?

I’ve got to go to Edinburgh, but could swing by en route,

whatever you end up with if you’re going to be reproducing artwork I would suggest you shoot RAW and use a white balance card like these. That way you will have a good chance of getting very close to the right colours. Whilst a prime like the 35 or 50 is ideal, you can remove almost any lens distortion in software nowadays, [+1 for Lightroom].
Edit… no software will fix soft edges though, so depending on your kit lens you may still want to use a prime for the artwork.

a gretag colour card would be more useful as it includes colour patches as well as the white/grey/black
and if you know the RGB colour values (below) you can get close to the actual colours in the paintings

Oh and I would also advise listening to MrSmith, he knows what he is talking about 🙂

………my Pentax Q mirrorless micro slr (currently listed in the classifieds) would be ideal! 😉

[/url]
IMGP0573[/url] by jcabuckley1974[/url], on Flickr

geoffj – Member

Cheers that’s a great offer. Will you be in Fife?

I’ve got to go to Edinburgh, but could swing by en route,

Geoff, do you still have directions to here and my mobile number? If not email me, yours isn’t listed in your profile.

McM ygm