Willie Wonka wrote:
> It turns out that the woman that moved into the office next to me is an
> artist.
>
> She got offers from someone to sell her pictures-watercolor and pastel
> paintings.
>
> She needs someone to reproduce her original paintings. Some "professional
> photographer" offered to take pictures of them. I convinced her that shed be
> better off if someone scans them professionally, citing all camera lens
> limitations.
>
For myself, any art work small enough to fit in the scanner gets
scanned. In fact, I've been known to pull the top off, lay a bigger work
on the platen and move it around to scan it in parts, then put together
in PS. Because of the lack of linear distortion, it's possible to match
the pieces precisely at the pixel level.
Scanning not only avoids the issues of lighting evenness, reflections,
color balance, etc. and of lens distortion and aberrations, it
theoretically can do more accurate color. Unlike the Bayer array of a
camera, where color for each pixel is interpolated from neighbors, a
scanner measures each color for each pixel.
You can also color profile scanners for more accurate color rendition,
which is crucial to most painters. Requires an inexpensive IT8 target
and software to create the ICC profile, I use VueScan. I had a friend
whose wife is a serious painter who sells her work in galleries. He used
scanning to make reproductions for promo purposes.
>
> Did I give her the wrong advice and can you recommend a lab that can do that,
> preferrably closer to RI? (although she wouldnt mind if it is on the left
> coast, although she dozent seem to be a leftie...:)
>
I don't know anything about labs - roll my own. :-)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|