Quantcast Shooting artwork, then scanning the slides -vs- Shooting digital (megapixels needed?) - digitalFAQ Forum
Go Back    Forum > Digital Photography > Photo Processing, Scanning & Printing

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
10-17-2010, 06:14 PM
Sossity Sossity is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 434
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
So far, I only have point & I know their quality is not quite as good as a DSLR or a SLR film camera. So I have used my film SLR camera to shoot slides, develop & scan the slides. But this sometimes get a bit tedious, I never know the quality of the scans are good enough to print for a portfolio or if my scanner is up to par, it is an Epson Perfection photo 4490.

would a DSLR work? to use for an art portfolio or good quality 8 x 10 or bigger prints?
Reply With Quote
Someday, 12:01 PM
admin's Avatar
Ads / Sponsors
 
Join Date: ∞
Posts: 42
Thanks: ∞
Thanked 42 Times in 42 Posts
  #2  
10-18-2010, 03:32 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,333
Thanked 635 Times in 452 Posts
Quote:
So far, I only have point & I know their quality is not quite as good as a DSLR or a SLR film camera.
Correct.

Quote:
So I have used my film SLR camera to shoot slides, develop & scan the slides. But this sometimes get a bit tedious, I never know the quality of the scans are good enough to print for a portfolio
It should be fine. The major variables here will be you (shaking camera handheld vs tripod), and the lighting. Granted, you don't get to immediately see the photo as you do with digital, but if you're shooting correctly, then you don't need to. Indeed, many pro photographers, myself included, don't waste time fiddling with buttons/dials on the cameras, and starting at the LCD screen, when shooting images. We know we have the good shot already, there's no reason to waste time ogling a small LCD.

Quote:
or if my scanner is up to par, it is an Epson Perfection photo 4490.
Let's test that out. Scan an image. ZIP it up, then upload the ZIP file. (Note that you cannot directly post a JPEG here on the forum, as it will be downsized to fit the forum size, and we don't want to look at a downsized version when judging quality.) Just keep it at under 5MB, as a 300dpi JPEG "High" (Level 6-8) image.

Quote:
would a DSLR work? to use for an art portfolio or good quality 8 x 10 or bigger prints?
At least 8x10, yes. I had images from my Nikon D1 looking excellent at 20x30, and that's an SLR from 1999. I have yet to print larger than 11x17 with D3s images. The need just hasn't come up so far. It would be at least as clear as the D1, if not magnitudes better. Image clarity is more about the glass (lenses) and the processing (Photoshop work), than it is megapixels.

Hope that helps.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
10-18-2010, 05:37 PM
Sossity Sossity is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 434
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
some one suggested; Unless you're really committed to Nikon for some reason, you may want to look at the Canon Rebel T2i as well. Its 18 megapixels vs. 12 for the Nikons will come in handy if you plan on making larger prints from your images.

and they said more to someone else on another forum who was suggesting I look at Nikon cameras;

I agree with most of your post, and for almost any use that she may have for her camera I'd agree that a 10-12 MP camera is adequate. If she's planning on making larger prints (say something approaching a full sheet of watercolor paper) then more resolution is needed. If the price is similar, and I think it is, I'd go for the greater resolution of the Canon. That said, to take advantage of that greater resolution, you don't want a cheap kit lens. Going with a prime lens, rather than a zoom, will give you the best combination of sharpness and lack of pincushion or barrel distortion (bowed lines at the edges of the frame). You do have to work a bit more in that you have to move the camera relative to the artwork in order to fill the frame.

The bottom line is that they suggested I look at Canon cameras, after I told them I was looking at these 2 cameras;
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B002JCSV5I
which kpmedia on this forum suggested to me, & I found another;
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B00267S7TQ

which would be better? canon or nikon? which has better glass in their lenses?

.

Last edited by kpmedia; 10-19-2010 at 06:05 AM. Reason: fixed link
Reply With Quote
  #4  
10-19-2010, 06:03 AM
kpmedia's Avatar
kpmedia kpmedia is offline
Site Staff | Web Hosting, Photo
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,319
Thanked 371 Times in 340 Posts
Quote:
some one suggested; Unless you're really committed to Nikon for some reason, you may want to look at the Canon Rebel T2i as well. Its 18 megapixels vs. 12 for the Nikons will come in handy if you plan on making larger prints from your images.
Anybody that makes quality decisions based on megapixels should be completely ignored. Their ideas of photography are incomplete, and their advice tends to be asinine because of it.

There is some truth to megapixel counts, but it's nowhere near the extent that knowledge-lacking amateurs want to insist. I like to compare it to car tires.

For example, there is some limited truth that having larger tires on your car allows for better gas mileage. But to what end? A car with tiny wheelbarrow-sized tires would burn up a ton of fuel compared to a car with the larger 14" stock tires, yes. But putting Bigfoot's tires on the car is equally problematic. It's not a simple matter of "more is better." That's just not how things work.

More realistic is the difference between standard 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17" car tires (and assuming the rubber radius increases, too, and not just rim size). Now you could look at the difference between 12 and 17 inches, and think to yourself, "Wow, that's 30% larger! It must be better!" -- but that's highly misleading. It's not a simple matter of being 1" larger. Remember that the rim measurement is just a partial measurement of your wheels/tires.

Now don't lose me just yet, as I talk about cars. It'll become evident real quick how all this shop talk relates to DSLR megapixels...

On a highway, over longer distances, the engine output being the same, slightly larger tires will cover more ground for equal fuel consumption. Therefore your miles per gallon ratio will increase in your favor on the larger tire. You'll go farther on the same tank of gas, assuming constant velocity for hours at a time.

That sounds great, right? Too bad it's an incomplete picture of how the entire car works, for the total duration of your trip. You also have to remember the affect it has on take-off speeds, as the heavier tires require more engine torque to get the car moving. In other words, for city driving, bigger tires are worse. Your engine will drink more gas at every stop sign, stop light and low-speed street.

Now let's go back to the DSLR and megapixels...

Consider these facts:

1. Large Sensor vs Small Sensor - Pixel Noise. Smaller pixel density creates more noise on the sensor. More noise limits your ISO range. So the camera can only be used in certain situations. A Nikon D3s, for example, has "only" 12MP, but the full-frame (FX) sensor is huge compared to the noisier 12MP "crop" sensors found in the APS-C sensor sized cameras (DX bodies). The D3s can shoot comfortably at ISO 12800 with relatively no noise, while the DX body has issues even at 3200 ISO. Increase that DX (or even the FX) pixel count to 18MP, and you'll suffer ISO performance fall-off. This is currently one of the biggest areas where improvements are being made in photography -- noise reduction. (Glass is the other one.) The push for more megapixels has largely quelled itself for now, mostly due to glass, as well as better grasp of megapixel myths.

2. Sensor Types - CCD vs CMOS. CCD and CMOS sensors do not necessarily take equal quality images, all other things being equal. Same for Bayer vs Foveon types. And then because of variability between the methods of creating sensors, CCD cs CMOS and Bayer vs Foveon has to be done on a case by case basis. This affects image clarity at least as much as megapixel size does.

3. The Megapixel Myth. Megapixels are a calculation of the square area of pixels, or length times width, of the two dimensional image area. So when you compare 12MP to 18MP, the 18MP sensor is not 33% larger or better. In reality, it's maybe 15% larger resolution at best, which is not going to make any realistic difference in the image quality. Even a 24MP camera would only be about 40% larger than a 12MP camera. To get a camera that is truly "twice as big" you must get a megapixel count that is FOUR times higher! The Nikon D200 (a.k.a. "the mini D2x" at 10.2MP), for example, is only really twice the image size of the original Nikon D1 (2.74MP), and is why I never wasted thousands of dollars investing in the partially-improved bodies that came between them (4MP, 6MP, etc). For the amount of money needed to upgrade, I insisted it be at least twice as good as what I already had (and only all fronts, such as ISO performance, and not just MP size).

4. Print Size vs Megapixels. The pixel count on the camera has almost zero correlation to the print size (DPI). Those ridiculous charts out there which make claims as to the "up to" sizes (up to 4x6, up to 8x10, etc) are misleading dribble. The ink, laser, offset, papers, etc -- those determine the print quality. The image simply needs to be sized at the proper print size in the software.

This aspect is one where there is a heavy relationship of megapixels to car tires. If your image is 0.5MP, then it's not going to look very good. But anything in the 3MP to 8MP range is going to be perfectly fine -- it will look great. Anything above 8MP is a bonus. If you crop into the image (essentially removing a lot of the pixels), then you'll be using those bonus pixels, sure. The "bonus" here is that you can crop with no perceived loss in quality.

You don't need the 18MP or 24MP sensor (Bigfoot tires) to make a great image. If anything, that large sensor is a weakness, because it slows the camera down, makes the files huge, thereby slowing down card writes and computer transfer, as well as software image editing speed (more RAM and CPU now needed), and the sensor will have more noise, making you operate in lower ISOs or with your own flash/lighting. Don't get me wrong -- 18-24MP is nice if you're going to shoot in a photography studio with expensive lights. But it's not an ideal multi-situation camera.

5. Lens Quality vs Megapixels. What's irked me the most in recent years is how these new high-count MP sensors now show more of the optical flaws, even in $1,000+ pro lenses that are barely a decade old. Many new consumer-grade lenses have the same issues. Your images can be fuzzy, have chromatic aberrations (CA), slight light fall-off in the edges that is suddenly noticeable in a major way, etc. So unless you're mounting a big $500 to $5,000 prime lens on the front of that camera, the extra megapixels won't be doing you any favors. I've had to spend more money that I want on new lenses in the past two years, because my older ones simply cannot perform up to the level of the camera. That $2,500 body investment I made in 2007 quickly became a $5,000+ investment, for this reason.

Again, that person is one that should just be ignored. He/she is clueless at best, a Canon fanboy/fangirl at worst.

Quote:
and they said more to someone else on another forum who was suggesting I look at Nikon cameras;
I agree with most of your post, and for almost any use that she may have for her camera I'd agree that a 10-12 MP camera is adequate. If she's planning on making larger prints (say something approaching a full sheet of watercolor paper) then more resolution is needed. If the price is similar, and I think it is, I'd go for the greater resolution of the Canon. That said, to take advantage of that greater resolution, you don't want a cheap kit lens. Going with a prime lens, rather than a zoom, will give you the best combination of sharpness and lack of pincushion or barrel distortion (bowed lines at the edges of the frame). You do have to work a bit more in that you have to move the camera relative to the artwork in order to fill the frame.
This advice is mostly good, excluding the megapixels issue.

My issue with Canon is part preference, and part financial security. Since the 1990s, the low-end consumer grade Canon cameras have mostly been plastic crap. I've seen dozens of those cameras break in the past decade, because of how cheaply they are made. While Nikon also uses more plastic components on the low-end bodies, it's far more durable to routine use. The biggest reason I've encountered for Canon body upgrades is because the intro level Rebels were acting up -- not because the person wanted (or was necessarily ready for) the next level up.

Once you get into the mid-grade (high-end consumer, and low-end professional) bodies, you're fine with either company. With professional-level bodies, durability is a given.

Definitely look at having some prime lenses, and not simply using the cheap "kits" lens that may come with a body+lens kit. That's once reason I buy bodies and lenses separately anyway -- no need to pay $100+ extra for something I don't want long-term anyway. Of course, if finances do not allow for this, then the Nikon kit lens is fine. Those Canon kits lenses are crap. Much like the bodies, I've seen far too many of those turn defective in just 1-2 years of weekly use.

From a preference stance, the Nikon camera functions just seem more laid out for serious photo use, where you don't want to waste time with embedded menus on an LCD screen. Nikon puts more of the control onto dials and buttons, and not in LCD screens. Even the professional Canon bodies are terrible about this, such as the 5D and 5DMkII.

There are also concerns about the accuracy of Canon LCDs, for previewing your work on-site. The Nikon tends to be more accurate. This varies quite a bit, body to body (or rather model to model).

You can still take great images with a Canon -- thousands (millions?) of people do it every day. But I would not feel as good about my investment, and I would feel somewhat limited in my speed at an event. (I borrow a Canon 5D from time to time, and I get aggravated by the menus hiding what I feel should be button-ready controls. Meanwhile, I'm missing shots because I couldn't change the ISO fast enough.)

Quote:
which would be better? canon or nikon? which has better glass in their lenses?
Nikon is a glass company that also makes cameras.
Canon is an electronics corporation that makes all kinds of gadgets, including cameras.
And this simplistic view of the company has historically been quite accurate when it comes to lens quality.

Ken Rockwell compares the two kit lenses, and my experiences mirror his:
- http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-55-ii.htm
- http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/len...-55-efs-ii.htm
Just do me a favor and don't click on his Amazon links (or B&H, etc). If you use our affiliate links, you help The Digital FAQ. Instead of keeping all the profit, Amazon will share about 4% with us, and that's how we're able to fund the site (and afford to spend so much time here helping folks like yourself!).

You'll notice the distortions talked about by your "second person" are isolated to that Canon kit lens. Nikon has no such problems of distortion on its 18-55 offering. That's a Canon optical flaw, for that lens.

But again, don't get me wrong -- Canon does make excellent lenses. However, much like the bodies, it tends to be in the mid-range and professional range gear. I doubt you'll be forking over $500+ for an L series Canon lens right away. While there is also a big different in quality between Nikon consumer and pro lenses, I do firmly believe the Nikon consumer gear is simply built better than the Canon equivalent.

Therefore, in all ethical good faith, I simply cannot recommend Canon for low-end ("Rebel"/kit) gear. I must defer to Nikon. (And before any Canon fanboy gets his panties in a wad, know that I recommend Canon P&S cameras over what Nikon offers. Of course, I also recommend Sony above the Canon, in many situations. I'm not brand loyal to anybody. I want what works, including what works for my hard-to-earn dollars. And Canon simply has not proven to me in the past 10+ years that their low-end gear isn't disposable schlock.)

What's your budget, again?
The D7000 just came out for $1,200: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...SIN=B0042X9LC4
Also don't overlook all these Nikon rebates: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/show...-slr-2480.html

- Did my advice help you? Then become a Premium Member and support this site.
- Please Like Us on Facebook | Follow Us on Twitter

- Need a good web host? Ask me for help! Get the shared, VPS, semi-dedicated, cloud, or reseller you need.

Last edited by kpmedia; 10-19-2010 at 06:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
10-19-2010, 06:48 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,333
Thanked 635 Times in 452 Posts
You should also read this New York Times article: "Breaking the Myth of Megapixels", from February 8, 2007
Attached as PDF below...


Attached Files
File Type: pdf Breaking the Myth of Megapixels - New York Times.pdf (80.7 KB, 4 downloads)

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
10-19-2010, 05:34 PM
Sossity Sossity is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 434
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Thanks for the car tire example & breaking it down,

The D7000 looks nice, but that is a bit steep for just the body only, for $1,200- $1,500 I would like a body & lens, what would really be nice is the body, a mid range or best lens for shooting art, & a longer zoom/range lens like 200mm or 300mm. Would I still be able to get decent quality for these items in these price ranges?

If I get just a body only, I would like to be in $1,000 or under range.

So I would not need to get a separate 55mm lens just to avoid distortion that the Canon has, the standard one that would come with a Nikon would work?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
10-24-2010, 12:05 PM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,333
Thanked 635 Times in 452 Posts
The Nikon does not have as much geometry distortion as the Canon does, correct, as it applies to the current generation of kits lenses available on consumer level bodies.

Are you looking to buy new bodies and lenses only, or would you be open to buying used equipment?
And then I'm assuming you're wanting to buy online (or possibly over the phone, for 1-2 specific camera vendors I know of). Correct?

What is the size of your artwork?
Are we talking about big 40" x 30" wall paintings, coin-sized art, or something in between (like 8x10 piece of paper)?
Is it all flat artwork, or will it include 3D art like sculptors?
I've shot all kinds of artwork, for all kinds of reasons, and have decent experience in what it takes for good shots.

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
10-24-2010, 04:39 PM
Sossity Sossity is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 434
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
I am open to used equipment if it is not malfunctioning, or lenses scratched etc. Yes I would probably buy online, although I do like the look of the newer Nikon d7000 that I was linked to on this forum, I was told it would last me 3-5 years before I was tempted to upgrade.

My art ranges in size from 14 x 17 inches to 30 x 40 inches, most of it is in between these sizes, like 18 x 24 inches, 24 x 36 inches. I sometimes do murals, I have a couple in my room, & I have done long banners that hang from street posts, these have been around about 3 feet wide x 7 or 8 foot long.

I would like to be able to make prints from some of my paintings to sell, or for a portfolio. It would be nice to get a good quality image of an artwork before it is sold, as it could be difficult to track down & photograph again.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
10-25-2010, 09:29 AM
admin's Avatar
admin admin is offline
Site Staff | Web Development
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,333
Thanked 635 Times in 452 Posts
For 14x17 to 30x40 range, a 50mm prime would be tack-sharp and take lovely images of artwork of that size, with minimal to zero geometric distortions.

Something larger may require you to take several images and rebuild in Photoshop. Or use a wide lens, although there may be geometry distortions that need correction. Or try to use a good prime from further length, if possible.

I've taken images of my own 20x30 paintings with my D200 and a 50mm, and it looks every bit as crisp as the canvas, all the way down to the brush strokes.

The most important thing is a tripod, keeping the image plane flat to the lens plane, and shooting at f/8 under controlled light. (You can cheat with a good not-built-in flash. However those can run you another $400 or so, whereas a mechanic lamp with a photo bulb will total under $20. Or a pair for under $40.)

With a color laser printer, my prints of the painting were just as clear and vibrant as the original. In fact, I cheated and fixed a few painting flaws! Thank you, Photoshop clone brush and heal brush!

- Did this site help you? Then upgrade to Premium Member and show your support!
- Also: Like Us on Facebook for special DVD/Blu-ray news and deals!
Reply With Quote
Reply




Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Video shooting tips for parents! (Holiday humor!) lordsmurf Videography: Cameras, TVs and Players 3 01-18-2012 04:04 AM
Camera, tripod, light source and mic for shooting videos? kpmedia Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 0 09-03-2010 03:12 AM
Best microphone for Nikon D3s, for shooting video lordsmurf Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 1 08-31-2010 07:02 PM
Lens for shooting concerts? Canon Photo Cameras: Buying & Shooting 3 03-10-2009 08:22 AM
Question concerning tv problem trouble shooting stoogedog Videography: Cameras, TVs and Players 2 08-03-2006 03:20 PM

Thread Tools



 
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:53 PM