For studio shotos of fine artwork I have purchased a new lens....

[bronzeo]

I know that my system will not be optimal, but hope that it will be reasonably efficient..... I have a 18 megapixel canon dslr and have purchased an 18-135 mm IS EF-S lens. I would need the lens for other photography, so it is not a waste if I need something more optimal. I'm preparing a large format digital printing service... I have been doing my own photos with a 6.5 canon 10D for a few years and doing pretty nice presentations up to 18x24 inches. By adding the 3X more pixels should allow for much better quality than I have used in the past. Again, I know there is much better out there, but my main question is if not the lens shown above, what could I add, that would help my cause? Also would I get a less distorted image with the lens on close up or magnified? Thanks for advice...........Jack

 

[gordo]

You don't say what kind of fine art you're photographing. "Quality" is something you need to determine yourself based on what is acceptable to your customers and how you're printing the images.
Sophisticated lighting (and knowing how to use it) is critical.

Best, gordo

 

[bronzeo]

I guess here's the thing I'm dealing with. If I was doing studio photos of people or objects such as sculpture, I feel I would need higher res..... as I'm photoing airbrush work and brushed paintings, the less res in most cases adds a softer feel to a brushstroke, and doesn't seem to alter the soft nature of an airbrush painting, however, I will be photographing other people's artworks...... There is nothing cheaper looking in artwork than a print of brushstrokes. When I use to blow up my 6.5 megapixel shot to 18x24, the results were more pleasing in the prints than if it were shot with a 20 mp. camera, simply because it didn't print every minor detail. I figure that the 18 mp can always be cut back in quality to give me that look when I need it.... My main question is in the type of lens that would be best for studio shots of paintings, and also would the 18 x 135 stabilizer canon lens work well for this or at least ok? Also would I have less of a fisheye at 18 or 135 mm setting? I have a need to keep a 18x24 painting square as possible for reproduction. I would think a telephoto setting would help with this. You can see my artwork at Imagemaker Art & Design which should give you an idea of what I have done for my own work. They were shot with a canon 10d, and a similar but lesser quality lens. Some were shot by my printer with a 20d canon, and the results were not a lot different. My main problem with not purchasing the high dollar equipment is every time turn around my equipment is obsolete..... I have less than 1000 shots on a 1700.00 camera (canon 10D) that is now selling on ebay for 149.00 My printing business will be a sideline, but I would like to present my work well.... I will probably not be the best printer, or the best photographer, but have always found my fine art background to fill in areas, where they may lack. I have worked press side many times, to help retain color quality for the pressman. I had no idea how to run the press, but could direct him on color to get a much better end result. I agree about the lighting and haven't addressed that yet. I have been using north light, at present for most of my own work. Nothing better if you can catch it right.

 

[gordo]

I have a need to keep a 18x24 painting square as possible for reproduction. I would think a telephoto setting would help with this.

Any pincushin or barrel distortion is easily corrected in post processing i.e. in Photoshop.

Gordo

 

[tamale]

Bronzeo,

I think you would be best served by consulting KenRockwell.com: Photography, Cameras and Taking Better Pictures

You will have the possibility to consult his reviews on your lenses as well as there optimal applications.

Tamale

 

[Gordony]

Bronzeo,

In the world of photography, one advice I can give you, always buy the best lens "you can afford". Not the best camera.
I am a full time printer and part time wedding photographer. I also do product photo and cinematography. Currently I am using 7D, 5D2, and 1D4 and most of time I am using 1D4. Based on your config, the best lens for you would be a 50 f1.4 (no macro).

And I think you have a 7D?

Reasons for 50 f1.4: (convert to 80mm)
- no distortion on your camera (I do not agree distortion can be fixed because anytime you fix something, you will loss data, meaning lost quality)
- if you are mainly shooting artwork in full size, I don't see why you need macro
- the lens will retain it's value pretty well in the next 10 years. You can always find a good used one around as well.

Or you can pay more to get a Sigma 35 f1.4 (convert to 56mm). This lens is epic quality, but a bit pricey. Don't even think about super wide angle for your camera, it will be a waste of $. If you want a super wide angle, also buy a used 5D or 5D2, then ditch all your EFS lens.



Gordon

 

[gordo]

Reasons for 50 f1.4: (convert to 80mm)
- no distortion on your camera (I do not agree distortion can be fixed because anytime you fix something, you will loss data, meaning lost quality)

"Quality" is a fuzzy term. I wouldn't consider a DSLR for commercial fine art reproductions. I'd use a Better Light digital back on my 4x5 view camera.
Based on the OP's original description of what he's doing - adjusting for lens distortion isn't going to compromise the level of reproduction fidelity that he's after.
To the OP: you need to test your lens/camera set up yourself to determine if your setup meets your quality needs.

Gordo

 

[Gordony]

It doesn't sound like he want to spend too much $. If a DSLR works now for him, it works even better with a good lens, worse case is just sell it back on craiglist.

G