If you are looking for someone to help you obtain high quality digital files, for the purpose of creating high quality archival reproduction prints (sometimes called 'Giclee Reproductions') - then we can help - see our Art Reproduction Service page. Once produced, a high quality digital file is the key to high quality reproductions - and having this process done to ALL the artworks you produce before you sell them can be the difference between making it as an artist and not making it - reproductions open up new markets and income streams for artists which can be used to support the creation of your originals.
This article is written about the Australian market/circumstances for art reproduction and based on our own experiences, as well as those reported by scores of our clients working in this area.
In general, the scanning approach for art reproduction only works well with small, simple pieces (for those it can work very well and be cost effective). However, for larger pieces, people are often surprised when we still recommend using a photographic approach to create good quality files for digital reproduction.
Direct scanning is generally not the ideal mechanism for dealing with larger art works as in most cases it is inherently uneven, suffers from poor focus, and almost without exception uses a fluorescent light source - which is absolutely NOT ideal for art reproduction due to the highly uneven light output across the visible spectrum - which in practice leads to significant, often very hard to correct, colour errors. With small works it's usually easy enough to work around the limitations but with larger works the process simply doesn't work very well. Also, many scanners touch the original works with rollers, as they're more designed for documents and plans and have automatic feed mechanisms. We've evaluated all the big players in the market (Colortrac, Contex etc) and unfortunately they visibly mark delicate original works. So we have ruled all of these out (they're typically more designed for scanning building plans and the like).
The Cruse scanner is the most heavily touted system. These do not touch the artwork surface. However we have often received scans of works made on these scanners and unfortunately they are often not sharp and they have always required significant colour work before final output. We are not experts on this machine and they do generally have a good reputation but we can only judge based on the results we have seen. We have also seen negative commentary on the web, not least this (admittedly now older) quote from Stanley Smith of the Getty Museum talking about them on the Colorsync mailing list (where most of the world's colour experts hang out):
>>>
We have had our Cruse Scanner for several years now, and
overall I would say that it is a bit of a disappointment.We did work with Cruse to fix a major flaw in
the original machine, which was an inability to achieve color consistency-- due
to the lights reflecting off the painting back into the opposite light
fixture-- thereby changing the color of the light hitting the painting in a
continuously variable way as the painting traveled under the lights during the
scan.The solution was to install
special florescent tubes called aperture tubes-- they emit all of their light
through a narrow slitin the otherwise
opaque tube-- thus eliminating the need for a reflective-backed light
fixture.I identified a lighting company
in Hollywood (KinoFlo) who worked with Cruse to develop these tubes, and I had
thought that they would become standard.The fact that apparently Curse still sells the original configuration,
and has not switched to the aperture tubes as a standard is a little shocking.
Other problems:
-- Since focus is automatic, and dependent on measuring
the height of the original from the scanner bed, it seems to miss more often
than hit-- resulting in a "trial and error" approach.
-- I would say that even though you can end up with a
very high pixel count the images are just not as sharp as you would expect.
-- The proprietary nature of the software makes it
impossible to create good custom profile-- you do not have access to a
"raw" file-- just a rendered 16-bit tif.The result of this is a lot of post processing
to get the colors right.
-- It is slow.
-- it is a very small company with limited resources and
questionable longevity.
-- it is a VERY expensive machine, that takes up a lot of
floor space.
--with current
stitching software, it is becoming less necessary to capture a very high rez file
in one capture.
--the
"gang-up" approach proved to be difficult to set up.It turned out to be faster to capture smaller
objects on a traditional copy stand one at a time.
These days we use it only occasionally, relying
on a Betterlight set-up for most high-rez work.
Stanley Smith
Manager, Imaging Services
J. Paul Getty Museum
<<<<
(Emphasis is ours, reproduced from the full text which can be found in the ColorSync archives - there may be follow ups to read but unfortunately this mailing list usually descends into petty vested arguments and is a rather tedious place to visit). But you might conclude that at least some experts in this arena who actually own the machine aren't that fond of it - indeed they apparently have gone back to photography (using a BetterLight large format scanning back) to produce their high quality work (not this dates back a while and I really don't know what the current situation is over there, but can only judge from the Australian results we have seen and been asked to re-work here). Certainly all the major work we're aware of going on in this area in Melbourne (including at the NGV etc.) is being done with photographic tools.
In our experience and testing, Photography in practice simply works better than scanning with larger works - much more control over light direction and quality gives better results with regards to focus, texture AND colour. And the artwork surface is never touched. It can in fact also be more cost effective, especially if you have multiple pieces done at once. These services are also much more readily available and cost effective here in Australia.
You can read about our art reproduction service here.
Loading... Please wait...
Print this page
Email this page
Post a comment
Subscribe
Remove Highlighting
Edit this Article
