I'm glad to see this discussion today because I recently came to the conclusion that I need both my SLR and my digital.

Michele,

I agree with you - the digital camera is terrific for reference shots. It's also good for taking photos of work in progress, which I've gotten in the habit of doing. Somehow, shrinking the image helps me to see problems in a painting early on (well, that's the goal, anyway) before they get entrenched.

As you also mentioned, my problem is with taking digital photos of my paintings. I am just not happy with the color and I am low on the Photoshop learning curve. (I've upgraded my primitive printer and this has helped a bit.) Focus also looks fuzzy when I shoot my paintings (why is this? Michele, I'm glad I'm not the only one with this problem). Michael, if it's JPEG compression, then why are the resource photos so crisp?

I also sense that the zooms on a SLR and a digital camera are not comparable - sometimes subjects are "fisheyed" on a digital when they wouldn't be at the same shooting range on a SLR - at least that is what seems to be happening to me.

I admit, I need more practice with the digital.

Oh - and let's not forget - artists need SLRs to take slides.

Michael,

I have a Minolta 5 megapixel and I get
enormous JPEG files: typical is 2560 by 1920 pixels, or 35 by 26 inches. Do I really need to shoot TIFs? Stupid question: how do I adjust DPI in Photoshop? I thought I had to go through my printer photo printing software for that.

The computer guy who periodically shows up to rescue my computer claims that Photoshop automatically compresses images when you adjust photos in any manner. Can he be right about this? My printer came with its own photo printing program which seems to produce much better photos that Photoshop does.


Holly, Lisa, Leslie, Mike and Mari,

Thanks for this information, it is very helpful to me. Please keep posting with any new thoughts.

Best regards,
Linda

There's some discussion in this nearby thread about getting slides made from your digital images.

Steven,

Thank you for pointing out the post, which I hadn't seen. It's just dawned on me that I can probably upload a digital image to one of our local pro film shops and they can convert it to slide format. I'll try that and see how it works out.

Best regards,
Linda

May I recommend www.slides.com

Have used them repeatedly and get really good slides inexpensively and fast.

Linda and Michael,

I did some camera tests today and setting my camera to TIFF instead of JPEG didn't improve the image quality at all - bummer!

The images are still grainy and fuzzy when I photograph my paintings. Can't seem to get over that problem.

Linda, I know what you mean about how convenient it is to use a digital camera to photograph paintings in progress. Sometimes I see errors just by looking at the LCD display.

Michele:

Well, I am sorry that things are not working out as you would like with this camera.

One thing I have noticed is that my larger paintings do not photograph as crisply as my smaller ones. That may be something to consider and try out. Also, do you have a background up behind the painting? If not, then that mass of visual information can mess up the autofocus sometimes. Also, where are you shooting the paintings - indoors, outdoors and how are you lighting them?

I am wondering if it is just your camera, or if your standards for portfolio prints are higher than my own. Do you have a high-speed connection? If so, then I could send you one of my portfolio TIFs and you could print it out and compare. Let me know. :)

I'm no digital guy but it sounds like a to close focus problem. My Nikon film camera is auto focus and I rely on it almost exclusively. When the lens senses the subject is in focus I get an indication in my view finder. If I get closer than the lens is built to handle I can't get that positive indication. Do you have a similar indication of "in focus"?

Maybe if you back off a bit, say 8 feet instead of 4, take the photo and then bring it into photo shop and crop it down, then see if you get the fuzzy look.

Maybe you're just not in focus and it's not communicating this as well as it should.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions.

Here's my procedure: I use a tripod and the self-timer to eliminate camera shake. I photograph my paintings indoors next to a north-facing window in the brightest part of the day. (That's not saying much in terms of light for Seattle at this time of year!)

I do have an "in-focus" indicator (a beep and a light) and I always make sure it's focused before shooting. I shoot from across the room and zoom in to crop the image, and crop again in Photoshop.

My most recent painting, a 48 x 36" canvas, is softer edged than anything else I've done so the camera has to try hard to find something to focus on. (I do occasionally use the edge of the canvas to focus to, so maybe it's sometimes focusing on the wall instead.)

I guess I'd describe the problem more as graininess than fuzziness. I'll post an image of the actual pixels my camera captures (not scaled, and with no change in dpi.)

Michael, I do have a high speed connection. Maybe you could send me one of your files for comparison. Or we could compare printouts in Scottsdale at Bill's class.

Here's a cropped section of the painting, showing the actual pixels captured by my camera in the least-compressed jpeg setting. I also saved it in photoshop, in order to post it here, using the least-compressed jpeg setting.

As I mentioned, it's a very soft edged painting. This is only a small section of the canvas. It's a 48 x 36" painting of three kids, three quarter view. This face is about 7" inches high, photograped from about 8 feet away, somewhat zoomed in to eliminate the bowing I'd get if I shot wide-angle.

Here's another one, photographed in the same way, using a much more crisp-edged painting. The edges on this painting are nowhere near this soft.