I have a Canon PowerShot SX120 IS, which says it’s a 10.0 Mega Pixels camera. I know this isn’t the fanciest camera, but I think it should be able to take somewhat decent quality pictures. However, the pictures I’m taking are 1.7 MB at most. How do I get it to take higher quality pictures?
I have a lot of pictures of my paintings posted online. Someone advised me that I should take higher quality pictures, so I bought my new camera, messed with the settings, and took better pictures. You can see these pictures on my flickr page. They are definitely better quality than I had before.
Then recently I decided I wanted to try making and selling prints of my paintings. One of the suggestions was Fine Art America, (thanks for the suggestion OpalCat!) and I set up an account there. I uploaded Penguin, then ordered a print to see how it looked. Then today I got an email from Fine Art America asking for a higher quality picture.
So then today I got the camera out, and made sure that the camera is set on the biggest image size, set the compression ratio on fine (instead of normal, and they seem to be the only two choices), and tried looking for anything to make the pictures better quality. And still the pictures look good for posting on flickr or whatever other websites, but not good enough to make prints out of. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong.
I can give the properties of one of the pictures I just took today, that hasn’t been messed with in photoshop or anything if it will help. I took the picture, connected the camera to my computer, and dragged the picture over.
Image Dimensions: 3648 x 2736
Horizontal resolution: 180 dpi
Vertical resolution: 180 dpi
Bit depth: 24
Resolution unit: 2
Color representation: sRGB
Compressed bits/pixel: 3
TLDR: Please let me know what I can do to take higher quality pictures.
Your 3648x2736 file (which = 9,980,928 pixels, or ~10MP) should be fine for making high quality prints up to at least 11x14 or so, how big were you trying to go?
Well, the original painting was 24"x30", and when I uploaded the image to the website, it seemed to say I could sell prints of that size and I think one bigger. It cut off above that because the picture wasn’t higher resolution. I ordered a 30"x24" print to see how it would look, and that’s what they said they had a problem with. Realistically, selling 11"x14" prints might be easier, so if there’s no way to make the pictures sharper, then I guess I could see if they could stick to selling smaller prints like that.
I tried using my photo program to do that and it still looked weird. Hopefully I can get the camera to take better pictures, and use that afterwards if needed. But thanks for the tip.
With a 30"x24" print you’re looking at 2736/24=114 pixels per inch as your limiting factor, I think you’re simply trying to go too big - you’ll see a range from 240-300ppi generally suggested for optimal results, though there a lot of factors involved, including viewing distance (obviously a billboard that’s viewed from tens or hundreds of feet away does not need to be printed at the same resolution as a print that might be examined closely).
Issues such as lighting (as noted), proper exposure, camera support (are you using a tripod?) are also very important if you’re interested in getting the best results possible with your equipment.
The proper way to light a flat piece of art is to put the artwork up at eye level, set a tripod up a arms length away from the piece of art. Then, put a tungsten light (though, incandescent lights could work, iirc.) a arms length to the right and the left of your tripod, at a 45 degree angle. this should evenly light the piece of artwork.
True for traditional halftone printing, not so true for inkjets. Depending on the printer and the RIP software, anywhere from 150ppi to 200ppi is a more reasonable floor, with diminishing returns somewhere in the 200-300 range. Not that Fine Art America says their minimum acceptable source resolution is 100ppi.
Using Photoshop or GIMP doesn’t get you around that either. Neither app can make make more image data, they can only interpolate what’s already there. In some circumstances, that may work fine, but it’s no substitute for a higher-res capture in the first place.
ETA: as long as you’re using a camera that can’t capture in a RAW format, JPEG compression is taking a crap on your image data to one degree or another. You can push the size boundaries better with RAW than with a JPG simply because there’s more data to work with in the first place.
I had been previously been taking pictures like this:
[ul]
[li]Turning all overhead lights on[/li][li]Hanging the picture on the wall at eye level[/li][li]Putting the camera on the tripod[/li][li]Lining up the camera so it looks straight on to the painting[/li][li]Setting the ISO setting on the lowest, so that the picture is sharpest[/li][/ul]
Now with the advice from y’all here (and some from my friends on facebook) I also did the following:
[ul]
[li]Put my two incandescent lamps close to the painting at 45 degrees on both sides[/li][li]Put the camera on a faster shutter speed[/li][li]Used the manual focus to try to focus it at the distance the camera is from the painting[/li][/ul]
So now I have a newer picture, you can see here. You can compare it to the older picture. I don’t know how well you can tell on flickr, but it’s a little sharper, and I think the color might be a little better, but it can probably still be improved upon. If anyone has any more advice or anything, I will definitely listen and appreciate it. And work on it more tomorrow, because I’m going to bed now.
Also, if your camera can do custom white balance, read the camera instructions on how to set it – generally you hold up a white card in the current lighting and show that to the camera, and that becomes the “white” to be used for your photograph. Proper white balance is an essential component of shooting good photos and very much worth looking into, especially using artificial lighting on of this sort.
Don’t aim the lights directly at the painting. Instead, bounce the lights off a white surface, like a piece of foamcore. This will even and soften the light. Pros use white umbrellas for this purpose and “softlights” which are large white fabric pyramids with a light inside.
A friend who shoots a ton of art - he is the go-to guy in the Kansas City art community - has a technique that involves polarized light, but I have no idea how it works. I do know he photographed the only oil painting my wife and I own, and he successfully captured the brushstrokes.
The lowest ISO setting does not always give the sharpest pictures if you’re not setting the shutter and aperture correctly. It’s a love-triangle that won’t work well unless all three are getting what they need given the lighting conditions.
Yes, ISO controls noise and in good light low ISO works well. But you’ve also got to have the shutter (motion blur) and aperture (depth of field/light allowed in) set to work with that ISO at that particular light level. I’m guessing you’ll want to run about 400 shutter speed and about a 6 or 8 aperture if you’re using white light (as opposed to the typical yellow house lights or greyish florescent lights.)
Your camera is very capable and will take excellent pictures as-is. There is a light meter built in that can help you get dialed in, read the manual and practice. Use the tripod and either a remote shutter or the timer to eliminate the jiggling from your hand pushing the shutter. Camera shake is bad for clarity.
Keep in mind that slightly longer shutter speeds (with properly adjusted ISO/Aperture) will yield much clearer pictures but they’re harder to do.
Oh yeah, keep in mind that your tripod is more stable the lower to the ground it is, especially on lower end tripods. Get it as low as you can and still get good shots of the painting.
Thanks again to everyone who had advice. I thought I would update y’all that I did finally get a suitable picture taken of Penguin, and ordered a print and thought it looked good.
So, I put up some more paintings on my Fine Art America pagethat can be ordered for prints. I don’t have all of my paintings up there, so if there is another one that you’d like a print of, let me know. You can see all of my paintings here.
Huh. I thought inkjets used halftone printing, since I knew they used dots. Do you know of an article that explains how inkjet printing works in regards to converting said dots into the wide gamut of colors? Do they just use standard dithering? Because I would think it odd that that would produce higher quality output.
Hi Mr. Lowry, glad it’s getting better. More comments on quality:
Your camera has a manual mode, and that’s good. You’re shooting at low ISO and that’s good. You should also not be shooting with the lens wide open; setting the lens at f/5.6 or f/8 will give sharper results. Obviously you’ll need to use a tripod to handle the long exposure times. Use the timer to snap the shot rather than manually pressing the release.
Bracket. When you’re using manual exposure, shoot at the recommended shutter speed and then shoot some higher and lower shutter speeds (while keeping the aperture the same.) If the camera recommends one second, also shoot at 3/4 second, 1/2 second, 1.5 seconds, and 2 seconds.
Not matter how good your camera is, there’s no substitute for tweaking the pictures in a retouch program (such as Photoshop). Adjust the levels. Adjust the curves. Adjust the color balance. There are many on-line source explaining how to do those things.
