THE REPRODUCTION OF BOTANICAL ART

Mike McNamee discusses the complexities of a common task, the reproduction of flat art, with specialist printer, Lukman Sinclair

Dealing with difficult Originals

Reproduction of artwork is a topic we last discussed almost two-and-a-half years ago and we thought it timely to revisit the topic (and the people) to see how things have moved on. Providing reproduction, as a service to local artists, can be an additional income stream. It may be used to justify the purchase of new equipment or simply provide cash to support the cost of a printer for the weekly round of images that are part of general practice photography.

The rationale behind singling out fine art reproduction (ie the making copy prints of works of art) is simple. Many artists have a complete lack of computing knowledge (in particular) and photography (in general). Indeed, many of them see it as a badge of honour to profess total ignorance of things mechanical. In the main, it is photographers who have the skills and equipment required to reproduce art and, most importantly, they have climbed up the learning curve to the extent that they can handle the job competently. Make no mistake though, these artists, who claim no knowledge of mechanics, will have keen eyes for colour and be extremely critical of your reproductions. You are going to need a good eye yourself, along with an in-depth knowledge of colour management and Photoshop colour adjustment before you can satisfy their needs – that, by the way, is why they came to you in the first place. If you have not got your own workflow boxed off and accurate, do not start attempting to learn your trade with artists as your guinea pigs!

There are a number of things to consider at the outset. If you are new into the photography business, do not underestimate the difficulty of reproducing flat copy of any kind. It is one of the most challenging topics around. As a beginner you may also wish to avoid the distraction of another skill to be mastered and be better served working on your core-business plan. Reproducing can be a small part of a business or a large one. At one end of the scale we have the local GP photographer helping a mate who belongs to the Monday painting class, at the other we have people such as GBM in Manchester who are the proud owners of one of the four Cruse Scanners we could find in the UK. This is a $170,000 piece of kit used by museums worldwide for reproducing art. It is like a scanner and camera combined, the lights move across the front of the original while the detector head picks up the information. The lighting may be set asymmetrically to pick out impasto details and brush strokes very realistically.

The simplest scenario is to scan or photograph up to A4-sized originals and reproduce onto an Epson 3800, HP 9810 or Canon 9000. Pigment inks and the ability to reproduce onto 300gsm art papers are the major requirements of the printer.

Scan or Photograph?

The scan or photograph decision depends on the nature of the art. Watercolours are easiest to scan, especially if they are small and fit on an A4, flatbed scanner, for a single pass. Multiple passes and reassembly of the scans with Photoshop CS3 or a specialist program such as RealViz Stitcher are also quite simple, providing a few precautions are observed. Four-up and six-up scans are quite commonly used. Delicate originals such as pastel work, oil and acrylics are best photographed, as this is a non-contact imaging method. Collaged artwork and art embellished with gold leaf also provide significant challenges, indeed some limited edition giclée prints are individually embellished after printing. As mentioned earlier, one of the best methods is that used on the Cruze scanner used by GBM in Manchester. For impasto work they use only one light (positioned to light from the top of the image) to bring out the relief of the brushwork. It is extremely effective.

In general, scanning of canvas originals is completely unacceptable, especially if the art is glazed. You end up with a mass of specular highlights from the ‘summits’ of the canvas weave. Even photography is difficult and you have to take great care with lighting, even to the extent of using polarised light sources and crossed polarisers on the camera lens. The bumps of the canvas are almost hemispherical and catch reflections of the lights from almost any angle.

Watercolours – a special case

Watercolours are a common subject for reproduction and require particular care for really accurate work. One of the key things that distinguishes a watercolour from other art is the way the qualities of the paper are exploited by the artist. Generally the highlights in the picture are created by not putting paint in that area. This is accomplished by either careful brushwork or by protecting the surface with masking solutions such as Maskol. This is a rubber-based masking fluid which is painted in the highlight areas then removed at the completion of the picture. If they make a mistake, the artist is faced with either ‘scratching back’ the highlights or applying china white – both are potential pitfalls for reproduction as they might expose the camera or scanner to a metameric pigment or base.

In a nutshell, here is the problem when reproducing watercolours. Take, as an example, a delicate botanical illustration by professional illustrator, Margaret Stevens FSBA. Margaret, the president of the Society of Botanical Artists, has painted the image (right) on a cream watercolour paper.

Photo Quote: ...words and pictures can work together to communicate more powerfully than either alone.- William Albert Allard