Painting for Reproduction, looking for Pro Tips

[bdfoster]

So a PM with Elwell got me thinking about this, and a search on the forum produced this thread (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?p=503816) Since Dan never came back to the thread, I thought I'd throw it out here for anyone to answer and the rest to benefit from.

I've always had trouble getting good reproductions of my work-- color balance is off, glazes too thin and show more of underpainting in photos than in real life, saturation is way down from real life, etc... My illustration curriculum never really got into specifics about painting for reproduction. (odd, since that's the point of illustration). So for the pros-- What tips do you have getting work to reproduce well? What has worked for you in the past? What has failed in your past work? Is there techniques/color pallettes/value scales that seem to reproduce more accurately or less accurately than others?

[asoir]

i am by no means an expert on reproduction.
Poor guy...infertility has boomed recently.

[bdfoster]

Poor guy...infertility has boomed recently.

Hahaha. If that was the advice I was looking for, I would have gone to Android. Is he the one with the "unofficial" workshop session on "Get Laid with your Art"?

And I think Dan's figured it out. I believe he and his wife are expecting in October(?).

Any serious answers?

[Jabo]

1. Pay a repro-studio to do the job.
2. Pay a GOOD repro-studio to do the job.
3. Make sure their equipment is pure-digital and they are well-equipped (digital repro-camera, flickerless light, good software).
4. Color-correction after scanning is essential and may take hours.
5. RGB-Colorspace is about 1/3 bigger than CMYK-Colorspace. So if you use the resulting pictures for screen-presentation, scans should be in RGB.
6.If you want to print your stuff and do your paintings digitally, you shouldn't even start in RGB but make the new document CMYK with correct color-profiles (ISO Coated, for most purposes) even before you begin. You will work under restricted situations then because the CMYK colorspace can't achieve the neon-color stuff RGB-space can. Otherwise, your printer will convert it from RGB to CMYK anyway and you will be surprised by the flat and not-shiny colors. So be aware of the end-media BEFORE you start.

I'm doing reproductions of watercolor and oil paintings at work. Probably the most tidy job you can do in the industry. Some paintings go through 5 or more passes from our place to the client until they are lucky with the result.

I don't know if I understand you right, but there isn't much YOU can do in order to achieve brilliant colors and stuff. Paint as you want and get the rest done by a good repro-house.

The only way to achieve brilliant colors is to print your pictures photo-chemically (like when you get when you give your digicam to a photolab to make prints). I've done that for several of my graphic designs. These photo-machines "print" in RGB.


Hope I could help you with that. Otherwise, ignore me.

[Ilaekae]

Scanning yourself on a flatbed scanner is often part of the problem. The intense light has a tendency to really screw with glazes. It also screws up all dye drawings like those done in magic marker, and very often watercolors. the "camera" sees the paper texture and opagues as mor obvious artifacts than the glazes because the light is so strong it simply burns themout.

In color separations--especially those done traditionally--for CMYK, greens have traditionally been a problem, as well as "neon" and other optically fortified paints. don't even think about trying to scan CMYK from metalic paints or Dayglo colors.

If a piece starts to fail because a specific color seems to be degrading, it's often possible to seperate for the color as a special plate to preserve the snap. For example, CMYK plus SPECIAL MIX WARM RED, or some such.

The problem is and has been a real ball breaker for commercial printing, and there's no real way to resolve it to everyone's happiness. It's inherent in the process. Four dots will never equal the impact of a pure specifically applied color.

[bdfoster]

Jabo Thanks for the throrough reply. I'm more interested in the idea from an illustration standpoint than a fine art standpoint, so rarely is it me picking the repro house. And, as is often the case in publishing, there are sacrifices made in the interest of the almighty budget. While I think to a degree you can "paint how you want", but I've noticed (as has Dan/DSIllo based on his post in the other thread) that certain illustrators tend to reproduce "better" than others, and I haven't figured out why.

Ilaekae Thanks for the expertise. I've definitely known to avoid the metallics and neons-- That's suicide for reproduction. The "loss" of glazes was actually in the photgraphic process, not scanning, but the theory may be the same since the lighting used to photograph is considerably brighter than what I have in my studio to paint by or what is normally just around the house... And I agree-- reproductions will never match paint, and yet somehow certain people seem to match much better than others. Someday I'll figure out why.