Doing some art reproductions the old fashioned way - which works fine - I stumbled on the HP Artist Software.
Working under controlled conditions with good results I don't see the need of such software. Anybody has experience with this software/hardware combination?

www.hp.com/go/HPArtist
http://web.me.com/davidsaffir/davidsaffir....vid_Saffir.html

Haven't looked at that product. I did download an evaluation copy of the software made for HP by Serif.com called PosterDesigner Pro. They want something like $595 US for it (ouch).

Then I discovered that PosterDesigner Pro is merely a subset of another program made by the same software company called Page Plus.

I got Page Plus X3 for $49. It's now version X4, and if you call the 1-800 number and order the CD and book by mail, you can get it for nearly half of the download-online price of $99.

It makes it easy to print posters.

How HP can justify taking a subset of a program and sell it for $595, I don't know, because that is insane. Page Plus does a whole lot more than just posters.

I guess that's the beauty of what they'd like you to believe is value-adding. And they didn't do a darn thing to it to add value except slap their name on it, and offer a few more pre-made templates.

They had Serif change the file type of the templates though, so if you try to use what you made in the trial version of PosterDesigner Pro, with the Page Plus - well - it won't work. Everything looks the same, but the file extension is one letter different. Even if you try to rename it - it just won't work. Smart cookies those HP marketing geniuses, I guess.

Yep. Seems like HP is trying to sell a 'turnkey' package of software/hardware to automate color management for art reproduction, and collect big bucks for it. But if you've got a color managed system already, from digital SLR to monitor to printer, and if you can competently light a subject like a painting, you already have what you need. And if your comprehension of color management is so incomplete that you need hand-holding software like this, you probably shouldn't be tackling such jobs.

I just started doing this, photographing a local artist's paintings and printing them on canvas for him. Since I already have a color managed system and lighting gear, I found it to be a piece of cake. Waaaay easier than photographing people!

I've been approached by a couple of artists who want someone to do this for them too.

Have you had any issues capturing a painting and reproducing it at the exact same size?

" Anybody has experience with this software/hardware combination?"

yes. I use both methods. hp artist is particularly good in showing textures and brush strokes, as artwork need only be lit from one side.

David Saffir

hp artist content

also, I wanted to add that color accuracy is GREATLY improved, particularly w/ colors that challenge the gamut of the output printer, and that total work time/workflow are greatly reduced.

David Saffir

hp artist content
[/quote]

Not so far.
To be clear, my understanding is that folks doing this at the high end of the market use high resolution digital scanning backs and very elaborate lighting and color matching systems. I'm obviously not playing in that league. But then, I'm not charging that much.

I use 85 mm f:1.8, 135 mm f:2 and 180 f:3.5 macro Canon primes on an Eos-1Ds III, with symmetrical lighting via stand-mounted speedlights on each side. The hardest part is simply making sure the tripod-mounted camera is perfectly square to the plane of the painting. Mirror lock-up, f:8 aperture, composed tight to the edge of the frame to avoid wasting any pixels. I shoot one frame with an X-Rite color checker against the painting to make sure colors are accurate, but to be honest the flash white balance pre-set in ACR was spot-on, so I never bothered making a custom DNG profile.

With this set-up I've printed up to 24x36" with excellent results; you can see every brush stroke and there are no detectable artifacts. My Z3100 24" printer is the limiting factor on print size. If you have access to a 44" printer you could obviously go bigger, but I suspect you'd have to stitch frames to make sure resolution is high enough to avoid any artifacts.

Okay, I finally slogged through the entire white paper. I can see that this would be a pretty cool system if one is copying and printing art commercially, where every minute and every nickel counts. Smarter folks than me can figure out where the break-even point to pay for the system falls, depending on how many jobs you're doing daily or weekly. Overkill at my hobbyist level, though.

Perhaps David Saffir can explain something about step 2 in this workflow:
Step 2: Take spectral reflectance measurements on the artwork with an external spectrophotometer (about 50 measurements for optimal results).
Do you pick up 50 random points of the artwork? And does this work also if you have to switch to polarized light for illumination of oil paintings?

Using Qimage for the output on a Z3100, the "ErgoSoft StudioPrint DFA edition powered by HP Artist" seems to be just an overkill (for the bank account of the photographer). Instead using a pair of Nikon SB-900 Speedlights as suggested I prefer portable studio flashes with a pilot light or a pair of 30 year old Hedler tungsten lights with 2000 W for big artwork.