Photo V Scan (Copperplate Example)

[caliken]

I’ve always posted my writing from scanned images of my artwork as I believe that, in this way, it
most accurately represents the contrast and sharpness of the original. When the original writing is
dense black on pure white, this is how it appears on the screen, as a close match to the original.
Also, using a flatbed scanner ensures that there is no distortion of the artwork.

For me, a great deal of the beauty of formal calligraphy lies in the balanced symmetry of line weight,
slope, and matching x heights. Photographing a two-dimensional piece of artwork with a conventional
camera, can often cause problems as the slightest deviation in the parallel planes of camera lens and
flat artwork leads to image distortion with everything out of kilter. Shades appear to be of different widths;
letters slope at varying angles and the x height of the letters can appear to be different from one side
of the artwork to the other.

I’ve tried to avoid those pitfalls in this example of photographed writing.

 

Edited November 17, 2014 by Ken Fraser

[macaddicted]

DxO makes software that can correct for chromatic aberrations and optical distortion in a camera/lens combo. Of course this leaves you using a copy stand to captures the art. Probably better color reproduction, but more difficulty capturing the fine details you mention above.

[caliken]

macaddicted,

 

Thanks for your interest and contribution.

 

You may be interested in this comparison with the above.

 

This is scanned from the same artwork and uploaded, unretouched.

 

Ken

 

[Mickey]

I get your point, Ken, but calligraphy isn't exactly 2d. Like it or not, there is a subtle dimensionality which gets munged by flatbed scanning (or aggressively flat lighting with a copy stand.) Even worse horrors can be visited on it by the software. The best way, I believe, to view calligraphy is in the flesh or as close to that aesthetic as is possible over the ether.

 

I'll be honest. I much prefer and appreciate the wartier version (#1) you posted. (Compare the first C in post #3 with post #1. Without even squinting, it's easy to see that considerable data was lost.)

[caliken]

Mickey,

 

We may not always agree, but your contributions are always considered, informed and above all, interesting.

 

Thanks for taking the time to express your opinion.

[Mickey]

Thanks Ken.

 

There are always discussion like this with regard to secondary transmission of art or craft, particularly via compromised means. It's important for those 'listening in' to understand that being strong advocates for opposing positions doesn't imply personal animus.

 

 

Mickey

[Vlad Soare]

Although the first version might benefit from one or two extra stops of exposure, I must confess I prefer it. It looks smoother to me. The scanned image looks jagged (e.g. the C or the y in "Calligraphy").

Edited November 19, 2014 by Vlad Soare

[jasonchickerson]

I too prefer the photography. It is much too easy to lose detail via the contrast boost inherent in flatbed scanner imaging. Paper white is not true white. Black ink is not truly black. It is the contrast between paper color (and texture) and ink that makes the written word so wonderful. Reducing it to stark black on white loses, for me, some of the magic.

[Lively]

The photographed version is truly beautiful.