Scanning or Photographing Artwork for Prints? by art industry insider and artist, Rob Kennedy

Scanning or Photographing Artwork for Prints?

So, you've decided to create prints from your artwork. It makes a lot of sense—one painting and potentially two sources of income. When I first looked into the process, my main concern was cost. Perhaps not the most sophisticated place to start, but it's a practical one. I had seen prints produced from both scanned and photographed artwork and, to be honest, it wasn't always easy to determine a clear winner.

My own journey led me toward photographing my artwork. Whenever I mentioned this, however, I was quickly met with criticism from photographers who insisted that a standard camera simply didn't have enough pixels for the job. The interesting thing was that every time camera technology improved, the benchmark seemed to move as well. No matter what equipment I used, there always seemed to be a newer camera with more pixels that was supposedly essential.

Eventually, I decided to put the theory to the test. I purchased a Canon Prograf A3+ printer and photographed the same painting using three different devices: an iPhone, a digital camera, and a Nikon D700. Despite what is often claimed on YouTube and social media, I'm still not entirely convinced that a phone camera is the ideal tool for reproducing artwork. The phone image was acceptable, but the digital camera and Nikon produced noticeably stronger results. At first glance, however, there wasn't a great deal separating those two.

The choice of paper can also have a significant impact on the final result. When I printed on canvas, I noticed something I can only describe as a form of visual "double vision." The texture of the original painted canvas was being reproduced onto another canvas surface, creating a layered effect that I personally found distracting. If the original artwork had been painted on smooth board or hot-pressed cotton rag, this wouldn't have been an issue. But because I don't particularly want to see the shadows and weave of the original canvas recreated in the print, canvas isn't my preferred option for reproductions. Cotton rag paper, which is often regarded as the premium choice for fine art prints, produced results that I found far more pleasing.

Of course, not every artist has access to a dedicated camera. If all you have is an iPhone or similar device, there are still options. One is to hire a photographer to professionally photograph your work and provide a high-resolution digital file. The other is to have the artwork professionally scanned.

Scanning costs can vary considerably. A scan of a modestly sized painting—around 300 x 420 mm—might cost approximately $100, while colour correction and preparation can quickly multiply that figure. Professional photography is often slightly less expensive, although prices vary depending on your location and the photographer's experience.

One advantage of a professionally scanned and colour-corrected image is that most printers can produce a print from the file with very little additional work. Photographed artwork can sometimes require more adjustment, and it may be worthwhile running a few test strips to ensure the colour saturation and tonal values closely match the original painting. By the time everything is finished, however, the overall costs often end up being remarkably similar.

For artists living in larger cities, both options are usually available. For those of us in rural communities, the situation can be quite different. In my area there are no specialist art scanning services, and most photographers understandably focus on weddings, portraits, and commercial work. Sometimes the ideal solution simply isn't accessible.

In terms of accuracy, I would give scanning a slight edge. A high-quality scan provides an exceptionally faithful representation of the original artwork. Photography follows very closely behind and, in some circumstances, may even be preferable. Highly textured paintings, for example, can sometimes benefit from photography because it captures subtle surface characteristics that a scanner may flatten or overlook. On the other hand, artists whose work relies on precision, detail, and smooth tonal transitions may find scanning particularly appealing.

Ultimately, the decision may come down to your painting style, your budget, and your access to services. Just as importantly, it may depend on who your customers are and what they expect from a print. Many buyers will never know whether an image originated from a scan or a photograph; they simply want a print that looks beautiful and faithfully represents the original work.

There may never be a definitive answer to the scanning-versus-photography debate. Both methods can produce excellent results when done well, and both have limitations. Rather than searching for a universally "correct" approach, artists are probably better served by finding the method that suits their circumstances and workflow. For me, that means photographing my own artwork and taking the files to a local framer and printmaker. It may not be the perfect solution, but it is practical, affordable, and delivers results that I'm happy to put my name to. In the end, that's probably the measure that matters most.