A small point and shoot camera with a 12mp sensor, will not create images of the same quality as a DSLR with a 12mp sensor – why? Because the DSLR has a much larger sensor. This doesn’t mean the P&S camera is bad, it just means that a photo viewed at 100% will be inferior in quality to the same picture taken with the camera with a larger sensor (assuming of course that the person operating the camera knows what they are doing). Viewed at smaller sizes the differences will be less apparent but, in very general terms, the larger a camera’s sensor, the better.

DSLR’s use varying sizes of sensor too and a top end “full frame” DSLR is a very expensive proposition (without even considering lenses), but basically most modern consumer models as well as many older ones will do the job just fine. Of course, the larger the picture you want to capture is, the more difficult it will become to fit the entire image into the frame. You can overcome this by taking several “sectional” photos and then stitching them together using software, but that’s a whole other article in itself.

If you can afford to buy a DSLR and are prepared to learn how to get the best from it, almost any model will be up to the task – if you look into the used market there are plenty of bargains to be had too, so don’t be too concerned about the megapixel count. The latest entry level DSLR from Nikon boasts a 24MP sensor but 12, 10 or 8 on a good DSLR is fine too. The digital photography technology is constantly evolving and things move pretty fast – there are now some very capable point and shoot cameras, bridge cameras, and the latest mirrorless models with interchangeable lenses. These last often use similar sensors to DSLRs and are very capable alternatives but are relatively new technology and still quite costly, although that will soon change. Obviously, there are always going to be limitations – you cannot blow up digital images without hitting quality issues at some point. Much depends on the size of the prints you are hoping to make.

Ideally, a camera capable of capturing images in RAW format is also an advantage. DSLR’s have this capability almost without exception – smaller P&S cameras often do not. RAW just means that the picture you take is saved exactly as it was recorded on the sensor – all the raw data with no in camera processing or adjustment. The benefits of this are too numerous and a little too complex to go into here, but RAW files allow much easier post processing, without any degradation of the file. Additionally, the more options a camera offers in terms of settings that you can change manually, the better. The limitations of cameras where the user is not allowed to make many adjustments soon become apparent under various shooting conditions, and no doubt, when photographing artwork, conditions might vary greatly.

Further reading –
http://lowendmac.com/digigraphica/08dg/busting-the-megapixel-myth.html

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2011/05/why-weve-reached-the-end-of-the-camera-megapixel-race.ars

A small point and shoot camera with a 12mp sensor, will not create images of the same quality as a DSLR with a 12mp sensor – why? Because the DSLR has a much larger sensor. This doesn’t mean the P&S camera is bad, it just means that a photo viewed at 100% will be inferior in quality to the same picture taken with the camera with a larger sensor (assuming of course that the person operating the camera knows what they are doing). Viewed at smaller sizes the differences will be less apparent but, in very general terms, the larger a camera’s sensor, the better.

DSLR’s use varying sizes of sensor too and a top end “full frame” DSLR is a very expensive proposition (without even considering lenses), but basically most modern consumer models as well as many older ones will do the job just fine. Of course, the larger the picture you want to capture is, the more difficult it will become to fit the entire image into the frame. You can overcome this by taking several “sectional” photos and then stitching them together using software, but that’s a whole other article in itself.

If you can afford to buy a DSLR and are prepared to learn how to get the best from it, almost any model will be up to the task – if you look into the used market there are plenty of bargains to be had too, so don’t be too concerned about the megapixel count. The latest entry level DSLR from Nikon boasts a 24MP sensor but 12, 10 or 8 on a good DSLR is fine too. The digital photography technology is constantly evolving and things move pretty fast – there are now some very capable point and shoot cameras, bridge cameras, and the latest mirrorless models with interchangeable lenses. These last often use similar sensors to DSLRs and are very capable alternatives but are relatively new technology and still quite costly, although that will soon change. Obviously, there are always going to be limitations – you cannot blow up digital images without hitting quality issues at some point. Much depends on the size of the prints you are hoping to make.

Ideally, a camera capable of capturing images in RAW format is also an advantage. DSLR’s have this capability almost without exception – smaller P&S cameras often do not. RAW just means that the picture you take is saved exactly as it was recorded on the sensor – all the raw data with no in camera processing or adjustment. The benefits of this are too numerous and a little too complex to go into here, but RAW files allow much easier post processing, without any degradation of the file. Additionally, the more options a camera offers in terms of settings that you can change manually, the better. The limitations of cameras where the user is not allowed to make many adjustments soon become apparent under various shooting conditions, and no doubt, when photographing artwork, conditions might vary greatly.

It’s very difficult to give a definitive answer to your question, particularly as I am not an expert in copyright law. With all the possible sources of your images I would imagine it might be a mammoth task to sort out attribution and rights to enable you to contact every person or company involved to seek permissions – having said that, as you are planning to create an original drawing based on those images I’m not sure you would need to worry too much. Artists constantly use photographs as frames of reference, even producing paintings and drawings directly from them. Unless you decide to use a very recognizable and well known image I don’t suppose you would be likely to run into any problems.

There is always a possibility, however slight, that the owner of an image might see your work and make the connection to their own but, in all honesty, that is probably unlikely. As you are creating your own original piece it would be unlikely to register on anyone’s radar. I’m not going to enter into the ethical arguments because that is an area where opinions tend to be more of an issue than facts. To be honest, I don’t think what you are proposing would cause any problems but without knowing more or seeing the end result this is only an opinion based on your comment/question.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. In the situation you outline I would say you have summed it up nicely. The most important thing is that both parties are clear on the agreed usage at the outset and in the situation you describe, I think you’ve covered all the bases. The watermarking would prevent reproductions being made and I think would be a wise move if a photographer has not taken the photos with a view to the artist making such reproductions.

If the job was to provide digital images from which prints could then be made, I would expect the photographer to charge an appropriate rate for the work – i.e the digital image production. This might vary based on whether the artists requires just the image as it was captured or a print ready file (i.e post production work – cropping and print preparation – that they can take straight to a printing service). In those circumstances it would be expected that the photographer could not distribute those images for any commercial purpose, or, even for non commercial use as the image depicted belongs solely to the creator of the original art. Again, both parties need to be sure of their agreement at the outset.

There have been various cases where disputes have arisen and no doubt such cases will continue to occur but if a little common sense is used and both parties have a modicum of integrity there should really be no reason for disputes.

An artist asks a photographer to photograph their drawings in full as well as the photographer’s creative composition of (for example) multiple drawings or portions of drawings in the artist’s gallery, perhaps the artist themself with a drawing etc. in high resolution for the artist’s website, printed materials, catalogs, etc. There is no payment and this is done gratis by the photographer. The photographer adds a small watermark of their photography studio logo for recognition in exchange for the gratis work.

So while the artist still maintains all creative and commercial copyright to their artwork’s content that does NOT include use of the photographs except for the permitted use given by the photographer, correct? Those photographs are art themselves (composition, lighting selection, camera and lens settings) and are copyrighted by the photographer to protect the photograph’s usage by the client and third parties BUT they absolutely cannot be used for commercial purposes, i.e. selling, printing en masse, etc., by the photographer because the artist maintains all rights to the creative image as subject of the photos, am I correct here? Both parties must give the other explicit use rights of the photographs…or in this case, the photographer would give specific use restrictions to the artist and/or allow/deny any third party use? (i.e. the artist can use the photos for their website and catalog but a gallery may not use them without permission/payment, etc) There is no commercial right held by the photographer to sell the photos because they contain copyrighted or portions of copyrighted artwork, correct? Both parties are protected here.

Thank you.