>>4444392
>You also probably dont need to be at f/8 if you're using a macro lens. You can probably go to f/7.1 or f/6.3 to reduce the diffraction a little.
I was told that f/8 is the best for the picture sharpness, that's the main reason. Also not using a macro lens, but I should. It's in by Wishlist.

>>4444407
I'm not a fucking museum, I'm an independent artist, I can't afford thousands in lighting gear
>>4444413
yeah lol
>>4444472
Hey thanks.
I'll try shooting in RAW, I didn't know it was such a big deal.
I'm buying a color checker soon, I had thought about it.
I'm also using the standard lens that came with the 2000D, but I hear macro's are good to shoot artwork.
>You should also be bracketing shots for art to get a higher dynamic range to merge in post. Not "HDR" like a filter, but actual HDR, capturing more stops and getting cleaner signal. -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 in 7 exposures should capture everything without clipping/noise being a problem.
I'm retarded, I don't know what you mean. You're saying merging a bunch of photos on Photoshop to make one good photo? lol

>>4444482
>>4444525
>use a POLARIZING filter on the light source and the camera
yes, my bad, I am retarded, that's what I am doing. picrel