PetaPixel

Fuji is Using 3D Printing and Scanning to Create Near-Flawless Van Gogh Replicas

fujivangogh

For those art enthusiasts who just don’t have the millions of dollars required to purchase their own original Van Gogh painting, Fujifilm has a solution for you. After seven years of development, the company’s “Reliefography” 3D scanning and printing technique is ready to create near-flawless replicas of great works of art, which will be available to the public for tens of thousands instead of tens of millions.

This new technique — a combination of 3D scanning, digital imaging and printing technologies — was created by Fujifilm Belgium. And now that it’s ready to be put to use, Fuji Europe has partnered up with the Van Gogh Museum to show just how amazing Reliefography is.

The process is so detailed that Fuji can only create 3 replicas per day, but the “Relievos” the technique spits out are accurate down to the brush strokes on the front and the torn labels, stamps and handwriting on the back. The copies won’t fool an art expert, but they’re still being called the “ultimate fine-art reproduction.”

fujivangogh2

fujivangogh4

“We are very excited to work together with the Van Gogh Museum on this fascinating project,” said Richard Tackx, Fujifilm Belgium’s Director of Sales and Marketing. “The result of our joined efforts is a very high quality reproduction and we hope the market will respond very positively to this unique product.”

So far five of Van Gogh’s paintings have been re-created using this technique, but Fujifilm has an exclusive three-year deal with the museum, so many more should be on their way.

For now, the plan is to test release the project in the Hong Kong market and gauge interest in these sorts of products. Each copy will be limited to a print run of 260, and if these Relievos make it stateside, getting one of your own will cost you about $34,000.

That’s not exactly “cheap,” but considering the fact that Van Gogh’s Vase with Fifteen Sunflowers last sold for $39.7 million in 1987 (adjusted for inflation, that would be about $82.4 million today), $34,000 seems like chump change.

(via PopPhoto)


 
Get the hottest photo stories delivered to your inbox.
Get a daily digest of the latest headlines:
  • procentje20

    Can it adjust the whitebalance so the yellowness is fixed? (just trolling, this is awesome)

  • Andy

    Seems to be an awesome technique, but I can’t see the real benefit in it.
    Normally people who try to make a perfect copy of art are called “forgers” and get into jail when selling a copy of famous art without signing it with their real name and assure, that it is immediately identified as a copy.
    In this case, a big company gets on the stage, copies even the labels, stamps and handwriting on the back and are called “famous” for this??
    If I would be a person who bought an original piece of art for “just” 1 Million, I would kick their ass if they try to do this with my purchase.
    Of course this is a great technical development and – in my opinion – it could be used to make really cheap copies of art for museums in the world, so that these paintings could be shown to public simultaneously in different locations.
    But these copies should never be allowed to be sold on the free art market nor should they cost that much… In the end its just a “digital copy” – nothing more…

  • 9inchnail

    But why would someone pay thousands for a replica? It’s never going to increase in value, on the contrary, in ten years, they’ll be able to mass produce detailled replicas, maybe we can make them ourselves. Yours is gonna be worth as much as a poster purchased at a drug store.
    The technology itself is fascinating but whoever pays lots of money to buy a non-exlusive copy, is just dumb.

  • Genkakuzai

    This is pretty damn awesome, albeit a tad bit expensive. Though I sort of understand why. If I had the cash, sure.