Photographing Oil Paintings, Fuji vs. Kodak
steven T koontz
evp...@insync.net wrote:
>
> I am photographing a series of oil paintings for an artist and I have run
> into an interesting problem. First here's my set up: I am using a 150mm Fuji
> or a 210mm Nikkor-W depending on the size of the painting. Camera is an
> Arca-Swiss F-Line. The on-camera polarizer is a Heliopan circular. For
> lighting I am using Two Elinchrom 1000 monoblocs on either side, the output
> of each of is carefully polarized in the same direction while the camera
> polarizer is carefully for cross polarization to eliminate all glare. Lights
> are located at least 45 degrees to the lens/subject axis. Camera is carefully
> centered and made square to the painting. Light output is measured and
> adjusted to be within 1/10th of an f-stop at all four corners and at the
> center of each painting. In other words the light is completely even. A Kodak
> color bar is located next to the painting to assure correct color and
> contrast. The first film I used was Fuji Provia (RDPII) and the results
> were great, except for the following problem: While the Painting looks
> technically great we (the painter and I) feel we see too much of the painting
> (the brushstrokes, even a little bit of the underpainting) etc.) It's not a
> matter of too much sharpness (as if there could be such a thing) but it is as
> if too much is being revealed. We had this problem once before, and I believe
> I resolved it finally by using either EPN or E100S. Once again, I am not
> having a problem with sharpness or resolution (maybe contrast?), but a
> problem with too much being revealed? Any input from knowledgable folk? TIA,
>
whi;e I've never shot this kind of thing, I have done quit a bit of
macro shooting with flash and maybe you have lights angled too low?
This would cause the brush strokes to show up as the low angled
lighting could create shadows on the ripples.. just a thought..
>
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
sko...@mindspring.com
evp...@insync.net
I am photographing a series of oil paintings for an artist and I have run
into an interesting problem. First here's my set up: I am using a 150mm Fuji
or a 210mm Nikkor-W depending on the size of the painting. Camera is an
Arca-Swiss F-Line. The on-camera polarizer is a Heliopan circular. For
lighting I am using Two Elinchrom 1000 monoblocs on either side, the output
of each of is carefully polarized in the same direction while the camera
polarizer is carefully for cross polarization to eliminate all glare. Lights
are located at least 45 degrees to the lens/subject axis. Camera is carefully
centered and made square to the painting. Light output is measured and
adjusted to be within 1/10th of an f-stop at all four corners and at the
center of each painting. In other words the light is completely even. A Kodak
color bar is located next to the painting to assure correct color and
contrast. The first film I used was Fuji Provia (RDPII) and the results
were great, except for the following problem: While the Painting looks
technically great we (the painter and I) feel we see too much of the painting
(the brushstrokes, even a little bit of the underpainting) etc.) It's not a
matter of too much sharpness (as if there could be such a thing) but it is as
if too much is being revealed. We had this problem once before, and I believe
I resolved it finally by using either EPN or E100S. Once again, I am not
having a problem with sharpness or resolution (maybe contrast?), but a
problem with too much being revealed? Any input from knowledgable folk? TIA,
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Jerry McCollum
I think you need to use a regular plane polarizer on the camera. There is
no "cross" polarization on a circular polarizer in this application, at
least that's been my experience. If you check your ciircular polarizer by
holding it up against the light polarizers (looking at a white backgropund)
you should find that no amount of rotation brings you to extinction. It's
the same throughout the rotation.
I photograph oil paintings with cross polarization and find that linear
polarizers on the lens and the lights are the only combination that works
for me.
Jerry McCollum
steven T koontz <sko...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<3567940B...@mindspring.com>...
Tony
It's probably the contrast that you don't like. RDP is more contrasty than
EPN, as you seem to have discovered. You might try Fuji Astia, it's low
constrast but has more color saturation than EPN.
) ( * "What do you want me to say?"
d^b * "Lie to me."
=\_/= *** * "Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always
********** stalwart and true. The bad guys are easily
********** distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats. And
** *** we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever
* * dies, and everybody lives happily ever after."
,+ ,+ "Liar." -Buffy the Vampire Slayer
http://suba01.suba.com/~lovecats/index.htm (photography)
evp...@insync.net
Jerry, Sorry Jerry, you are wrong. the problem is not the use of a circular
polarizer. I have no problem going to full extinction of direct reflections
from polarized lights when using the Heliopan circular polarizers on camera.
I cannot speak for other brands. The problem turned out to one of contrast
(the ratio of the size of the light sources to the subject size.) Thanks for
the input though. Ellis
In article <6kct7m$ck2$1...@gte1.gte.net>,
Arne Croell
Jerry McCollum wrote:
> I think you need to use a regular plane polarizer on the camera. There
> is
> no "cross" polarization on a circular polarizer in this application,
> at
> least that's been my experience. If you check your ciircular polarizer
> by
> holding it up against the light polarizers (looking at a white
> backgropund)
> you should find that no amount of rotation brings you to extinction.
> It's
> the same throughout the rotation.
>
> I photograph oil paintings with cross polarization and find that
> linear
> polarizers on the lens and the lights are the only combination that
> works
> for me.
>
> Jerry McCollum
Circular Polarizers consist of a linear Polarizer and an attached
quarter-wave plate, the latter side facing the film. If the (linear)
polarizers on the lamps and the polarizing part of the circular
polarizer face each other and are cross polarized the result is
identical to two linear polarizers in crossed positions. Only if the
filter is mounted the wrong way, i.e. the quarter-wave plate facing
outward, the crosspolarization is lost.This is easily shown when one
makes the test described by you, i.e. looking through the polarizer at
the lamp polarizers. Only if the male filter thread (the lens side) of
the filter faces your eye, you get extinctinction, not if the front side
faces your eye.
This is actually the purpose of using a circular polarizer, to avoid any
crosspolarizing effects between the image-forming light and polarization
effects in the camera (i.e. due to reflection on beamsplitters, prisms
etc. - this is usually not an issue with view cameras).
If you see any differences between a linear poalrizer and a correctly
mounted circular one, they may be due to quality differences of the
polarizers.
Arne Croell