Q: Photographing artwork
SteveR
flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject. I
googled for "photographing paintings" and found some useful ideas, but
it seems that they are mostly pitched at artists who want to photograph
their own artwork but know nothing about photography.
What I'm after is digital images of the artwork, and I'd like to know if
anyone here has any experience with this kind of photography. The
pieces vary in size, but the largest are definitely too large for
sensible-sized flat-bed scanners.
Any insight would be appreciated - placement of the artwork and camera,
lighting, software for post-processing, methods, etc. I have access to
PaintShop 4, 7, and 9, and I have a couple of studio flash heads with a
selection of accessories. Any recommendations for a camera would be
appreciated as well, as my current digital camera doesn't have enough
manual control.
Thanks in advance,
--
SteveR
(throw away the dustbin, send to stever@... instead)
Humans are way too stupid to be dumb animals.
http://www.accidentalcreditor.org.uk/
hai_...@yahoo.com.cn
Don der Blitsen
dus...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk says...
>I googled for "photographing paintings" and found some useful ideas, but
>it seems that they are mostly pitched at artists who want to photograph
>their own artwork but know nothing about photography.
Try your local library and look for a book titled
"Photographing Art Work" or something similar. I
don't know the exact title and there are probably
more than one in publication. There's no big secret
to it - it's all about LIGHTING and not about which
camera you use necessarily. That means avoiding
lighting setups that induce a glare, avoiding using
flash, and other common-sense matters.
The good thing
about digital photography is that you no longer have
to worry as much about color correctness in matching
film type to light source since you can do all the
correcting on your computer using software. There
are dozens of imaging software programs available
so your research might center on learning which one
most photographers find most useful. I personally
find Microsoft's PICTURE IT auto-correct features to
be just about all I need for correcting my photos,
although there is no correction for lens distortion
and some other things that more sophisticated software
allows. And don't overlook the software that came
with your digital camera.
Mani Deli
<dus...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
>flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
>the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject.
Photographing paintings is a profession requiring specialty equipment,
lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc.
One way to get around this is to scan the painting in parts and stitch
them together in than computer. You can also use a digital cameras and
in diffused light and check the position of the copy to avoid glare.
You can also use crossed Polaroid for this.
I
Ole Larsen
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:03:30 +0000, SteveR
> <dus...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
>>flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
>>the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject.
>
>
> Photographing paintings is a profession requiring specialty equipment,
> lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc.
Its not difficult, but takes at bit of experience. Here æ„€ how I have
done several times:
White cardboard as background (for setting WB at exposure and later
while editing)2 x 500 W halogen at an angle~45 o from each side. A
tripod and selftimer or remote. If it is thick and bumpy oilpainting you
might need polarizer. I never had to use one, though.
--
Regards, Ole Larsen.
New Images And Design 2005-11-17
http://home.tiscali.dk/muggler
Mani Deli
Liz
Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Dec 2005 11:03:30 +0000, SteveR
> <dus...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
>>flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
>>the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject.
>
> Photographing paintings is a profession requiring specialty equipment,
> lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc.
It depends on exactly what degree of quality you need.
My husband (an artist) used to get a friend, who's a specialist in
this, to do it. He used lots of specialised equipment: a Hassie, big
flash set up etc, which not only was a very expensive service (even at
'friends' rates) but was a major upheaval in the room, having to clear
everthing to make room for his setup. The quality was outstanding, but
he decided he didn't need that level of quality/expense and now we do
it ouselves with my *very* basic equipment.
The main problem is evenness of light and avoiding hotspots on oil
paintings since I don't have flash. We used to do it in front of the
back window, it's a bit easier in the conservatory (an advantage of
the West of Scotland's 'tupperware' sky). It involves quite a lot of
fiddling about with white sheets/towels as diffusers and reflectors,
but the quality (after tweaking in Photoshop) is good enough for his
needs (gallery brochures etc.) I'm getting faster now, both in the
taking and the tweaking!
I put the artwork on the floor or a workbench depending on size, and
it's a great use for my Benbo, which otherwise is a PITA.
If you want the highest quality (e.g. for glossy coffee-table art
books) but don't have the equipment, you'll probably have to hire in a
specialist.
Slainte
Liz
--
Virtual Liz: http://www.v-liz.com
Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Seychelles; Galapagos
Photo blog of Make Povery History rally in Edinburgh 2 July 2005:
http://www.v-liz.com/g8rally/protest.htm
Celcius
My wife is an iconograph.
Some of her icons are too large to scan.
I found the best way of photogrphing her icons is outside, in a
semi-shade.
The problem is to line up the lens with the centre of the photograph
and keep a perpendicular line so as not to have parallax.
Marcel
Peter H.M. Brooks
the drawing and then crop it.
Alternatively, if they really are big, you can get special cameras to
take photographs of buildings, from the ground, and get them in good
focus. They aren't cheap.
Another althernative is to square off the icon, take the photographs is
sections and join them together. If you measure the distances carefully,
and, prefereably, use a jig of some sort, you can move the camera
precisely between different sections. Joining it together is now easy
with digital tools.
--
Time comes from the future, which does not yet exist, into the
present, which has no duration, and goes into the past, which has ceased
to exist. - St. Augustine
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Geoff Berrow
Celcius contained the following:
>I found the best way of photogrphing her icons is outside, in a
>semi-shade.
The only problem with that is that colour temperature will be variable.
On sunny days the shade is lit by the blue sky.
>The problem is to line up the lens with the centre of the photograph
>and keep a perpendicular line so as not to have parallax.
and use the longest telephoto you have to avoid barrel distortion.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Peter H.M. Brooks
sound solution,but, if you take the photograph directly you have the
danger of the camera being between the light and the image.
Very, very bright, but diffuse, studio lighting can also work, but you
then have to spend some time desaturating the image back to normal tones.
--
Perfection requires a high tolerance for boredom.
Peter H.M. Brooks
software that comes with canon cameras - is excellent for setting an
appropriate white balance. You take the photographs using the best
lighting you can get (maybe polarized in two planes at right angles)
then you adjust the white balance before merging, adding or subtracting
the images depending on the effect you want - an exclusive or might work
really well with polarizing planes at right angles.
--
Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus - Margaret Thatcher
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
> flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
> the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject. I
> googled for "photographing paintings" and found some useful ideas, but
> it seems that they are mostly pitched at artists who want to photograph
> their own artwork but know nothing about photography.
>
> What I'm after is digital images of the artwork, and I'd like to know if
> anyone here has any experience with this kind of photography. The
> pieces vary in size, but the largest are definitely too large for
> sensible-sized flat-bed scanners.
>
> Any insight would be appreciated - placement of the artwork and camera,
> lighting, software for post-processing, methods, etc. I have access to
> PaintShop 4, 7, and 9, and I have a couple of studio flash heads with a
> selection of accessories. Any recommendations for a camera would be
> appreciated as well, as my current digital camera doesn't have enough
> manual control.
>
'raw'. Then use the manufacturer supplied software to set exactly the
white balance you want and then convert them to tiff, jpg or whatever
suits you.
--
"But God doesn't exist"
"Let's hope so, Let's hope so" - dialogue from Le Fate ignoranti
Geoff Berrow
contained the following:
>Alternatively, if they really are big, you can get special cameras to
>take photographs of buildings, from the ground, and get them in good
>focus. They aren't cheap.
Focus is not the problem, it's parallax. Most 'good' architectural
photography shows buildings having vertical sides. They don't actually
look like that. The secret is to have the lens and film plane vertical.
Trouble is, then the top of the building will be cut off. The trick is
to move the film plane down (or shift the lens up).
Geoff Berrow
Berrow contained the following:
>Focus is not the problem, it's parallax.
duh! I mean, of course, perspective.
Erik A. Mattila
> I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
> flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
> the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject. I
> googled for "photographing paintings" and found some useful ideas, but
> it seems that they are mostly pitched at artists who want to photograph
> their own artwork but know nothing about photography.
>
> What I'm after is digital images of the artwork, and I'd like to know if
> anyone here has any experience with this kind of photography. The
> pieces vary in size, but the largest are definitely too large for
> sensible-sized flat-bed scanners.
>
> Any insight would be appreciated - placement of the artwork and camera,
> lighting, software for post-processing, methods, etc. I have access to
> PaintShop 4, 7, and 9, and I have a couple of studio flash heads with a
> selection of accessories. Any recommendations for a camera would be
> appreciated as well, as my current digital camera doesn't have enough
> manual control.
>
> Thanks in advance,
Steve, use a 50 - 55 mm lense. The painting needs to be hung on the
wall exactly at 90 degrees, and the camera lens needs to be pointed
exactly in the center of the painting, and two photoflood lights need to
be located exactly at 45 degree angles from the center of the work, at
the same level.
Use a wall. Use tape to strike a line on the floor which is
perpendicular to the wall. Use tape to strike two lines on the floor
which are 45 degrees on each side of the perpendicular line.
Center your tripod above the perp. line - you can move it in and out
along the line to adjust for the various sizes of the art. Measure from
the floor up to the center of the painting, and then from the floor up
to the center of your lense, raising or lowering the tripod as needed.
After you have everything positioned, you'll need a hand held light
meter to check for hot spots. You want to take your readings near the
surface of the art, and systematically scan the art and check the light
readings (with the Photofloods on, of course.) If there is a hot spot,
you'll need to tweak the positions of the lights to get rid of it. This
is important, since you can't see the subtle hot spots.
Camera quality is important. Lens barreling will be the big problem,
followed by the problem that most camera's viewfinders do not represent
the true size of the image being photographed. View finders typically
show something like 95% of what will be recorded, or 110%. The only
camera I know or that will give you 100% is a Nikon F series - and the
Nikor 55mm lense will not barrel at the distance you'll be working with.
I'm sure there are others, but you'll be in the high-end camera terrain.
I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
paintings. I also have a Nikon F-3 film camera, and if I wanted to
photograph professionally done images of artwork I would use that. At
this point, since you seem to want to use a digital camera, I would try
to find a camera with the features mentioned above - view finder and
lens barreling. Maybe some folks on this forum can recommend a digital
camera that has these features - but I think you'll get back into the
"professional" grade, rather than the "prosummer" grade such as the 9500.
If you're good at Photoshop, you can procces the image to bring it the
standards you desire. You can straighten out edges and do color
compensation to get a pretty decent representation of your painting.
Liz
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Yes, that's probably the best advice. A good light with no flash is a
> sound solution,but, if you take the photograph directly you have the
> danger of the camera being between the light and the image.
Oh yes.
The advantage of the conservatory is light on three sides, I stand at
the fourth side, if necessary using a white towel in front of me to
get a more 'even' light.
IMC, there is a lens problem, in that photographing rectangular
objects reveals slight pincushioning in my wide-angle film camera lens
and barrelling in my digicam (haven't tried out the 350D yet).
Can be fixed in Photoshop, though, (no geometrical artwork involved)
and I believe CS2 does it even better.
harrogate2
no shadows. Sort the lens out, then hire a ring if necessary (Jessops
may loan you one if they have a s/h in stock) and try it out.
Some years ago I took a load of slides of porcelein for a friend. All
were taken against black velour cloth, with three lights in 12"
reflectors on glazed objects, and ring flash on biscuitware. Worked a
treat.
--
Woody
harrogate2 at ntlworld dot com
radi...@aol.com
SteveR wrote:
> I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but all
> flat things, no sculpture. I do know something about photography, but
> the books I own don't really have much to say about this subject. I
> googled for "photographing paintings" and found some useful ideas, but
> it seems that they are mostly pitched at artists who want to photograph
> their own artwork but know nothing about photography.
>
> What I'm after is digital images of the artwork, and I'd like to know if
> anyone here has any experience with this kind of photography. The
> pieces vary in size, but the largest are definitely too large for
> sensible-sized flat-bed scanners.
>
> Any insight would be appreciated - placement of the artwork and camera,
> lighting, software for post-processing, methods, etc. I have access to
> PaintShop 4, 7, and 9, and I have a couple of studio flash heads with a
> selection of accessories. Any recommendations for a camera would be
> appreciated as well, as my current digital camera doesn't have enough
> manual control.
>
This all depends on how large you will
print these images. 4 Megapixels is only good
up to about 8x10.
Use 500 watt Tungsten lamps, two of them
at 45 degree angles. With vellum sheets over
each of them for diffusing the light. Adjust the
angle if the glare is too much. Make sure you
set your digital camera to "tungsten" for the
white balance.
4 Megapixels is good enough for a website
though:
SteveR
>SteveR wrote:
>> I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but
[snip]
>>doesn't have enough manual control.
>> Thanks in advance,
>
>Steve, use a 50 - 55 mm lense. The painting needs to be hung on the
>wall exactly at 90 degrees, and the camera lens needs to be pointed
>exactly in the center of the painting, and two photoflood lights need
>to be located exactly at 45 degree angles from the center of the work,
>at the same level.
OK, sounds reasonable. This is more or less what I thought - my only
question, given that my aim is to get the pictures onto the Web, is
whether studio flash heads can be used in place of photofloods. (I have
a pair of mains-powered flash heads, but no photofloods. Soft boxes,
brollies, stands, etc. are available.)
>Use a wall. Use tape to strike a line on the floor which is
[snip]
>needed.
>
>After you have everything positioned, you'll need a hand held light
>meter to check for hot spots. You want to take your readings near the
>surface of the art, and systematically scan the art and check the light
>readings (with the Photofloods on, of course.) If there is a hot spot,
>you'll need to tweak the positions of the lights to get rid of it. This
>is important, since you can't see the subtle hot spots.
>
>Camera quality is important. Lens barreling will be the big problem,
>followed by the problem that most camera's viewfinders do not represent
>the true size of the image being photographed. View finders typically
>show something like 95% of what will be recorded, or 110%. The only
>camera I know or that will give you 100% is a Nikon F series - and the
>Nikor 55mm lense will not barrel at the distance you'll be working
>with. I'm sure there are others, but you'll be in the high-end camera
>terrain.
The viewfinder issue is, presumably, a matter of calibration rather than
a catastrophic show-stopper. I could measure the distances once I have
a X sized picture correctly framed, and then scale it up or down to get
to the right distance for a larger or smaller picture. (Well, I would
have thought this would be possible...)
>I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
>paintings.
What is it about that camera that makes you hesitate?
>I also have a Nikon F-3 film camera, and if I wanted to photograph
>professionally done images of artwork I would use that. At this point,
>since you seem to want to use a digital camera,
(my end goal is digital images for use on the Web, so it seemed to me
that digital was the way to start.)
> I would try to find a camera with the features mentioned above - view
>finder and lens barreling. Maybe some folks on this forum can
>recommend a digital camera that has these features - but I think you'll
>get back into the "professional" grade, rather than the "prosummer"
>grade such as the 9500.
A decent digital SLR should be able to take lenses free of barrel and
other distortions (or as free as any lens ever gets), right?
>If you're good at Photoshop, you can procces the image to bring it the
>standards you desire. You can straighten out edges and do color
>compensation to get a pretty decent representation of your painting.
--
Liz
SteveR <dus...@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
>>paintings.
>
> What is it about that camera that makes you hesitate?
>
Its the one I've been using.
Paul Furman
>> I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
>> paintings.
>
>
> What is it about that camera that makes you hesitate?
Lack of dynamic range perhaps if the art is contrasty. Turn down the
contrast, sharpening, saturation if possible and adjust in the computer,
or shoot raw format if that's possible.
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik A. Mattila <e...@nospamimpix.com> writes:
>
>> SteveR wrote:
>>
>>> I'm going to photograph some artwork - there's a mix of media, but
>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> doesn't have enough manual control.
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>>
>> Steve, use a 50 - 55 mm lense. The painting needs to be hung on the
>> wall exactly at 90 degrees, and the camera lens needs to be pointed
>> exactly in the center of the painting, and two photoflood lights need
>> to be located exactly at 45 degree angles from the center of the work,
>> at the same level.
>
>
> OK, sounds reasonable. This is more or less what I thought - my only
> question, given that my aim is to get the pictures onto the Web, is
> whether studio flash heads can be used in place of photofloods. (I have
> a pair of mains-powered flash heads, but no photofloods. Soft boxes,
> brollies, stands, etc. are available.)
But then you'd be unable to scour the surface with a meter looking for
hotspots. Other than that, flashes would be ok. It would be sort of
hit and miss, though.
>
>> Use a wall. Use tape to strike a line on the floor which is
>
>
> [snip]
>
>> needed.
>>
>> After you have everything positioned, you'll need a hand held light
>> meter to check for hot spots. You want to take your readings near the
>> surface of the art, and systematically scan the art and check the
>> light readings (with the Photofloods on, of course.) If there is a
>> hot spot, you'll need to tweak the positions of the lights to get rid
>> of it. This is important, since you can't see the subtle hot spots.
>>
>> Camera quality is important. Lens barreling will be the big problem,
>> followed by the problem that most camera's viewfinders do not
>> represent the true size of the image being photographed. View finders
>> typically show something like 95% of what will be recorded, or 110%.
>> The only camera I know or that will give you 100% is a Nikon F series
>> - and the Nikor 55mm lense will not barrel at the distance you'll be
>> working with. I'm sure there are others, but you'll be in the
>> high-end camera terrain.
>
>
> The viewfinder issue is, presumably, a matter of calibration rather than
> a catastrophic show-stopper. I could measure the distances once I have
> a X sized picture correctly framed, and then scale it up or down to get
> to the right distance for a larger or smaller picture. (Well, I would
> have thought this would be possible...)
Sure, you can compensate, and it really is only an issue if you're
making slides.
>
>> I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
>> paintings.
>
>
> What is it about that camera that makes you hesitate?
Primarily lens barreling.
>
>> I also have a Nikon F-3 film camera, and if I wanted to photograph
>> professionally done images of artwork I would use that. At this
>> point, since you seem to want to use a digital camera,
>
>
> (my end goal is digital images for use on the Web, so it seemed to me
> that digital was the way to start.)
>
>> I would try to find a camera with the features mentioned above - view
>> finder and lens barreling. Maybe some folks on this forum can
>> recommend a digital camera that has these features - but I think
>> you'll get back into the "professional" grade, rather than the
>> "prosummer" grade such as the 9500.
>
>
> A decent digital SLR should be able to take lenses free of barrel and
> other distortions (or as free as any lens ever gets), right?
Absolutely. I wouldn't be surprised if I could plug my F-3 55mm into a
new Nikon Digital SLR with some clever adaptor.
b.ing...@shaw.ca
specialty equipment,
lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc."
This is absolutely true if the client, who could be the photographer
himself/herself, demands nothing but perfection. On the other hand, any
reasonably talented amateur can take good photographs of
two-dimensional art, even behind glass, with a bit of knowledge and
care. I made a lot of money for some 10 years with my own general
photography studio, a good deal of it by photographing paintings for
artists. Some of the tricks I used:
-- Softboxes/umbrellas with electronic flash at approximately 45-degree
angles to the lens axis.
-- A large sheet of black foamcore mounting board with a hole cut in
the middle for the camera lens. This reduces reflections in the glass
of framed prints simply by covering up most of the camera, the tripod
and the photographer.
-- Black cloth to drape over miscellaneous items that might cause
reflections in glass of framed prints.
-- Incident flash meter to check exposure, vital for even lighting of
large works and for correct exposure of small works.
-- An easy-to-adjust-tripod to center the camera and assure that the
film plane is parallel with the work of art. (This is the toughest
part, but doable, assuming requirements are not critical.)
I never used polarizing filters -- too expensive.
The poor man's set-up requires only a decent tripod, something to prop
the art on, and natural light. Bright sunlight works beautifully, but
I've also gotten nice copies in open shade and on days with a solid
overcast. The worst is when pretty white clouds are sailing across the
sky; the exposure changes every second or two.
Bob
radi...@aol.com
Oh, and i forgot to mention the black felt
nailed to the wall you will use, so that you get
a nice black background. Black velvet will work
too.
If you really, REALLY want to do this
at publication quality, get a 4x5 large format
camera. A Crown Graphic with minimal
"movements" (for making building edges
vertical, as the other poster mentioned),
because you don't need movements when
you're just photographing a 2-D painting.
Shoot with the same Tungsten photo
floods, and use 64T tungsten chrome film,
which is not a negative, but a positive, like
slides, except this will be 4x5 inches! Huge!
But perfect for drum scanning, or any other
type of high resolution scanner (Epson makes
some good ones), so that you can get then into
Photoshop and manipulate.
Then you can make Giclees, posters, or
any other type of enlargement, and still retain
lots of detail..
Liz
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
Why wouldn't it be possible?
(Oh, apart from only having a very small CF card)
dadiOH
> OK, sounds reasonable. This is more or less what I thought - my only
> question, given that my aim is to get the pictures onto the Web, is
> whether studio flash heads can be used in place of photofloods.
Sure, you can use flash...light is light. Where the photos are destined
to be displayed doesn't matter one whit.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Paul Furman
> In message <76WdnSfY5ra...@speakeasy.net>
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>SteveR wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I have a Nikon 5700 digital camera, and I would hesitate to use it for
>>>>paintings.
>>>
>>>
>>>What is it about that camera that makes you hesitate?
>>
>>
>>Lack of dynamic range perhaps if the art is contrasty. Turn down the
>>contrast, sharpening, saturation if possible and adjust in the computer,
>>or shoot raw format if that's possible.
>
>
> Why wouldn't it be possible?
> (Oh, apart from only having a very small CF card)
I don't know that camera, just suggesting things that might be a
problem. I know that it's a challenge to maintain the contrast &
saturation when duplicating slides.
dadiOH
> Steve, use a 50 - 55 mm lense.
Nothing exactly wrong with that but a longer one can make life easier.
_______________
> The painting needs to be hung on the
> wall exactly at 90 degrees, and the camera lens needs to be pointed
> exactly in the center of the painting, and two photoflood lights need
> to be located exactly at 45 degree angles from the center of the
> work, at the same level.
The precise angle of the lights to the subject isn't critical. What is
critical is that they do not cause reflections of the light when viewed
from the camera position.
Additionally, the lights need to be at a distance sufficient to evenly
illuminate the subject in both dimensions; the farther the lights are
from the subject, the easier that becomes (inverse square law).
___________________
> After you have everything positioned, you'll need a hand held light
> meter to check for hot spots. You want to take your readings near the
> surface of the art, and systematically scan the art and check the
> light readings (with the Photofloods on, of course.) If there is a
> hot spot, you'll need to tweak the positions of the lights to get rid
> of it. This is important, since you can't see the subtle hot spots.
Yes, you can see them...if you hold a ruler or pencil perpendicular to
the art and observe the shadows. With two lights there will be two
shadows and the goal is to have them visually equal. That is most
easily achieved by feathering the lights toward the far side of the art
or by having them at considerable distance thereto.
____________________
> Camera quality is important. Lens barreling will be the big problem,
Longer lens
dadiOH
> This is an ideal situation for a ring flash. It gives good light and
> no shadows.
A ring light is about the worst thing that could be used...it will
bounce all sorts of speculars back to the camera.
dadiOH
> SteveR wrote:
>> OK, sounds reasonable. This is more or less what I thought - my only
>> question, given that my aim is to get the pictures onto the Web, is
>> whether studio flash heads can be used in place of photofloods. (I
>> have a pair of mains-powered flash heads, but no photofloods. Soft
>> boxes, brollies, stands, etc. are available.)
>
> But then you'd be unable to scour the surface with a meter looking for
> hotspots. Other than that, flashes would be ok. It would be sort of
> hit and miss, though.
Studio flash units have modeling lights.
SteveR
>Mani Deli said, "Photographing paintings is a profession requiring
>specialty equipment,
>lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc."
>
>This is absolutely true if the client, who could be the photographer
[snip]
>artists. Some of the tricks I used:
>
>-- Softboxes/umbrellas with electronic flash at approximately 45-degree
>angles to the lens axis.
Yes, I have this gear.
>-- A large sheet of black foamcore mounting board with a hole cut in
>the middle for the camera lens. This reduces reflections in the glass
>of framed prints simply by covering up most of the camera, the tripod
>and the photographer.
Ah, yes. I had overlooked that. Thanks.
>-- Black cloth to drape over miscellaneous items that might cause
>reflections in glass of framed prints.
>
>-- Incident flash meter to check exposure, vital for even lighting of
>large works and for correct exposure of small works.
I have one of these, and was planning to use it.
>-- An easy-to-adjust-tripod to center the camera and assure that the
>film plane is parallel with the work of art. (This is the toughest
>part, but doable, assuming requirements are not critical.)
I wouldn't have dreamt of doing it any other way but on a tripod, and
not a Benbo / Uniloc either. (My wife described my Uniloc 1700 as being
like a mutant octopus...)
>I never used polarizing filters -- too expensive.
>
>The poor man's set-up requires only a decent tripod, something to prop
>the art on, and natural light. Bright sunlight works beautifully, but
>I've also gotten nice copies in open shade and on days with a solid
>overcast. The worst is when pretty white clouds are sailing across the
>sky; the exposure changes every second or two.
Ick! :)
SteveR
>SteveR wrote:
>> Erik A. Mattila <e...@nospamimpix.com> writes:
>>
>>> SteveR wrote:
[snip good advice]
Thanks for all the good advice - very useful.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> SteveR wrote:
>
>>> wall exactly at 90 degrees, and the camera lens needs to be pointed
>>> exactly in the center of the painting, and two photoflood lights need
>>> to be located exactly at 45 degree angles from the center of the
>>> work, at the same level.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, sounds reasonable. This is more or less what I thought - my only
>> question, given that my aim is to get the pictures onto the Web, is
>> whether studio flash heads can be used in place of photofloods. (I
>> have a pair of mains-powered flash heads, but no photofloods. Soft
>> boxes, brollies, stands, etc. are available.)
>
>
> But then you'd be unable to scour the surface with a meter looking for
> hotspots. Other than that, flashes would be ok. It would be sort of
> hit and miss, though.
>
photograph that using exactly the same lighting as with the photograph.
Then you can use that photograph as your white balance - it will
automatically compensate for any hotspots.
--
A young lady who faints, must be recovered; questions must be
answered, and surprizes be explained. Such events are very interesting,
but the suspense of them cannot last long. A few minutes made Emma
acquainted with the whole. - Emma, Jane Austen
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Mani Deli said, "Photographing paintings is a profession requiring
> specialty equipment,
> lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc."
>
> This is absolutely true
>
Mani knows nothing about is the difference between polarizing and
polaroids. His most recent howler was to try to suggest that a
polarizing filter was 'polaroid'. Of course what he is thinking (If you
can call his little muddle that) is that the brand name 'Polaroid' was,
and is, given to some polarizing sunglasses. The 'Polaroid' instant film
system has nothing to do with this, of course.
--
Plebvision doesn't give you experiences - it takes them away from you
- paraphrase from "Get a Life!" by David Rurke and Jean Lotus, White Dot
David Kilpatrick
> b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>> Mani Deli said, "Photographing paintings is a profession requiring
>> specialty equipment,
>> lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc."
>>
>> This is absolutely true
>
> >
> As we have already had pointed out, one of the many, many things poor
> Mani knows nothing about is the difference between polarizing and
> polaroids. His most recent howler was to try to suggest that a
> polarizing filter was 'polaroid'. Of course what he is thinking (If you
> can call his little muddle that) is that the brand name 'Polaroid' was,
> and is, given to some polarizing sunglasses. The 'Polaroid' instant film
> system has nothing to do with this, of course.
>
Very true, except for Edwin Land, whose company was named for the
material used for polarizing sunspecs and plastic polarizers, and in due
course most camera polarizers and all lighting pola gels. I know plenty
of professional photographers who refer to all kinds of items by
incorrect names they half-learned as assistants and have never been
corrected on.
It's not as bad as a chart-topping song which managed to describe
instant photos as 'instamatics', but I think that was Peter Andre, which
makes it excusable.
David
David Kilpatrick
> b.ing...@shaw.ca wrote:
>
>> Mani Deli said, "Photographing paintings is a profession requiring
>> specialty equipment,
>> lenses , crossed Polaroids. parallel easels etc."
>>
>> This is absolutely true
>
> >
> As we have already had pointed out, one of the many, many things poor
> Mani knows nothing about is the difference between polarizing and
> polaroids. His most recent howler was to try to suggest that a
> polarizing filter was 'polaroid'. Of course what he is thinking (If you
> can call his little muddle that) is that the brand name 'Polaroid' was,
> and is, given to some polarizing sunglasses. The 'Polaroid' instant film
> system has nothing to do with this, of course.
>
Very true, except for Edwin Land, whose company was named for the
Michael J Davis
>>
>As I said, don't use the camera control at all. Take the photographs
>'raw'. Then use the manufacturer supplied software to set exactly the
>white balance you want and then convert them to tiff, jpg or whatever
>suits you.
Include some neutral 'grey' card at the edge so that you can balance
that to neutral.
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
<><
Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
<><
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> observed
>
>>>
>> As I said, don't use the camera control at all. Take the photographs
>> 'raw'. Then use the manufacturer supplied software to set exactly the
>> white balance you want and then convert them to tiff, jpg or whatever
>> suits you.
>
>
> Include some neutral 'grey' card at the edge so that you can balance
> that to neutral.
>
this purpose.
I find it quite impressive that people can make money by selling grey
cards, but then quite a few things impress me.
--
Now the chapter I was obliged to tear out, was the description of this
cavalcade, in which Corporal Trim and Obadiah, upon two coach-horses
a-breast, led the way as slow as a patrole--whilst my uncle Toby, in his
laced regimentals and tye-wig, kept his rank with my father, in deep
roads and dissertations alternately upon the advantage of learning and
arms, as each could get the start.- Tristam Shandy Chapter 2.LX Laurence
Sterne
Mark Dunn
grey, or reddish grey, or bluish grey, just grey and of 18% reflectance. And
they're only a tenner or so a pair, IIRC.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:dp4dsa$fig$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...