Photographing art?

I've been having artists come to me wanting captures and reproduction work done. Things are going fine, but it's not within my area of expertise. Seems like I'm doing more work than is required at times. Are there any good publications, forums or associations out there on the subject? I've got the proper copy stands, profiled meters, polarized lights (oil work) and using a D3X but there's more to this than the basic gear....

Thanks,
Shaun

Sounds like your equipment is fine.

Check to make sure you are:

1. Setting up your lights at a 45 degree angle to the art/camera and setting them back far enough as to not get any light hitting your lens?

2. Checking light readings in each corner and in the center of the art and making certain exposure does not vary by more than 1/3rd stop or less?

3. Using polarizers on your lights as well as on the lens?

4. Exposing properly?

5. Taking art out of the frame so as not to cast shadows on the art (assuming the artist does not want the frame included)? Also, if they don't want the frame included, insist on THEM taking the frame off to avoid liability for any damage that may occur.

You say you feel you are working too hard at this. Can you be more specific as to your concerns?

For flat art, to you have macro lens?

Shaun Bell said:

I've been having artists come to me wanting captures and reproduction
work done. Things are going fine, but it's not within my area of
expertise. Seems like I'm doing more work than is required at times.
Are there any good publications, forums or associations out there on
the subject? I've got the proper copy stands, profiled meters,
polarized lights (oil work) and using a D3X but there's more to this
than the basic gear....

Thanks,
Shaun

Click to expand...

I'm finding it very difficult getting all the colors correct. I'm shooting a grey card and a sekonic grey patch calibration chart for both WB and exposure. Exposure is fine with the profiled Sekonic 758DR. But the color is off at times. I can get all my grey patch's balanced but still have colors not reproduce well. It's not like these painters will be fooled either, they know their colors lol. Starting to think it's a problem with how the camera captures some of the colors. Maybe I need to profile the D3X. Any ideas?

Thanks,
Shaun

I have a Nikon 200mmF4 Mirco, but the working distance is less than idea. I've been using a 50mm 1.4 set at 5.6.

Shaun

Have you profiled your camera?

Shaun Bell said:

Maybe I need to profile the D3X. Any ideas?

Click to expand...

--

Indeed, step one is to have the proper color profiles in place throughout the system: camera, monitor, and printer(s) and to make sure you are using the appropriate color space settings.

You did not indicate what your light source is for the art copying. If you are using electronic flash and the bulbs do not have anti-UV coating, it could be ultraviolet light interacting with the dyes and pigments. It will not affect grays but will affect colors.

Go outside on a clear sunny day and shoot your color chart with a UV filter on and off. See if there is a difference between the two shots. It there is you have a UV reaction. Try the UV filter on and off your lens for some test copies under your copy light source. See if there is a difference. I suspect there will be.

But do get your color profiling in order if you are going to do a lot of that kind of work. It will save you a lot of time in Post processing.

Weisgrau

http://www.weisgrau.com
http://www.photowitness.com
http://www.g10shooters.info

Park Street said:

Have you profiled your camera?

Click to expand...

What does that mean?

SRGB vs. Adobe???

Both are useless unless you shoot RAW to get the most.

============

I'm using Photogenic Solair's (UV filtered). As for profiling, I'm using Spider 3 Studio edition for profiling monitors and custom profiling my Breathing Color canvas. I guess the next step is to calibrate my camera. I've got Monaco Easy Color 2.6, I'll give it a try.

Thanks,
Shaun

WBirch said:

Park Street said:

Have you profiled your camera?

Click to expand...

What does that mean?

SRGB vs. Adobe???

Both are useless unless you shoot RAW to get the most.

============

Click to expand...

Far be it for me to claim to be a digital color guru but there is software that allows you to profile your camera in the same way as you can profile your monitor, printer or projector. You use a Gretag Macbeth Color Checker take a shot of it under the lighting you normally use and then use the software to create a custom profile. You then load that profile and use it in Camera Raw to do your conversion.

Here are a couple of sites that may give you an idea of how.

http://www.pictocolor.com/incamera.htm
http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/tools/20020425_incamera.html

It can get you as close to an accurate color pallet as is possible with that camera/sensor. I believe that like using film it is simply impossible to get an exact duplicate of most artwork. You just get as close as possible.

Now I will sit back and let all the gurus out there tear apart my explanation.

I'm on it lol. I just can't find my Gretag Macbeth Color Checker! Funny how when you need something it goes missing.

Shaun

Park Street said:

WBirch said:

Park Street said:

Have you profiled your camera?

Click to expand...

What does that mean?

SRGB vs. Adobe???

Both are useless unless you shoot RAW to get the most.

============

Click to expand...

Far be it for me to claim to be a digital color guru but there is
software that allows you to profile your camera in the same way as
you can profile your monitor, printer or projector. You use a Gretag
Macbeth Color Checker take a shot of it under the lighting you
normally use and then use the software to create a custom profile.
You then load that profile and use it in Camera Raw to do your
conversion.

Click to expand...

I never did this (use a gretag) and I print professionally. For money.
I'm the guru of nothing, btw.

==================

Hi There,

I now work full time as a Museum photographer.

I never use a polarizer for photographing art work.

By polarizing, you are changing the colors of the art work and pumping up the contrast...

Also, from memory, a polarizer on the lense, gives the best result when placed at 45 degres of the object that you are photographing. But for painting you usually try to be full frontal with the art work, so whats the point of a polarizer?

And I use a color chartre from Kodak that I place under every object that I photograph, makes it easier to adjust on your computer or the printer.

It's not rocket sience, just take your time when you shoot, it will save you time and eadech on the post processing side of it.

There is another thread somewhere on this forum about photographing 2 dimension art works, with some good advice on it.

Try to find it, maybe you will find something that will fit in your workflow in it.

Have a nice day,
Negus

Negus said:

Hi There,

I now work full time as a Museum photographer.

Click to expand...

Then you should learn to use polarised light for shooting flat artworks, especially oil paintings. A great deal more detail is made available in the shadow zones when surface flare is eradicated, and nothing does it so well as CROSS POLARISING

Negus said:

I never use a polarizer for photographing art work.

Click to expand...

Then I think you should update your methods and learn how to do cross polarising as a matter of urgency. I doubt you will ever go back after you have seen what it can do.

Negus said:

By polarizing, you are changing the colors of the art work and
pumping up the contrast...

Click to expand...

Colours are not changed by polarising.

Contrast can rise when flare is removed by cross polarising, but that is a separate issue with separate solutions. When you have got an image with maximum detail throughout the tonal range, including right down into the bottom of the shadows, then you have got data that can be contrast modified/controlled to very fine degrees at the file preparation stage.

Note: Usually it isn't necessary to make any changes in contrast for jobs going to printed matter, because replacement flare from the print medium's own surface replaces that of the original painting, INSTEAD of ADDING to it and making a double dose.

Negus said:

Also, from memory, a polarizer on the lense, gives the best result
when placed at 45 degres of the object that you are photographing.

Click to expand...

Actually the most efficient angle is 30 degreees for a single polariser.....

.... but we aren't talking about a single polariser on the lens, but double polarising with pola screens over the lights AND a pola filter on the lens. They are set up so that the camera pola "crosses" with the lighting filters.

Negus said:

But for painting you usually try to be full frontal with the art
work,

Click to expand...

The camera should be precision alligned at 90 degrees to the surface, something which can be ascertained with a mirror placed in the middle of the artwork. When the mirror appears in the middle of the focusing screen of the camera....

... and the lens of the camera itself appears in the middle of the mirror....

... then you are precisely set up with the lens axis normal to the painting surface.

Negus said:

so whats the point of a polarizer?

Click to expand...

....(see above about revelation of full shadow detail)...

Negus said:

And I use a color chartre from Kodak that I place under every object
that I photograph, makes it easier to adjust on your computer or the
printer.

Click to expand...

Yes, a colour reference in the shot is no bad thing.. certainly you should continue to include one.

Negus said:

It's not rocket sience, just take your time when you shoot, it will
save you time and eadech on the post processing side of it.

Click to expand...

Yes, it isn't rocket science... but there is a bit more to it than you thought!! ;-)

Final point: Double polarising technique (cross polarising) makes a DRAMATIC improvement in quality obtained from shooting paintings, especially old ones with lots of dark shadows and dingy varnish on the surface.

Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that anyone not fully cogniscent with the double polarising method for copying has a most important part of the job still to learn.... and if that person is actually being PAID to do copying jobs, then they should learn how to do it as quickly as possible.

Seriously... you owe this much to the people employing you.
--
Regards,
Baz

I haven't used a polarizing filter in digital for 10 years!

Wrong reply to, I think?

Have a nice day.

=================

Negus said:

Hi There,

I now work full time as a Museum photographer.

I never use a polarizer for photographing art work.
By polarizing, you are changing the colors of the art work and
pumping up the contrast...
Also, from memory, a polarizer on the lense, gives the best result
when placed at 45 degres of the object that you are photographing.
But for painting you usually try to be full frontal with the art
work, so whats the point of a polarizer?

And I use a color chartre from Kodak that I place under every object
that I photograph, makes it easier to adjust on your computer or the
printer.

It's not rocket sience, just take your time when you shoot, it will
save you time and eadech on the post processing side of it.

There is another thread somewhere on this forum about photographing 2
dimension art works, with some good advice on it.
Try to find it, maybe you will find something that will fit in your
workflow in it.

Have a nice day,
Negus

--

Click to expand...

Barrie Davis said:

Then you should learn to use polarised light for shooting flat
artworks, especially oil paintings.

Click to expand...

What about Acrylic paintings, Barrie?

WBirch said:

Barrie Davis said:

Then you should learn to use polarised light for shooting flat
artworks, especially oil paintings.

Click to expand...

What about Acrylic paintings, Barrie?

Click to expand...

Same treatment as oil paintings... because Acrylic paint used squidgy is still much the same thing. Indeed, even water colours are improved in a worthwile manner with cross polarising.

Cross polarising is also used routinely in almost all professional copy studios recording brochures leaflets and other printed matter, etc.... the more natural gleam there is on the paper, the more improvement from cross polarising.

Q: Is there anything that doesn't respond well to the cross polarising technique?
A: Yes. Metals and metalic inks are a problem when incorporated into paintings.

Straight polarising (single filter on the lens) has no effect on shiny metals, and very little effect on metalic inks.

However, double or cross polarising has a serious effect on metalics... they turn a very dark nasty sort of purple colour, that isn't what we want at all!!

It is caused by ultra-short wavelength light rays, the violet ones, being both titchy enough to wriggle through both crystal lattices in the respective filters, and still be sufficient in number, because metalic reflections are so strong, to show blue instead of black when they get through to the camera.

Yes, it is only when I have metalics to deal with I give up on polarising...

..... or at least, on film I used to give up. These days it isn't too hard to shoot a with-and-without-pola set of registered images, and just paste the bright metal parts across, or reveal them from a sub-layer......

Hey! Isn't digital wonderful?
--
Regards,
Baz