who's shooting fine art repros with lights?

my old setup from years ago involved halogens each side at 45d to the center, each light polarized with gels. right now i've just been shooting down and dirty with natural light (mostly) just to get some images quickly for my website (hooray for digital photography and PP software! i can only sigh when i think of the bad old days....). but i need to soon do this in a more exacting way.

now i've got a couple of 400 watt D-Lites and softboxes, and i'm wondering about the polarization. i'm also wondering about diffuser panels---if i need them. there's another thread here that became active again that's a product shoot by a Russian guy named Alex (i think he's Russian...), and the softer results of the highlights intrigued me when he used the diffuser panels with the softboxes. i've also got a Metz 58AF and Elinchrom triggers, so i could add that in if necessary. (and i've also got a larger cold light in a Starlight head, but no box for it. i'd have to add another or do a DIY thing, which i could manage)

the thing is, the work i'm doing that's really matte (like pastels, charcoals, etc...) are obviously no problem. but the paintings i'm working on now are pretty juicy (for me) and have a lot of gloss. so, i'm out to reduce/eliminate those glossy highlights for the repros. glossy paintings are devils, especially when the surface is not smooth. these paintings currently go up to 60"x60", and there will be some larger ones soon.

looking forward to hearing your advice on this problem, especially the reduction of hot highlights by using the diffuser panels, or something else.

Cross polarization, as you did back then, extincts the glossy highlights while using diffusion panels and not polarizing simply increases the size of the highlights. I think that a general rule is not justifiable as the result is also a matter of (the artist's?) taste.
--
cheers, Peter
Germany

For large acrylic paintings we use 4 Totalights at 45 degrees. Each gelled with a polarizing gel - 15" and a P. on the lens.

have you ever used polarizers with a softbox and/or diff. screen (polarizer between box and/or screen and the object)?

maybe i need to think about DIY cold light strips.....

4 lights give you 4 shadows...no good.

nada

tex said:

have you ever used polarizers with a softbox and/or diff. screen (polarizer between box and/or screen and the object)?

Click to expand...

May I came in to make a comment here.... ?

There really isn't much point in using softboxes or diffusers if you are going to remove the highlights with cross polarisation. In fact, with no glare or highlights to worry about, you can use smaller lights and have smaller (cheaper) pola screens on them.

I use cross polarisation for artwork copying, and use general purpose reflectors of 10" diameter.. but then, I don't actually have any smaller than that.

Also, smaller lights can be brought closer to the lens axis without their reflections falling on the surface to even need suppression with polarisation. Having the lights more square-on makes them easier to get even in illumination...

... as does turning the artwork through 90° so that the lights approach across the artwork's longer dimension, instead of along it.
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Bimthecat said:

4 lights give you 4 shadows...no good.

Click to expand...

How's he gonna get shadows on a flat surface?
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

tex said:

have you ever used polarizers with a softbox and/or diff. screen (polarizer between box and/or screen and the object)?

Click to expand...

Yep, on 2m long strip lights (in fact these are linear lights, like Profoto's Striplight L). I cut and stacked sheet material as the roll material is pretty expensive.
This tool helps to align them correctly:
http://store.rmimaging.com/polarizer-alignment-card.aspx
JFYI, have a look at Northlight which sell narrow banks for art repro work:
http://www.northlightproducts.com/html/copy_lights.html
--
cheers, Peter
Germany

those cards look cool, and affordable, too. those lights----well, lets just say i might study them closely, very closely, for my DIY project :-} their price nearly made me choke. although that last setup sure looked sweet. sigh....

tex said:

those cards look cool, and affordable, too. those lights----well, lets just say i might study them closely, very closely, for my DIY project :-} their price nearly made me choke. although that last setup sure looked sweet. sigh....

Click to expand...

Your D-Lites are very good second best. Treat yourself to a pair of bowl-shaped reflectors.. a general purpose type is probably just the thing.

[That allignment card looks pretty clever. I've never seen those before....]

-
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

Barrie Davis said:

tex said:

have you ever used polarizers with a softbox and/or diff. screen (polarizer between box and/or screen and the object)?

Click to expand...

May I came in to make a comment here.... ?

There really isn't much point in using softboxes or diffusers if you are going to remove the highlights with cross polarisation. In fact, with no glare or highlights to worry about, you can use smaller lights and have smaller (cheaper) pola screens on them.

Click to expand...

May I make a comment here?

I use light size to control the texture of the image. Even if the polarizers kill the glare, small lights emphasize paper or canvas texture, and brush strokes on canvas. The "ridges" in the paint cast shadows, and a painting often takes on several different appearances as you change the angle of the light.

If the goal is art that will be printed on something textured, an inkjet print on watercolor paper or canvas, I try to kill the texture of the shot, with big soft boxes so that there won't be two canvas textures, one from the one the original is painted on, one from the canvas the repro is printed on.

If the goal is a smooth poster or book, I like to work with the artist to see how much texture they want to show.

Barrie Davis said:

I use cross polarisation for artwork copying, and use general purpose reflectors of 10" diameter.. but then, I don't actually have any smaller than that.

Also, smaller lights can be brought closer to the lens axis without their reflections falling on the surface to even need suppression with polarisation. Having the lights more square-on makes them easier to get even in illumination...

... as does turning the artwork through 90° so that the lights approach across the artwork's longer dimension, instead of along it.

Click to expand...

But then you get sinister lighting, LOL!

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

You've been "bimmed". He swoops in, sprays incorrect information, and leaves. Years and years of it, for no purpose, never tiring, like the energizer bunny, except he's a cat.

4 light copy setups have been an industry standard for decades. Rather than give you four shadows, they eliminate shadows.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

tex said:

maybe i need to think about DIY cold light strips.....

Click to expand...

Philips CRI 98 fluorescent lights are a wonderful tool for this kind of work. The T8 tubes come in 18", 2, 3, and 4 foot lengths. Four 4' 32W tubes in a lightweight reflector, one on each side of the artwork, will give you roughly the equivalent power of 1000W of halogen, but a lot less heat, and a nice 5500K color temperature, which is easier to work with than a Halogen 3200K.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Barrie Davis said:

tex said:

have you ever used polarizers with a softbox and/or diff. screen (polarizer between box and/or screen and the object)?

Click to expand...

May I came in to make a comment here.... ?

There really isn't much point in using softboxes or diffusers if you are going to remove the highlights with cross polarisation. In fact, with no glare or highlights to worry about, you can use smaller lights and have smaller (cheaper) pola screens on them.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

May I make a comment here?

I use light size to control the texture of the image. Even if the polarizers kill the glare, small lights emphasize paper or canvas texture, and brush strokes on canvas. The "ridges" in the paint cast shadows, and a painting often takes on several different appearances as you change the angle of the light.

Click to expand...

Hmm... I can't really go along with that. My experience is different.

Once you have killed the highlights the possibility of shadows revealing texture is pretty damn skinny... and with flat reproductions there is no chance whatsoever.

Even a heavy impasto technique in oils or acrylic, say, modelling that's 3/8ths of an inch deep, pretty much disappears by the time you have taken the gloss off it, certainly with the 10" lamps I have used at or around 8 feet distance for large canvases where the technique is usually applied....

--(I'm thinking of the work of Jason Monet with which I am familiar...his early stuff was amongst the lumpiest paintings I ever saw.. all very "sculptural.")--

I find conventional 45° lighting slides down the slopes of paint mounds like those without yielding a shadow that actually "falls" on anything. Making the light more oblique than 45° would generate shadows with such a 3-dimensional impasto technique, but those shadows would then impose a secondary tonal structure over the original painted one... so I don't think that's a particularly good idea, and would avoid doing it...

... except maybe as close-up section specifically showing the artist's technique rather than the picture itself. That close up would probably be better made with the polas backed off to let some gloss reinforce the texture, thereby giving the shadows some context.

This is my opinion. Please note that it is not often I disagree with your opinions, Joe.

In any event, the OP's subject matter is just reproductions, apparently free of texture, so he can use any size lights without worrying about shadows...

... and without worrying about highlights because of the crossed polas.

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

... as does turning the artwork through 90° so that the lights approach across the artwork's longer dimension, instead of along it.

Click to expand...

But then you get sinister lighting, LOL!

Click to expand...

Huh? Sinister? Left handed? Sorry. Don't know what you are getting at, there. :-|
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

With a 4 light setup, you just have to carefully meter with a hand held meter to insure the light is absolutely even across the entire surface - no hot spots toward the center of the artwork and no fall-off toward the edges. This means the same fstop across each every square inch of the surface.
--
http://chkphotography.zenfolio.com/

chkproductions said:

With a 4 light setup, you just have to carefully meter with a hand held meter to insure the light is absolutely even across the entire surface - no hot spots toward the center of the artwork and no fall-off toward the edges. This means the same fstop across each every square inch of the surface.

Click to expand...

One would be endevouring to get even-ness across the whole surface no matter how many lights were used. (All at the same 1/10 f-stop if using a flashmeter, for instance.)
--
Regards,
Baz

"Ahh... But the thing is, they were not just ORDINARY time travellers!"

nada

Joseph S Wisniewski said:

4 light copy setups have been an industry standard for decades. Rather than give you four shadows, they eliminate shadows.

Click to expand...

that's what i thought----i've used them, which is why i asked for a clarification. so, now on the ignore list, thanks again!