Photographing your artwork in the digital age.
 

I had had all my work photographed for my portrait portfolio, by a professional using a 4x5 camera with the attendant polarizers on both the lenses and the camera. The results were of course, terrific. The gentleman, I used has since retired. I have been doing my own as of late, but since they are pastels, they are much easier to photograph than oils.

This past two weeks, I have been trying to photograph my latest oil, a painting, that is my usual billboard size 69 1/2" x55". The color seems rather dull. During the dinner at the portrait convention, last spring, Dean Paules, allowed that he photographed all his own work, with a standard SLR and Portra NC film. I have used variously, Fuji Reala, Portra NC and Portra UC.

Another photographer, I know, photographed my work with the new Nikon/Kodak 14000 megapixel camera. The color was lovely, but since he neglected a polarizer there was a lot of glare. He said the photo angle of the lights at 45% would solve the problem of glare, it didn't. I can shoot without glare using a polarizer and judiciously placed black velvet cloth. I shoot at midday, in my southeastern exposure studio, with large picture windows and trees, unfortunately only 35' away. I have shot figures in that same room and have gotten lovely color.

The last shots I took were the best, Portra NC, not world beaters however.

What digital cameras seem to work the best? Do you use polarizers? Should I have it re-shot with the Kodak/Nikon with polarizers or is 14000 megapixel over kill?

Help!

Me too
 

Me too, I have the same problems. I see you posted this some time ago. I just wanted to know how that worked out for you and if you have solved these problems? Could you explain what a polarizer is? I know these were your questions, but the post was some time ago so maybe you could share what you found out.

Thanks Rick .

I attended a workshop for photographing your artwork, even with glare from the varnish. The method is to place your painting against a black velvet (cotton) fabric and take it outside in FULL SUN either midmorning or midafternoon. Place your painting at an angle directly facing the sun (that's why the time frame of midmorning or afternoon, lower sun angle) and line up your camera directly facing your painting, same angle.

I have tried it and it has worked for me using Fuji-Chrome and 100 speed color print film. I have tried it with my Nikon D70 and was pleased although the sun was a bit shaded. I believe that if I had used full sun I would have been happier.

The main drawback is you have to wait for a sunny day.

The workshop also said if you must shoot on a cloudy day to place your lights at 45 degree angles (2 lights). I've had relative success this way as well.

Hope this helps. If anyone has any further suggestions I would love to see them, too.

Glare Solvers
 

I have tried polarizers - didn't work well for me. I still got lots of glare.

I learned that if I bounce my lights off my ceiling and use lots of lights (continuous lights - tungsten, with tungsten slide film - Kodak Ektachrome 64T), I get good results. But it only works well for me in one room in my house that has a ceiling with a high slope - I tried it in a standard 8 foot ceiling room with poorer results. I also have light colored walls and floors, which helps bounce the light around some. For a large painting, my concern would be lighting the artwork evenly. If the art were a vertical piece, I would lay it on its side to get evener coverage.

Others have mentioned shooting their works under skylights.

I have also paid a professional to use his digital camera to take photos to put on a CD. He had an 11 pixel Canon, forget what make. He took them in his studio, but I don't know what he used as far as lighting. They came out fine.

Sharon I am not sure what kind of camera you are talking about, but was it a back for a large format film camera that connects to a computer?

Kodak has a new camera back that is 16 megapixels.

I do think it is a function of light while copying work. I would love to know how your retired pro shot your big paintings (if oils). It seems to be a law of equals, levels and balance. I certainly haven't figured out how to do it.

My guy showed me how to put them up on a perfectly square wall, leveled - camera dead center on the support - leveled, lights on both sides, equal distance, height from the painting and the camera, then there is the dastardly gray card. Too much for me, I am sending all of mine to Mike.

Elizabeth,
I rely on my grey card. It's the best tool in my bag when accompanied with my light meter.

Shoot at an Angle! (No Kidding.)
 

Don't laugh, but to avoid all glare, I shoot my paintings at an angle! This gives them terrible keystoning and perspective issues, but........

Don't worry, because this is not hard to fix and restore in Photoshop! This may not be for everyone, but it works for me. Virtually every 2D work I've posted was shot at an angle!

Just my two cents,

Garth

For many years I used natural sunlight, and used daylight film (5500K) and which needs to be shot about 10 am or 2 am-it works here in AZ where there is never anyhting but a clear sky.

After writing my book ( I was virtually forced into a Tungsten light set up, and I have to say they were right.)..regardless of whether you are going to shoot under natural or artificial light, you will need to control both the Kelvin temps and the angle of the light. Varnish creates glare.

I have really found that tungsten light results in wonderful color and consistent results. The more varnish-glare, the more obliquely you need to set up your light source angle.

I think that there are probably some filters that can help but that is more technology than I want at the moment

Hi,

The pro used properly angled strobes and 4x5 film.

I have been photographing inside my studio slightly past midday with a polarizer. I put black velvet on the floor under the painting to reduce glare and on the wings. I have huge sliding door windows that let in a LOT of light. This area has worked really well on the pastel (sans velvet and polarizer) as pastels have no glare.

Beth, the 14 megapixel Kodak/Nikon is a camera, not a back.

I think this is the Kodak camera you mention:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakslrc/page2.asp

Sweet! Sharon is this your camera?

Great idea! Do you then use the Photoshop Distort function to put the image back to its correct dimensions?

Yes!
 

Yes!
click (Here's how:) click

Garth

I used to work in a lab, shooting artwork (including paintings) for the printing industry, with an 8x10 view camera, on both transparency and negative film.

For lighting, we used 4 tungsten photofloods with umbrellas. I've also done it with two. We didn't use polarizers, though I don't see why you couldn't, however I'd suspect it alters value relationships. I also don't see why you couldn't do it with strobes, though you'd need modeling lights to do what I describe here. And always use a tripod; don't try to do copy work holding the camera.

The key to eliminating the glare is to position the light farther out from the canvas and shallower than 45 degrees--the typical copy setup. Our lights were on a really shallow angle to the canvas, and very much out to the side, about 4-5 feet from the canvas. And instead of aiming the lights to the middle of the canvas, I'd aim them to the opposite edge, so the lights would cross in front of the canvas and mix in a softer, more even way. Meter the light with a hand-held meter at all corners, sides, and center of the canvas to make sure the light is even over the whole surface. A half-stop difference will show in the result, and your copy won't be evenly lit.

In addition to truing up the camera level and perpendicular with the wall to eliminate keystoning, here's another tip that I consider very important: Stand directly in front of the camera with the back of your head blocking the lens, in other words, position your eyes where the lens is (becoooome the caaaamera). You'll see whatever glare there is, and can tell which light it's coming from. Move the lights in or out--usually out--to get rid of the glare. You will detect way more glare than if you try to discern it through the viewfinder. If you move the lights, re-meter.

Some more tips: Try for a dark colored room, with no strong color on the walls; the color will reflect onto the painting. We shot in total darkness in a black-painted room. At least put a black cloth behind and around your painting as far out as you can; whatever is behind your painting will reflect into the lens--if it's a light color, it will "fog" and wash out your color--even with a lens hood. If you have windows or doors in the room you can't cover, shoot at night. Often, what we thought was glare from the floods was a door open down the hall, or light sneaking in from a window somewhere. And this may be more important than anything: bracket the copy with a half-stop exposure above and below what the meter says you should use. Don't try to do copy work with only one exposure. Film, or chip space, is CHEAP compared to the time you're spending.

For color fidelity, whenever we'd open a new box of film, we'd run a color test, and put color correction filters over the camera lens to bring the image to neutral color, then shoot the whole box with that filter pack. Some photographers test film before every photo session. But a lot of this has been eliminated with digital cameras and color correction in imaging programs like Photoshop.

You can eliminate keystoning with Garth's method in Photoshop, but I try not to, as I've found that even a one degree difference in the height to width ratio will distort my subjects' features. But sometimes it can't be helped, so thanks to Garth--it's still good to know how.

You may rebel at this discipline. Maybe it rubs against the "artistic temperament" (whatever THAT is). But being a little painstaking here will pay off.

Hope all of this helps--TE

Thanks Tom!... Your whole post was very helpful, useful information. ...but that in particular have seen in my photos sometimes but didn't understand where it was coming from.

Daguerreotypes
 

Thanks Tom,

Now you've got me thinking about the merits of painting my walls black. Your advice and experience is extremely helpful. After all, if one must have slides or traditional prints from negatives, there is no opportunity for a digital cheat like I have used.

Speaking of glare, the trickiest thing to photograph I have ever encountered is a Daguerreotype. This, as you probably know is the earliest form of photography (1839 to 1860), and is essentially a polished silver mirror that must be viewed against the darkest possible background. I came up with a black velvet funnel lens surround that reached all the way down, within an inch or so, to the daguerreotype plate, on the shooting stand. A thin slice of raking light, 5 or 10 degrees to the plate was more than adequate. Too much light, and the camera lens would be visible in the photograph, despite the long black velvet funnel!

Thanks again,

Garth

Tom, very informative. I have been shooting my own artwork for years and have been doing a very similar approach to what you describe here, except I use strobes with diffused umbrellas. I even do the standing in front of the lens technique. My walls are white however so I'll be going to the local fabric store and buying some black velvet. Never thought of that! Thanks.

Marvin--

Velvet's good of course, but anything that kills the reflection from the wall will work, if money's tight. Even with a lens hood, there's junk in the air between the lens and the painting. As you know, down here in the South, it's WATER!
(I'll see you or your twin in DC...)

Everyone--

What, no lights???

I'm not sure about the suggestion of shooting in full sun--I'd bet it will glare on varnish. But hey, try anything.

I used to hang my paintings on a nail on the shadow side of an outside storage shed and shoot without lights. Meter over the surface of the painting as described to make sure the light is even. The only drawback is that plants, sky, etc. will reflect in additional colors. Maybe you can correct for this in Photoshop.

Bart Lindstrom used to open the garage door when the sun was on the other side of the house, so the door was in shadow, and set up his easel just inside the door and shoot with ambient daylight. He may still do it for all I know. It would eliminate the reflection of light from a wall behind the painting. Duck down to make sure you're not casting your own shadow on the painting. Also worth a try.

XXOO--TE

Beth,

Oh that it were! The Hughes comes first.

Tom - regarding my post about using direct sun, I've done it successfully twice on varnished paintings and it worked great. However the last time I tried it I couldn't avoid the glare. I don't understand why it worked twice and failed so bad on the third attempt.

I use the technique of standing in front of the lense, too. It's a trick I learned as an art director on photoshoots.

I believe I will discontinue my outdoor technique and set up my lights per your suggestion.

Thanks for your post.

I do use black cotton velvet as a background as it helps frame the painting for slides (if I ever produce anything worthy of a slide I'll be ready).

Perfection with two lights is possible! Thanks Tom!
 

Tom,

I too would like to thank you for your excellent tips for copywork. I have gotten better results than ever before just by reading your post.

I have two Lowel Totalites each with 750 watt halogen tubes. They spread light very evenly so two lights are just about sufficient. I set them up as you said, about five feet from the painting, at less than 45 degrees..... -closer to 40 degrees to the edge nearest the lights.

Here's where I got weird and experimental: You know how just two lights at each side left and right, will cause terribly distracting dark shadows just above and below the painting,...... Well I turned the painting to a 45 degree orientation on the wall (and the camera too) and voila!... no more (dark) distracting shadows!

Also I pushed your advice to aim the lights to the far side of the painting, to the outer limits. At first I pointed the two lights directly toward each other, head on. The painting was still slightly brighter lit on the side closest to the light. But I found that if I turned the lights away even another 15 degrees, suddenly each single light was more or less providing constant illumination accross the entire painting (according to the light meter in spot checks at each corner). With both lights running, perfection was guaranteed! It really made a difference in quality. Well it's almost perfect, it would be nice to be able to get the lights further away.

Now if I only had black walls....

Thanks again Tom! I got these ideas through you.

Garth

Tom I am sure it was operator error... but when I did the garage door shooting, the metering of light was a mess, I think if I tired this again I would only do it with a hand held meter.


But then it would be my hand holding the meter, which would still be a problem! ;)

Garth--

I shoot copy work with a couple of TotaLites too. Glad the suggestions sparked something. Also, thanks for posting your refinements of the method.

Beth--

You gotta experiment. But to your point, I would imagine that trying to meter a number of points on the canvas with the reflective meter in the camera and a gray card would be incredibly cumbersome. You would almost always be metering into your own shadow--make sure you're not between the light source and your painting.

Folks, do yourself a favor. If you are going to do your own copy work, get a hand-held meter. They're not THAT expensive, and you can probably find one used. You'll pay yourself back by not having to have a professional lab shoot your paintings. If your setup is metering evenly across the canvas, you're 99 percent of the way home.

Onward--TE

Hmmm. I shoot my paintings under a skylight in a bathtub "shower stall" (somewhere on the Forum I've posted a photo of this macabre system) and maybe the glossy white tiles reflecting back at me are the source of my current frustrations. I am running out to buy some black cloth.

Tom, you are a genius, if I haven't said so before.

Sorry to come late to this thread, and I'm a newbie at photographing my art, but I wanted to pass on something I read (and tried with some success) somewhere in this forum. If I could find it quickly, I'd copy and paste it.

Basically, the advice was to shoot in full sun, but turn, or angle, your art away from the sun in such a way that the painting is bathed in full sunlight, but the distracting glare is gone. You stand square to your painting, and shoot.

As I said, I did okay with this method, and I believe one of it's "secrets" is that you are elilminating glare by turning slightly from the direct rays of the sun.

I can tell you from my days of dealing in diamonds, one of the topics that come up to which one pays a great deal of attention is something called the refractive index. It has to do with the angle at which any transparent medium becomes reflective. Inside this angle, you can see through the medium, but when you reach,or exceed, the refractive index angle, the medium becomes like a mirror.

This is evident when, for example, walking down a sidewalk, you glance up and see a window display in a store window. As you approach (thus changing your angle to the glass) the window suddenly becomes a mirror instead of transparent.

The gist of what I'm saying is that so long as your painting is in full light (sun or otherwise) and you are operating inside the angle of refractive index, you ought to be able to move you and your camera around until you eliminate the glare.

By the way (for you girls), it's the angle on the bottom half of the diamond that gives it most of it's sparkle. It's all refractive index stuff. If the angle is right, the bottom half of the diamong will reflect back to you all the light that enters the top. Likewise, the angles on the top half of the diamond are cut so as to allow light to enter, while the angles on the bottom half trap and reflect the light.