Photographing paintings and flat-field lenses

A local artist asked me to photograph some of her work for submission

to magazines and possible buyers. I made some slides and she is happy

with the results.

That said, I'd like to make photographing art (lower case 'a' -

apologies for any offence) part of the services I promote to my

customers. Before doing so, I want to learn how to do it very well.

I'm getting a copy of Russell Hart's book later today, so that should

cover technique pretty well.

 

Equipment is puzzling. I used a Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 for most of the

shots already made and can see some barrel distortion in the results

and don't like it. Thought I'd call Canon for some advice. Total

waste of time. They claim to know nothing about it - and I was

talking with a 'senior tech'. All they could do was refer me to a

dealer. Already been there, done that which is why I called Canon.

When I asked how dealers would know about their products when they

themselves don't, the answer was the equivalent of "Duh . . ."

Sheesh!

 

What I'm looking for is a lens (lenses?) with minimal distortion.

AND, I think, what is known as a flat field. By that I mean one in

which curvature of field is absolutely minimized if not eliminated

altogether. That would seem an ideal combination. Canon USA is too

ignorant or lazy to assist; I'd appreciate suggestions from fellow

photographers who have already been down this road.

 

I seem to recall Nikon used to advertise their macro lenses as flat

field, but when I called to ask them about it, the answers I got

confused me. Rob told me that the current 50mm f/1.8 is flat field.

In fact, he recommended it over the macro lenses. When I asked about

non-current lenses, he said, "I don't know anything about them."

Hmmm . . . anyone have any suggestions here? I was thinking that if

Canon couldn't help, I could buy some older Nikon MF gear (likely a

55mm f/3.5 or 2.8 macro) at a decent price and set up a work area

with that. Maybe I'm making this too difficult and should just get

the f/1.8, but somehow I find it hard to believe a 'consumer' grade

lens if truly flat field.

 

Another memory cropped up in relation to this subject. Vivitar

marketed a 90-180mm flat field zoom. I see them pop up now and then

in the used market, but that seems a bit long for what I'm doing.

Which raises another question: do any other wider range flat field

zooms exist?

 

Please feel free to point out any other considerations I may be

missing. Obviously I'm counting on Hart's book to address lighting,

film, etc.

 

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience!/Scott Gardner

Get the Canon or Nikon macro lens for your camera. They're designed for this sort of work. With textured oil paintings you may want to use polarizing filters on both your lights and the lens. I like to include a grey scale, 18% greycard, and set of color control patches either in the photo or shoot another frame with them over the painting. This gives the printer a known target when color correcting prints. A 90-180 will have you way too far away from your subject, and most zooms have distortion.

This might be a stupid question, but did you use a copy stand? If you didn't, were you absolutely meticulous about the alignment of the film plane to the subject? I've never used the Canon 50mm 1.4, but it's fairly well-regarded and it seems odd that you'd get a noticeable amount of distortion out of it. Normal lenses aren't generally very prone to distortion. If you weren't absolutely obsessive about aligning your film and subject planes, you might check whether that isn't the cause of the distortion you're seeing. If it is, a macro lens will never save you.

You can get perfectly acceptable art shots with a good 50mm or

longer lens. I've not noticed objectionable distortion until about

35mm. Getting the paintings properly aligned is the key. I use

an angle finder of the sort found in hardware stores or builders'

supplies to match the tilt of the camera with that of the paintings.

With proper lighting, polarization is not often called for, although

some testing to find the right color correction filtration to match

your lights to your slide film is necessary.

You don't need a 'flat field lens" to copy paintings with. Paintinga are rarely truly flat.

What does help is a longer focal length lens -- as long as you can use given the size

of the painting and the space you have to work in.<P>Ofthe Nikon Micro-Nikkors

only the 55mm f/3.5 , 55mm f/2.8, 60mm f/2.8D AF Nikkor and the 200mm f/4

Micro-Nikkors are flat field lenses. None of the 105mm Micro-Nikkors are not flat

field lenses. I'm not surprised that the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor lenses are flat-field

designs, it is one of Nikon's underrated lenses.<P>The lens I use most when copying

paintings is the 80-200mm f/2.8D AF-Nikkor. I have been using this lens for several

years and none of my clients have ever said anything but positive things about the

copy work I do.<P>The bestthing you can do with lighting is get at a 45 degree angle

to the center of the painting, polarize the lights, check to seethat you are within a

tenth of a stop eveness at all points across the painting (not justthe center and the

corners) make sure your camera is centered and squared to the painting, and as far

from the painting as you can get and still fill the frame as much as possible, polarize

the lens and shoot a test roll.

First, thanks to everyone for your thoughtful responses.

 

Al, are the Canon EF macro lenses flat field?

 

To answer Andrew's question, no, I did not use a copy stand. The primary painting is 4'x7'- way beyond a stand even if I had one.

 

Keith, I'm not familiar with the device you mention. Sounds terrific. What should I ask for when I go to the store?

 

My turn for what might seem a stupid question: where can I get "color control patches"? Don't recall seeing them at my local photo shop; but then I wasn't looking.

 

Realizing that Hart's book is not exactly new and that Kodak, Fuji, etc. change films a lot, what do you recommend for both slides and prints?

 

Thanks again!/Scott

Scott; alot of great advice was already been stated. <BR><BR>The Kodak color color patch and grey scale set is/was a Q-14 several decades ago. The part number probably has changed. I prefer the Kodak greyscale wedge; and the color control patch set on my artwork stuff. The color patch set helps alot; since we do printing too. <BR><BR>The 50mm F1.4 Nikkor SC of mine has alot of barrel distortion when shooting a close original (18x24) which looks like hell if it is map; or artwork with alot of lines in it. The older 50mm F2 has alot less; but still shows. <BR><BR>one of the ~ 55mm F3.5 type macros is a good choice. <BR><BR>Long ago; I mounted either a 50mm F4 El Nikkor to the Nikon; using a LTM to F adapter; and tubes if required. Focus is by moving the rig away/towards the artwork. 4 and 6 element enlarging ;lenses are very flat field lenses; and dirt cheap; and give excellent imagery when stopped down a couple of stops. <BR><BR>For large artwork; I use a 135mm Schneider Componon on a 4x5" peed Graphic. <BR><BR>Typically zoom lenses have the worst distortion; there are exceptions. Distortion also varies ; and gets worse at closer distances. With line drawings; or where the edge/border must be reproduced; distortion looks bad; and is noticeable. If the image is cropped; many cannot detect the distortion. In map reproduction; special zero distortion lenses are used; the Apo Ronars in Large format; which are made for 1:1 to about 1:5 ratios; and used at F22; is slow....<BR><BR>MANY distortion specs are for the test magnification of the 35mm lens; ie 1:50; ie about 100 inches away from a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera. at closer distances; ususally it is equal or worse; and not published in many lenses. It is published for Enlarging lenses as there standard data set; and also in some macro lenses.

Let me start by saying that I probably know less about this particular subject than you do. I am going to pose a question rather than make a suggestion - why do you have to use 50mm? I would use an 80mm/2.8 with the art work mounted on a wall with two strobes firing at 45 degrees on either side - through umbrellas? Is this an overly simplistic approach?

Lee is correct; a longer lens is better many times. A longer lens will have usually a better illumination. The drawback is one needs more space. <BR><BR>My Vivitar Series 1 90mm F2.5 works well for 35mm; but I have not run any formal distortion tests. <BR><BR>A X-Y gridded piece of paper can be used at the copy position; and photographed to check camera alignment; and distortion of the lens; at the magnification /copy ratio being used. <BR><BR>Enlarging lenses also made excellent copy lenses for artwork; the better ones have low distortion.

I pretty much second Ellis' advice. A slightly longish lens is easier to frame than a normal or wide lens. Find a medium range zoom lens that has barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushion at the other end. Somewhere in the middle is a small zoom range that will render a rectangle good enough to fool the eye. That small focal length flexibility helps in cropping out the black background area. Yes, a fixed focal length macro lens is better but too much of a hassle. I do eight or ten paintings of different sizes a month and the zoom lens helps to zip through in just a few hours. I use Ektachrome EPN.

Hi Scott,

 

When I was a teenager (15 years ago) I use to help my Dad with the setup of lightning for his art clients. This jobs were mainly sculptures in metal or acrylic with black marble bases. We worked mostly in the artist's studio or in the location where the object was. It was all Black & White using mainly a Rolleiflex 2.8F (TLR with an 80mm Zeiss lens). Some 35mm were done also uning Pentax Spotmaitc with SuperTakumar normal lens. Small apertures were the rule for this type of work due to the volume of the sculptures. The lightning consisted of tripod stands with umbrellas and 500watt tungsten lamps. As many as 8 were used but the norm was 2 or 4 in two tripods at close to 45 degree angles from the camera-to-sculpture line. Additional lamps from the bottom or top were used in some occasions and modifications of this scheme were often necessary to avoid anoying reflections. A light set like this makes incident light measurements everywhere in the sculpture very easy with a decent hand held light meter.

 

I agrre with previous posts in that you shouldn't perceive much distortion with a normal lens (or longer). Distance to the subject and positioning the film plane carefully will certainly improve that if you feel it is a problem. Big apertures sometimes magnify the lens imperfections and are to be avoided in my opinion. For very big stuff where you are most of the times positioned far from the center of the object and the ratio size-of-the-object to object-camera-distance is high a large format is a must.

 

Af far as zoom lenses go, they are normally more prone to lack of sharpness in the corners than a fixed focal length lens and for art photography they are of little use.

 

Good luck with the business.

One technique to get the lens/camera combination truly orthogonal (squared) with the subject, is to first move the tripod up to the center of the artwork to be copied, raise/or lower the camera/lense to the center of the frame to be copied. Back away until you have the image magnification that you want and center the image. Using the architectural (grid) screen will be of help to make it square. Nikon calls it an E-screen. As far as I can tell, the Micro-Nikkors have very flat field and very low distortion. For objects larger than about 18 inches I use the 60mm Nikkor usually stopped down to f/11. Anything smaller (down to about 1:1) demands the 105mm so that there is sufficient working room for lighting and accessability. Closer detail demands a special set-up with reversed optics on extension tubes. This is not straight-forward, I can assure you.

Tamron SP 90mm, the manual focus lens, look for it used.