Photographing Paintings

I am an artist working in oil paint and would like to photograph my work so I can produce prints. My largest work is 24 x 36 inches and needs to be photographed in sections. After much research on the web I bought two soft box lights (not expensive) and attempted to photograph my work using a canon 350 D with 18-55mm IS lens set to 50mm and mirror lock up on a 2second delay. I have used a small mirror to get the camera perpendicular to the paintings, this works very well, The set up is shown in the attached photograph. I am shooting at F11, 1/20sec, ISO100. I have used Photo shop 6 to stitch sections of painting back together.

A few observations so far --

I have used large amount of overlap in this process.

I have used camera raw to correct for light fall off around circumference of the pictures.

I have tried custom white balance settings and also using PTFE tape to get a white balance setting this seems to work well.

Reflections off the paint surface have not been a problem so far, so I have not used filters.

The results are quite good but not as good as the Epson expression 11000 XL scans I have had done professionally for previous prints. I now live far away from anywhere I know of that can scan paintings and don't like sending them by post.

The hardest pictures to get good results with are pictures containing large areas of pale graduated sky, there is a slight color and tone difference, having said that it is fairly subtle but it is noticable.

This was just really just testing to see what sort of results I can get with the 350D.

I was also considering getting a data color spider checker 24 to assist the printer and balancing the colors.

The soft box lights were advertised as 1250 W, 125w equivalent CFL lights but do not appear to put out out much light really.

Should I be using the lights further away from the picture or should I be using hard lights at a great distance? The room I have to work in is about 5 m x 5m and I shut out all other light. Are the white reflector I have used at the sides a bad idea?

I need to get a replacement for the 350D as it had fungus growing between the IR filter and the sensor. I stripped the camera down and cleaned this up but its not perfect. Looking ahead I'm thinking of getting a canon 750D which is a 24 mega pixel sensor which would give much better resolution, 300 pixels per inch being required for printing.

The thread on this site “Lighting for art photographs” in 2015 was very informative but did not come to any conclusions.

Sorry for being so long winded, but I have given it a lot of thought, thoughts, ideas and observations welcome.

I am an artist working in oil paint and would like to photograph my work so I can produce prints. My largest work is 24 x 36 inches and needs to be photographed in sections. After much research on the web I bought two soft box lights (not expensive) and attempted to photograph my work using a canon 350 D with 18-55mm IS lens set to 50mm . . .I'm thinking of getting a canon 750D . . . thoughts, ideas and observations welcome. . .

Congratulations, it occurs to me that you have put a lot of time and effort in researching this topic.

Briefly, one main comment at this point in time - look into the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens. I have found it an excellent lens for Forensic Photo Records of Paintings; Historic Documents; Sheets of Stamps; Coins etc, whether stitching or making the image in one shot.

It is an exceptionally Sharp Lens and has an exceptionally flat Plane of Sharp Focus.

You might not be able to buy one new now, however I think it was not all that long ago, that it was discontinued.

WW

Hi @ppenguin,

First off -as you say- you're using a digital camera which is now 13 years old. In digital terms, it's ancient. That's not to say that you won't get good results, but more modern digital (FF or MF) cameras have a much higher resolution and would capture your works in finer detail. I don't quite understand why you need to stitch photos together. That maybe due to the limited resolution you have with the 350D.

Your questions indicate that you're still a bit unsure about how you should best photograph your paintings. So my main question is whether you really, truly want to invest the (learning) time and money (equipment) needed to take (and post-process) the best photos of your paintings? If so, that's fine. If not, it might be cheaper and more effective to hire a professional photographer every now and then who has all the knowledge, experience and equipment (lighting, cameras, lenses) needed to take the best shots of your work. Just consider the economics.

I really don't mean this as a 'put-down' (just a reality check)! I can well imagine that you want to take 'ownership' of photos of your paintings. I'm sure I and others at PN would help you do that.

Mike

There are many existing threads on this subject if you search for them, but be prepared for almost as many opinions.

My observation: CFL lamps are crap. Probably the reason your colour is off. Use flash.

No, you can't see the lighting 'live', but a copying setup is fairly standard - just two or four lights - one or two either side of the artwork. No need for softboxes, just straightforward flash from small speedlights.

I worked in a couple of copy studios. We never used softboxes, any sort of light diffusion or polarising filters for reflective copy.

The advice to use a decent macro lens is good. A kit zoom will have distortion issues.

The soft box lights were advertised as 1250 W, 125w equivalent CFL lights ...

Hi, imo this is your number one problem. CFLs almost invariably have a very poor spectral output, and are not generally suited to high-quality color reproduction. You might wonder, why are they so widely sold if what I say is true? Well, one thing they are very good at is putting out large amounts of light for the energy used; they are very "energy efficient." The problem is that they do this by putting most of their light energy into spectral areas where the human eye is most sensitive. Well actually, the problem is in the spectral areas where they DON'T put (much) light energy. If your colors rely partially on those spectral zones, then...

Are the white reflector I have used at the sides a bad idea?

Yes, most likely.

I would suggest that, as a point of reference, you photograph one of your samples via outdoor light, coming at such an angle that you don't get specular (shiny) reflections. I would suggest to do this with a basic camera jpeg; set camera to put out sRGB; use a custom white balance based on photographing one of your white cards. I'd also recommend using a manual exposure to give the white card pixel values of about 235 to 245. (You might also want to boost the contrast very slightly; if your software has "curves," try a very slight "S" curve shape.) I sort of expect that this will give a better result than your current setup, which will maybe convince you to ditch the CFLs.

I would personally want to use the softboxes at a greater distance to even out the lighting a little and to help get rid of specular reflections (from the flat parts) from the painting. Now, you may want to experiment with exact positioning to emphasize some of the paint texture; I dunno what's really desirable for this. You might also try masking down the face of the soft boxes with cardboard, again looking at the textural effect of the paint, etc.

Over breakfast I was thinking about my advice for lighting and other gear, with a slant toward best value for money: others have already covered some of what I concluded -

1. I suggest you use Flash (I do use Flash for copy work).

2. Direct Light, no soft boxes - (as mentioned, you work in oil and the oil paint itself will have depth and texture)

3. Work horizontally, not vertically. (I find this so much easier for Paintings)

A key point is in what I read as the deeper meaning of what rodeo joe mentioned "a copying setup is fairly standard" - all the copy work I have done is basically with a 'set and forget' formula: being for items A4 to A0 size.

For the job you outline, in a 5m x 5m light tight room using a 750D Camera and EF 50 F/2.5 Macro, two (or four) 'Speedlite' Flash Heads, you'd be working at about 7ft (a bit over 2m) to copy a 24" x 36" Painting, with no stitching. (Surely stitching is a PIA, and IMO a waste of your time?)

I suggest that try using two 'Speedlite' Flash Heads at first, I think if there's not too much 'depth of oil' (i.e. not large valleys and rises of texture in the oil paint) you'll get good results.

The 'Speedlite' Flash Heads do not necessarily need to be the wiz bang dedicated metering connected to the camera type. Provided they are consistent in Colour Temperature and provided that they are consistent in output (any recent model will most likely be both), then a Manual Flash Head will be quite adequate.

Once you establish the Flash Working Distance for the Aperture and ISO that you typically use to attain a correct exposure and the Flash Head Placement for even lighting, it will be likely that you won't vary those parameters very much.

What you might find is, IF you have a 'standard' range of Painting sizes, you might have (for example) three 'standard' Lighting Sets and an appropriate Camera Placement for each - as examples only:

one for 20 x 24 to 24 x 36

another for 11 x 14 to 16 x 20

another for 8 x 5 to 11 x 14

WW

CFL lamps are crap. Probably the reason your colour is off.

You guys (plus all others) are much more into the lighting tech, than I, but after suffering the horrible lights / lots of Post after photographing the local theatre group, I was about to donate some decent lights. They were in a hurry (wanted the lights immediately), so bought CFLs at one of the big box consumer home improvement stores. Results in their eyes & mine, excellent - sample on the DF Thread. I do understand the issue, since fiber my wife orders for weaving is often improperly rendered color wise - so much so that her regular suppliers have sent her sample books. For a painting, I expect it is the same is critical as in photos of other artwork.

You guys (plus all others) are much more into the lighting tech, than I, but after suffering the horrible lights / lots of Post after photographing the local theatre group, I was about to donate some decent lights. They were in a hurry (wanted the lights immediately), so bought CFLs at one of the big box consumer home improvement stores. Results in their eyes & mine, excellent - sample on the DF Thread. I do understand the issue, since fiber my wife orders for weaving is often improperly rendered color wise - so much so that her regular suppliers have sent her sample books. For a painting, I expect it is the same is critical as in photos of other artwork.

- The problem with CFLs Sandy, is that their spectrum is very 'spiky' - see this link.

The spikes are generally in the red, green and blue parts of the spectrum, which is visually fine. However, all digital cameras* also use red, green and blue filters to 'analyse' colour and digitise it.

Now, if the CFL emission spikes don't quite match the camera filter pass-bands, then 'Houston, we have a problem'. The dyes and pigments in paints and fabrics may, or may not reflect the CFL spikes proportionally, and chaos ensues - colourwise.

Specific photo-quality CFL lamps may be slightly better than their domestic counterparts, but still suffer from a spiky output.

Tri-colour analysis itself is not perfect, and getting a good visual match between a range of natural colours and what's seen on a monitor or in print is a near-impossible task. Sometimes near-enough has to be good enough.

*Cameras using a Foveon sensor don't have physical RGB filters, but still split the spectrum into these 3 bands using the transmission characteristics of Silicon.

I am always amazed at how well you can do in the Museum, handheld and natural indirect light accompanied by AWB

Monet-Gare St.-Lazare, Chicago Art Institute

Not up to professional standards, but close to the way most people see the paintings

Wow, lots of replies, much to think about, many interesting comments. I will try to reply to each of your remarks and comments.

William

I guess lenses was a subject I didn't cover and this was because it's a subject I have very little knowledge about. Your suggested lens sounds sensible and knowledgeable. I have done a quick search on the web I think I could get this lens for around £130 pounds which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Could you suggest some reading or information on the web about this sort of lens as I am not sure I even know what to macro means.

AJG

Thank you for your comment on the suggested lens and thank you for your comments on lighting. I will have to look into lighting more deeply, it appears some of the comments further down the page address the subject more deeply.

Mike

As you say the 350 D is an old camera and is not up to producing the quality and resolution required for printing at 300 dots per inch. My experimentation so far has been just to see what I can achieve with the equipment I have and to give me further ideas for the way ahead. Regarding using a professional photographer to capture my work digitally, I live in a fairly remote area with regards to professional photographers and so would like to do the digitizing work myself and send the files to the printer I have used before who has done a really good job. Unfortunately I live too far away from this printer now to make multiple journeys that would be required for the digitizing at work. In another life I studied in the electronics and worked as an engineer so feel I should be able to manage this sort of thing with the right information. I need to do the math on the 750 D pixel dimensions to see how large a picture I can photograph at 300 pixels inch. Your comment about taking a reality check is appreciated and this is what I am really doing at the moment by collecting as much information as possible before making a decision what to do.

Rodeo Joe & Bill

From your comments and those of others I see that the CFL are problematic spectrum wise and can lead to poor color reproduction. I take it that these lights are stable for pictures taken one after the other but the differences I am getting when splicing pictures together are because of stray reflections and light contamination in my set up. I hope to do away with the splicing if I get a camera high enough resolution. I Notes the 750D has a 6000 by 4000 pixel sensor which in theory would do 20" x 13" at 300 pixels per inch, seems some splicing still may necessary.

Bill

I take your points about setting up custom white balance and selecting values for white card, I have been using manual exposure .I was also thinking of using a Data colour SpyderCHECKR24 or a X-Rite ColourChecker passport photo which I could send to the printer for proofing

William

From your breakfast musings I have drawn out the point that I maybe should use flash. I have to admit the complete absence of any knowledge on the subject so would be grateful for pointers in the direction of suitable information which will guide me on the subject. Also suggestions for the simplest equipment that would do the job in a satisfactory manner would be good.

I absolutely agree with your and Joes suggestion of having standard set ups for photographing pictures and have been trying to work towards that so far by measuring distances and noting settings used. I totally agree stitching pictures is a PIA and to be avoided as it's also exposes any lens fall off over a picture.

Sandy and Joe

The CFL lights I purchased a showing in the link https://www.amazon.co.uk/Photography-Continuous-lighting-Daylight-Lightstand/dp/B008N757H8/

I do not know how good they are but think the bulbs are designed for photographic work.

Once again thank you all for your help

Paul

. . I have done a quick search on the web I think I could get this lens [EF50/2.5Macro] for around £130 pounds which is not beyond the bounds of possibility. Could you suggest some reading or information on the web about this sort of lens as I am not sure I even know what to macro means.

A "macro" lens in general talk is one that can make a "close up" image that is close to 1:1. 1:1 is when the physical dimensions of the Subject are recorded exactly as those dimensions on the image sensor or negative. 1:1 is often referred to as "Life Size". Using the word "macro" in a technical environment often arouses debate between those who want to only describe macro when the lens can truly produce 1:1 or ‘life size’. There are quite a few lenses on the market which are advertised as “macro”, but cannot produce 1:1.

The suggestion of the EF50/2.5 was not because it can produce close up or macro work. The suggestion was made because of the lens design being typical of (quality) macro lens design and the ‘value for money’ bias of my response which I mentioned.

(quality) Macro Lenses are typically very sharp; have a flat Plane of Sharp Focus; no optical vignette at mid apertures; no colourations; and in general are excellent optics. When copying art or documents for forensic purposes: a lens that is: sharp; flat and no vignette and no colouration is key. Similarly, having a non-varying Colour Temperature and a non "spiky" Light source is also key. (please see rodeo joe's comments about "spiky" light sources.)

***

I hope to do away with the splicing if I get a camera high enough resolution. I Notes the 750D has a 6000 by 4000 pixel sensor which in theory would do 20" x 13" at 300 pixels per inch, seems some splicing still may necessary.

Please explain. I am confused. I noted that you mentioned 300ppi. What are the size(s) of the prints that you want to make? I assumed that the prints would be in a set ‘regular’ size (or sizes) and that would be smaller size than the maximum 24 x 36 original artwork that you want to copy? For example keeping a 2:3 Aspect Ratio, you might have print sets 10 x 15 or 8 x 12 for sale.

WW

Sandy and Joe

The CFL lights I purchased a showing in the link https://www.amazon.co.uk/Photography-Continuous-lighting-Daylight-Lightstand/dp/B008N757H8/

I do not know how good they are but think the bulbs are designed for photographic work

I am really doubtful that those CFLs are specially made or have "adequate" spectral output for what you want to do.

I've had to "go through the motions" several times in the past to demonstrate this at the chain portrait outfit where I spent a lot of years. Periodically someone would convince the upper management that these "photo quality" CFLs could now stand in as a low budget alternative to the pro-grade studio flash we normally used. Not for every studio, but for a number of low-volume studios that were barely worth operating (we were contractually obligated to have studios in these locations as part of a larger package). So instead of, say 4 high quality studio lights at about $1,000 (US) per head, the idea was that we could perhaps spend a total of $200 per studio.

I've gone through the process more than a couple of times, telling the (idiot) photo "operations" people, buy what you want, we (as part of an r&d group) will set up some tests and show you the results. So... from my group we'd set up their lighting system, get several models, shoot some controlled tests, and have a set of properly balanced prints made. Same thing is duplicated - same models, same clothing, but under "standard" studio conditions - for side-by-side comparison in a "properly-lit" color booth. The result is always the same; once the comparison is seen the conversation is along the lines of, "oh, I see what you mean." There is no further discussion of the matter; the CFL system is donated to a school or some sort of charity group, and the issue doesn't come up again for several years...

The main reason I suggested that you do some reference photos under outdoor light is so you can see things first-hand. My guess is that you'll find that your color problems will immediately go away and you will then be ready to discard the CFLs. But... it's possible that the particular paints that you are using are perfectly compatible with your lights (I doubt it, though).

As a note I've talked to upwards of a dozen vendors of this sort of gear in photo trade shows, although it's probably been upwards of ten years or so. Not one of them ever knew anything about their CFLs, except, "It's photo quality," or something to that effect. I've looked at probably a couple dozen such CFLs with a spectrophometer over the years; they've all had the same basic "spikes," just in different proportions to change the "color temperature."

William

Thank you for the macro lens explanation, that makes things clearer. I am now searching for your suggested lenses specs so I can get to grips with shooting distances from the paintings.

Regarding the print sizes I have up till now been producing ¾ size prints of my larger works (paulhowey.co.uk), the largest print being 36” x 18” which sells well. Some of my on going works are up to 48”on one dimension.

Bill

Thanks for taking the time to explain about CFL,s and their spectra, I understand the points your making and can see it is an issue you have had to confront and explain more than a few times. I will look to flash for my illumination and at least I can use the tripods from the CFL lights I have to mount the flash.

. . . I have up till now been producing ¾ size prints of my larger works (paulhowey.co.uk), the largest print being 36” x 18” which sells well. . . .

A comment with my my 'business hat' on: The consideration of buying a 5Dr (or similar in another brand) would be forefront in my mind. I guess it would be a tax deduction possibly a depreciating asset over 5 years (not sure about UK Tax, but it has to be 'similar' to mine).

The idea of the time wasted in the stitching process hurts my brain.

WW

The 300 pixel-per-inch printing 'rule' is nothing of the sort, just a guideline.

A 24 megapixel camera is perfectly capable of being printed to 36" x 18" with no stitching required. Especially if the subject has no very fine detail, which I suspect is true of most oil paintings.

If you must stitch, you need to keep the exposure exactly the same between frames, and that means using manual exposure mode. If you're letting the camera regulate the exposure, there's most of your problem.

Yes I agree.

Personally, I chose not to give you advice on the "megapixels and ppi for printing" topic: my main advice has been directed around provide options so you you could avoid stitching.

However, now that this point has been brought up:

I agree with rodeo_joe (Post #16) that: 300ppi is a "guideline" not a rule - (as an example) I am making excellent 20x20 prints from a 5DMkII (about 21mp).

But, the bottom line is - it is you that has to be happy with your production chain.

***

BTW - re: "I am now searching for your suggested lenses specs so I can get to grips with shooting distances from the paintings." -

Using a 750D (or 350D) - There will be no difference happy to be in the shooting distances using the EF 50/2.5 than those distances that you use now with your 18 to 55 lens set at FL= 50mm. You would not be using the close up / macro focusing ability of the EF 50/2.5 lens, you would be using it simply as any 50mm Prime Lens.

Obviously if you use a 6D or 5D etc (aka "Full Frame" camera the shooting distances will change.

WW

First, I agree about the lens. A flat field is what you want, and macro lenses have that. I have owned that particular lens in the past, and it is tack-sharp. It is not a great macro lens because it only goes to 1:2, but for your purposes, that doesn't matter at all. it also has an old-fashioned AF system, but that again has no relevance to your work. they are not expensive.

Second, re lighting: I agree with others and would never use CFLs for the reasons noted. However, if you are working on a very stable floor (so that motion isn't an issue), you have a second option: continuous lighting. I use continuous lighting for flower macros precisely because I can see the effect as I change the lighting. I use usually use two halogen bulbs, one 50W for direct lighting and a second 75W for diffused lighting, but you would want to arrange things differently. Halogens are a tad yellow (~3000K), but that is trivial to fix in post.

Third, at the very least, shoot raw and use a good white balance card, like a whiBal. That is sufficient for my work, but for yours, i would probably use a color checker.

William

I was quite liking the 750D for its similarity to the 350D in size and weight. I need a replacement for my old knackered 350D for when I am painting outdoors and need reference pictures.

I think the 750 should provide enough pixels per inch for most work, I can handle stitching the odd large work together as long as I can achive good exposures and the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro Lens sounds just the job.

Joe

I get the point that 300 pixels per inch is only a recommendation and the quality of everything else about the picture is crucial to success. I have been shooting in manual and keeping the same settings between exposures.

Paddler4

I have been and will continue to shoot raw and use custom WB. I plan to get a colour checker as well. Thanks for the vote for the mentioned lens, it is good to have agreement on things

Can anyone point me to some links for suitable flash units I intend to get 2 to begin with, this is the area thats a real of an unknown for me.

Many thanks

Can anyone point me to some links for suitable flash units I intend to get 2 to begin with, this is the area thats a real of an unknown for me.

- I can recommend YongNuo's YN560-iii flashes. They're cheap, well-made and allow excellent control of output 'power'. They also have built-in radio triggers that allow them to be fired from the camera without intervening cables. You'd need an additional RF-602 or RF-603 trigger module for this, but the convenience of radio triggering is well worth it. Much better than trailing cables to each flash.

BTW, you'd only need one RF-603, but they seem most commonly offered in pairs. Maybe you can find a bundle deal with the flash units?

The flashes have no automation; they're purely manually controlled for output. However, once you've determined the correct level it won't need much adjustment between copies, if any, as long as the lights stay the same distance from the artwork.

I’d follow rodeo joe's comments and recommendations about third party flash units.

Though it was I who suggested buying third party Manual 'speedlite' Flash units, the Flash units I use are dedicated Canon Speedlites and I don't like making specific recommendations about gear that I don't use or with which I am unfamiliar.

Canon Speedlites by comparison to third party brands are quite expensive and would be unnecessary for the job that you require. When I do copy work, I use my Canon Speedlites in Manual Mode.

WW

The trouble with 'speedlites' is that many paintings are 3-dimensional (e.g., impasto) or are shiny and you have to place lights very carefully to avoid reflections.

Today, with digital immediate 'chimping' you can detect the problem right off. With film, there was often separation in time between shooting and seeing the results.

The trouble with 'speedlites' is that many paintings are 3-dimensional (e.g., impasto) or are shiny and you have to place lights very carefully to avoid reflections.

 

Today, with digital immediate 'chimping' you can detect the problem right off. With film, there was often separation in time between shooting and seeing the results.

impasto reflections

[ATTACH=full]1275794[/ATTACH]

- Sometimes those reflections are necessary in order to convey the texture of the paint.

I think the example posted above would lose its impasto quality if shot, say, using crossed polarisers to eliminate any specularity.

"The trouble with speedlights..."

- They're just a source of light.

You'll get reflections from photofloods, LEDs, CFLs or whatever if they're not positioned correctly.

The untrouble with 'speedlites' is the consistency of Colour Temperature.

WW

Thankyou Joe for the flash recomendations.

I hope is the last part in the puzzle. When you come at something like this it is difficult to navigate a clear path through all the information, suggestions and counter opinions. I have done a lot of research for this. Two of the best web sites I initially found were.

Photographing Paintings with a DSLR | Marc Dalessio and

How to Photograph Paintings and Prints with Copy Lighting

From these sites I devised my initial test setup shown in my first post, now I am looking at something quite different thanks to you contributions. The suggested lense means i really need to work horizontally for a start.

On the subject CFL light sources can you tell from the histograms whether they are comprimised light source, not that I intend to use them now.

On the subject of reflections off impasto, you definitly need some as thats what you get when you view the painting in a gallery. Although the question of how pictures are lit for viewing in galleries is a good one, as conservation of the painting is often a major consideration as well.