Strobes or constant lighting for photographing large flat artwork?

<p>What is the best method of obtaining a flat (no reflections from the surface) even light over a large surface area? Specifically for photographing large paintings between 6x8 and 12x8 feet. Natural light is not an option. I have 2 800w redhead lights, which I have used with fairly poor results in the past due to the limitations of space in the studio, i.e. not been able to position the lights with adequate distance from the paintings at a 45 degree angle. I have had good results when employing a professional who used a single strobe bouncing it off the ceiling, so I am considering whether I should invest in a strobe or a pair of strobes, but have no experience with flash. Should I be able to get good results by bouncing (reflecting) the 800w constant light or would a strobe be the better solution? If so what kind of setup would you recommend on a small budget?</p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether you use strobes or continuous lighting. What matters is how you modify your lighting.</p>

<p>You need two very large softboxes to produce large even light sources the bath the paintings in even light. When photographing either vintage or highly valuable art, strobes are also preferable to reduce the amount of heat that the paintings might otherwise get exposed to.</p>

<p>I use Bowen strobes similar to the following, but certainly there are many brands that will work just fine:</p>

<p>http://www.bowens.co.uk/content/pages/gemini500pro.html</p>

<p>I actually own a photoflex softbox that is six feet tall, which I use when creating full length photos of formal gowns and dresses. Two of these extra large softboxes might help you illuminate your large paintings from both sides with even coverage. You will need to experiment with distance and output level to achieve even lighting without hotspots. You may also need to rent a larger studio for creating such photographs, if the paintings are as large as you describe.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.adorama.com/PFLDXLP.html?searchinfo=photoflex+litedome+large">Photoflex extra large softbox at adorama</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/138244-REG/Photoflex_XT_4XLLD293_LiteDome_Q39_X_Large_Softbox.html">Photoflex softbox at bhphoto</a></p>

<p>It is worth mentioning that some constant light sources (like those built around compact fluorescent bulbs) don't provide a continual spectrum of light. When reproducing artwork, such light sources can introduce insolvable color inaccuracies. It's not just about adjusting white balance, but about the fact that certain frequencies are simply absent from the spectrum. This is less of an issue with hot lights, and essentially goes away entirely with strobes ... though you need to make sure you're properly white balanced no matter what, and should have the back end of the process (your display, and any printing devices) hardware calibrated, if the output is supposed to be critical.</p>

<p>Matt's note is important, since I was assuming you understood that you would need to use continous lights that are 5600K or 5300K white balanced . You CANNOT use tungsten based lights for photographing paintings.</p>

<p>The least expensive "cool" continous 5300K based lighting I know of is the following:</p>

<p><a href="http://alzodigital.com/online_store/Alzo_2000_continuous_portrait_studio_kit_3lights.htm">Alzo Digital - Alzo 2000</a></p>

<p>Stick with some good strobes.</p>

<p>Also, you may want to purchase some 8' x 4' white foam core sheets, and then place one on the floor and suspend another above the painting, to reflect light from the softboxes, for additional fill onto the painting. This is important because the light will be coming from the sides of the painting onto it and something needs to amplify the amount of illumination coming from above and below it. The foam core sheets come in a variety of sizes, in white and black, and pay for themselves in short order if you have a professional studio.</p>

<p>RE "You CANNOT use tungsten based lights for photographing paintings."<br>

<br /> Here I have used tungsten lights for paintings since Kennedy was President; and gasoline was 17 cents.<br>

****I am baffled at this answer; since it is a century old method.<br>

Strobes are totally taboo with some galleries due to UV damage; it a good way to get banned or fired on the spot.<br>

<br /> ****Both heat and strobes can degrade artwork; an ancient method going back to the dark ages is you use a variac or series parallel switch for modeling and adjusting the lamps; and one only uses the full power for the seconds one shoots the images; or few minutes if one uses an old scan back like I do.<br>

<br /> With contiuous lighting one can measure the light with an incident lightmeter and get the lighting even; there is no guesswork; one can see the light; measure it; adjust the light(s) for even exposure.<br>

<br /> The vast majority of artwork I shoot with a camera is with tungsten bulbs. It provides a nice black body light with no notches in the spectrum. Artwork is dead; ie it doesnt move; one really can just use a tripod and not use gobs of light since one can use a longer exposure. With a super long exposure film shot some films have color shifts.<br>

<br /> The method of using a series/parallel switch for tungsten lamps goes back to Edisons time. You have the lamps in series during adjustment; there is one 60 volts across each filament. For an actual exposure you throw a switch and place the lamps in parallel; each lamp no sees the full 120 volts (in USA) and you meter and shoot the exposure. To shoot film at F8 with iso whatever; you need the *SAME* amount of light on the artwork if strobes or tungsten are used.<br>

<br /> Standard sizes for foam core are 24x36"', 32x40" and 40x60" at my shop; at odd times I use these as reflectors too.<br>

<br /> Strobes due put out alot of UV; event the better ones. Review if they are allowed before degrading your customers artwork. With some customers it is like so taboo you will be blackballed for all time; others do not mind. A tungsten lamp does not put gobs of UV light out at all; it does not fry the reds in a painting. Artwork is displayed under constant lighting.<br>

<br /> Fluorescent bulbs put out less heat than tungstens; but alot more UV. They are more acceptable since most folks are abit dumb!. The pickle is the light spectrum is notchy; even high CRI bulbs are abit hokey; one can get color errors with some types of artwork.<br>

<br /> Using tungstens is not in vogue on photo.net; it is like there is kick back here to promote strobes.<br>

<br /> If you are trying to shoot a 8x12 foot artwork in a small room; you have a *SMALL ROOM ISSUE*; since you cannot get the strobes or tungstens far enough away to get the lighting even. The artworks owner may not want you so shoot a mess of strobe shots or spend alot of time with flooding the artwork with tungstens to get the lighting even. A small room makes the job abit tough; no matter what type of light.<br>

<br /> To say if you get an even lighting over a 8x12 foot piece of artwork with one bounced lamp is about impossible. It is a geometry problem and one of reflectance of the surfaces; not a strobe or tungsten issue.<br>

<br /> In some giant pieces of artwork I have actually moved the thing/piece outside on a nice overcast day hung it on a vertical wall and quickly shot the exposures. I have a area on a wall complete with clips; it is usually a 2 man job. One gets a nice uniform free lightsource. The tripod camera has a bubble to get the unit level. The artwork is only outside for a minute or two; the camera is settup; square and all ready to go. One shuffles the pieces outside; places them on the frame; shoots the exposure(s) (you bracket) then the artwork goes back inside and another is swapped.<br>

<br /> Here I have a 36" wide color RGB scanner; its used for maps; rollable thin inkjets; non valuable robust artwork. With small artwork we have a 11x17" scanner; then above this I use a dslr; then above this a 4x5 camera with a 50 megapixel scan back; or a 6x6 or 6x9 film camera and the "scan film route". Less and less folks really want a film/trany original; some places still do.<br>

<br /> With many artworks that are shot with a camera; I include a ruler at the edge; color and greyscale Kodak references; and a Note naming the artwork too. The references allow at least with a trany to allow for the fading; or with film or digital the printer to have a color reference for matching colors.<br>

<br /> One can often get "artwork" inputs from folks where "artwork" can mean about anything known to man. With framed stuff; often folks want the artwork NOT removed from the frame; this is more difficlut due to reflections. With strobes some types of artwork "pops back" in lay terms other colors that are really not what the client wants; thus with a strobe route some artist materials are more of a devil than others.<br>

<br /> With some artists they can never be pleased; thus at times you must fire them :) or go broke! Some artworks have a 3D brush strokes that they want to have recorded; this involves work with the type of lighting; angle of light/grazing. Alot of work with artists is just handholding; they want their masterpiece to be thought as the next Mona Lisa; even if it is a common as dirt dog; sunset or soccer mom's kid's image.<br>

<br /> One can ruin artwork with either tungstens or strobes; or one can shoot with either and have little degradation too. It is NOT the tools fault; it is the lay users fault for not understanding ones tools.</p>

<p>Dan, both continuous and strobe will work fine however, as Matt mentioned, the heat build up in a small space is detrimental to the art and to the photographer. Strobe output tends to be more consisitant and repeatable in lumen and color temp output. Using tungsten lights also means your exposures tend to be on the long side. If your substrate is canvas, at those sizes, even lined and well stretched, the canvas can pulse with any air currents in the room. Also you may want more than two heads to light a painting that size evenly.</p>

 

<p> It sounds like your main problem is space constraints. It is difficult to control surface reflections on paintings when you don't have room to move the lights around. You don't say the medium but I assume at those sizes it's oil or acrylic. These are pretty shiny when dried and various varnishes can add considerably to the gloss componet. Paintings look best when key lit from the top and filled from the bottom which maybe why you like the images of the pro shooter who bounced the light into the ceiling. The ratio of key to fill depends on the surface and how much you want to emphasize the brush work. In a constrained space your options are limited with works of that size and you'll have to make do with bounce light or side light. If reflections become hairy you can try using a polarizer over the lens first and if more reflection control is needed use polarizers over the lights. This tends to jerk the contrast pretty high so plan on some Photoshop curve work to reduce that. Be aware that using double polarization will remove ALL reflections, even the ones that give shape and depth to brush strokes. Some artist don't like that look.</p>

 

<p>While in your situation you may have to use a white flat for bottom fill I would not recommend surrounding you painting with white cards. A gloss surface picks up every reflection in the room and tends to desaturate color and contrast. Paintings with low impasto and, of course, pastels are less problematic here. You want your painted surface seeing BLACK to retain richness and depth.</p>

<p>If this guy is shooting digital, tungsten lights at 3200K will completely screw up the colors of the painting with digital white balance.</p>

<p>Also, the levels can be easily measured with strobes, using a digital light meter with a strobe trigger to get incident light levels. The digital light meter, like a sekonic 358, automatically triggers the strobes just like a camera with a PocketWizard would.</p>

<p>Others have mentioned large soft boxes and they would be perfect with electronic flash IF you are only working with non- reflective drawings, etchings, pastels, charcoals, or watercolors as your copy pieces. However, if the work is either oils or acrylics where you have a raised texture, you need Polarizing gels over the lights (Calumet has it in sheet form) and a very good Polarizing filter on the lens.</p>

<p>If there are concerns over the UV levels, some manufacturers offer flash tubes that are balanced to remove UV from the flash output. White Lightning is one.</p>

<p>I use four White lightning studio electronic flashes with normal reflector heads when copying art work of any kind. Two are at 45 degrees on each side at a one high and one low position (equal elevations on each side) and set at equal power so that the light is smooth and even across the piece. The Polarizing film has to be oriented the same way on each so you don't get cross polarization which would create uneven brightness. The Polarizing films have a label on each that shows the orientation direction, so that is easy. Once you set the lights, you focus and then rotate the Polarizer on the lens until you see the maximum effect. It is quite obvious because the colors and saturation will blow you away.</p>

<p>There is a caution. These films are not made for use with hot lights. They will melt and deform with even a normal household 100 watt bulb if too close, so use them on a clip of some sort that allows them to be out in front of the reflector so that too much heat doesn't build up. A small amount of deformation causes no problems, but it would not be hard to burn a hole through one of these if you ignore the heat for very long. Do not use them with photo floods if that is your normal modeling light in your electronic flash. It would also be good to turn down the power on the modeling lights (only for the modeling lights, not the flash power) once you have done your focusing and checked your proper setting for the polarizing filter. Then power them back up and down again for each piece you have to copy. It's not as much hassle as it sounds like and the results are fabulous.</p>

<p>Without the Polarization technique, every peak of the high gloss texture from oils or acrylics will have a nearly white specular reflection no matter whether you use softboxes or straight reflector heads. With Polarization of both the lights and the lens, you eliminate the reflections and allow the full range and spectrum of the colors to be recorded without the dilution of tone that occurs when not using the filtration technique.</p>

<p>Another VERY useful accessory is a small color chart that is included just off the edge of the piece but still in the photo frame (or set in the center of the piece for one frame and then removed for the actual copy image), That allows either you or the lab to reproduce the colors with absolute faithfulness since when the color chart is perfectly reproduced, so will the colors of the art. Calumet used to have these either from Kodak or from McBeth. They were made for the printing industry to ensure perfect color reproduction for books, etc., but work ideally for this purpose. I just Googled "McBeth Color Charts" and I see they are available through Amazon. The Kodak version comes (or came) in two sizes, a big one and one that was only about seven inches long. Both came with a gray scale step chart as well to help gauge your controls for both exposure and for gray scale reproduction.</p>

<p>Good luck with your projects.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>Great suggestions there, the polarizing gels, and a small color chart with each RAW image, very smooth moves!</p>

<p>In my humble opinion this project should be set up so as you can deliver to the client results they want and what you want to show your art as a professional photographer. It sounds to me that you would be placing yourself in a situation where it would be difficult to deliver the anticipated results. <br /> The Minneapolis Institute of Arts just recently concluded an exhibit from the Louvre. How did they get the items from Paris to here in the States? Are there ways to hire people who could move the art? <br /> Can't move the art to a location needed to obtain your desired professional results, for whatever reason, sometimes it's a lack of money, I'd say find someone else to make the photos. Small budget? Large prints. Could this be a recipe for trouble?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Honestly couldn't read everything here, but reading your question, I have the following comments.</p>

<p>You will need at least 4 strobes, two on each side. Using a softbox will cause more problems than it is worth, as will any kind of reflector--you need an incident angle that gets rid of glare and both of these are useless in a case like that. With this size work, you need one strobe high and one low on each side(not above or below the painting's edges, but biased towards the top and bottom edges so that the spill overlap from the higher and lower ones work together in balance with rest of light). You want to watch your "angles" to be sure you aren't getting direct bounce of lights to camera. I suggest a longer lens, longest you can use in space to avoid the "angle" issue. I always put polarizing gels on my lights--bought at a theatre/movie rental house. One sheet was big enough to cover 4 7" reflectors.</p>

<p>You will need to feather the lights so that the light is even across the paintings (and best to not have other light sources around) This means you need to take flash readings at all 4 corners, middle sides, and across the center until the lights are in balance. It takes time to get it right and if you have to move the lights between shots, then you need to have plenty of time to work.</p>

<p>Your best advice so far comes from Tim Ludwig. I make much of my living photographing art (the most boring work that can be done with a camera).</p>

<p>"<em>Without the Polarization technique, every peak of the high gloss texture from oils or acrylics will have a nearly white specular reflection no matter whether you use softboxes or straight reflector heads.</em> "... absolutely true. If the weave of the substrate (especially linen) is at all visible in an oil or acrylic painting, you will get one small white dot in the center high point of each warp and weft. Cross polarizing is essential with canvases finished with any varnish. It does suck the life out of a heavily textured work, so this is a conversation you must have with the artist. Also consider that some pigments fluoresce in spectrum that are not visible to CCDs, CMOS or various emulsions of transparency and negative films, or may conversely fluoresce in spectrum that are <em>not</em> visible to the human eye but <em>are</em> seen by the above sensing mechanisms. </p>

<p>I once photographed a Benny Andrews painting with 4 different emulsions of 4x5 chromes, only to be replaced by a photographer who used a fifth that had the necessary sensitivity to record that particular paintings colors accurately. Oddly enough, I used two emulsions each of Fuji and Kodak daylight films with strobe, and the next guy brought in EPT, a tungsten transparency film, exposed with Tota-lights. </p>

<p>One thing not mentioned in the comments made so far, is that if you go with continuous light sources, you will need to work in an otherwise completely darkened room. Any windows or lamps will either illuminate objects in the room that may reflect in the painting (like your silver tripod), or will contaminate the color. Wear black, or dark clothing.</p>

<p>Also, the reason I place a white or black fabric on the floor when photographing paintings on location is to prevent any color contamination from reflected light off a colored floor, and not so much for additional illumination. Check your ceiling color, too (although most are white).</p>

<p>Just a few weeks ago, I photographed six 5x10 ft painted panels that were to be later installed as a mural. Black non reflective fabric was placed on the yellowed floor. I set four lights of cross polarized strobes, and had all exposure issues resolved before I even set the first painting in place. Regarding light damage to artwork; If you are photographing paintings of a known dimension positioned on a wall, there is no need to make exposure tests with the painting in place. The hard part was making the first panel square to the sensor. This is another advantage to cross polarizing. There is very little finesse involved. It is a clinical exercise in mathematics. The setup took about 1/2 hour and the 6 paintings were done in 12 exposures taking about 11 minutes (I just checked the time stamps on those images, and that time frame was way shorter that I thought it was).</p>

<p>I rarely use softboxes to photograph artwork any more. Your satisfaction with images from a "pro" bouncing one light onto a painting made me smile, and to wonder about your perceptual sophistication.</p>

<p>Most artists don't have a lot of money, or suspect that quality images are a luxury rather than the best selling tool they have. It just does not pay to spend hours lighting a painting. I have also found that I spend as much time explaining the process to artists, and how to handle and apply the multiple file formats I supply to them, and answer their questions about monitor calibration when they get their images open on their uncalibrated home computers, as I do actually making the photographs. I'll assume <em>you</em> have a calibrated monitor and a dependable WB target... t</p><div></div>

<p>One can just use pro films balanced for 3200K lamps; I guess I assumed wrongly that that folks understood that color films are available in pro tungsten color temps; since it is 1/2 century old for me. With my digital; 50 megapixel scan back; it naturally is used with tungsten; one uses an IR filter with the rig.Tungsten based color films are not as common as they once were; they are in the 1940's Kodak books even and thus not really new. When one uses tungsten based films or backs and tungsten lamps there is no color errors; the backs/films are matched to the color temperature of the light source.<br>

<br /> Most of the times in lighting work folks understand matching source with the recording device/method.<br /> Many digital cameras have a tungsten light balance in them too; again I wrongly assumed this was common knowledge too. Even my cellphone's camera has a tungsten light balance.<br>

<br /> Shooting artwork is ancient; think many many many decades. To get even lighting on a big 8x12 foot piece is not a tungsten/strobe issue; but one of illumination the artwork evenly.<br>

<br /> Your do not have to use a full dark room to shoot a big piece of artwork. One can just carry the darn thing outside and use the overcast sky; or use some lamps inside; its been done this way before any us were born; and it is still done today. Outside there is this source called sol; it is that big glowing ball you see in the sky each day.:) It is very bright and with an overcast day it still is about say 1/asa at F8; plus one has no shadows.<br>

<br /> Shooting artwork goes back many many decades; it is really NOT about the tools one uses; it is about the results. The client pays for results; they do not want you to ruin their artwork either. Clients take a dim view of a new photographer popping a strobe over and over to mess with illumination; or leaving tungstens on 100 percent voltage while they are off playing on a cellphone. New clients often spring up due to these newbie infractions; photographers wrongly assume artists do not care about their work,</p>

<p>With film you have to wait for the results if one is farting around experienting with lights and strobes of flat illumination. In actual pro applications one often does not have this fartng around luxury of alot of time. Here I got our 35 megapixel scan back in 1996 because of turnaround issues; and it mainly is used with artwork. Even the bigger 50 Mp back is not enough for some artwork types; one has to shoot 2 exposures and stitch two 135meg image together..<br>

<br /> Besides the artworks illumination; your lens has some off axis light falloff too.<br>

<br /> One can go back 1/2 century ago and be shooting artwork with a 4x5 and using 3200K Ektachrome type B at an EI of 32; or using Ektachrome Daylight at an EI of 50 with blue flashbulbs or strobes.<br>

It is really not about what tools one uses; it is about actual results a customer wants. One can get even illumination using torches; flashpowder; flashbulbs; AC lamps or strobes; OR get uneven results too.<br>

With a big piece of artwork in a small studio or room; you have your work alot more difficult that it really needs to be.</p>

 

<p>Kelly,<br>

Your comment in your first post above about the cost of gas brought back fond memories of working at Target (I worked at the second store!) during the summer in the mid-60's, filling up my car with gas and usually get it full for less than two bucks. Remember pulling up to a gas station, that's when they provided outside service, saying, "give me a bucks worth!"</p>

<p>Have a great week.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em><br /> "Your do not have to use a full dark room to shoot a big piece of artwork. One can just carry the darn thing outside and use the overcast sky; or use some lamps inside; its been done this way before any us were born; and it is still done today. Outside there is this source called sol; it is that big glowing ball you see in the sky each day.:) It is very bright and with an overcast day it still is about say 1/asa at F8; plus one has no shadows."</em></p>

<p>Kelly, sorry, but I have to take huge issue with most of this paragraph from your otherwise well thought out remarks.</p>

<p>Overcast sky puts you off by a considerable margin on your color temperature and also has an abundance of UV to contend with. Both can cause enormous reproduction problems unless you properly meter and filter with a color meter (an absolute for film) and even still needed with a white balance either auto or set Kelvin temperature for digital. If you use any filtration on the lens, be certain to meter through that filter for the color temperature. Even a Polarizer can slightly change the color temperature and needs to be included in that reading.</p>

<p>Placing the work in a shaded area also gives you a big jump in UV balance compared to the rest of the spectrum and that records as a blueish cast. Of course, that is assuming that you are copying for color reproduction. If you are just copying in black and white for a show catalog or other publication that will only be seen in black and white, then outside in the shade may get you by, but you will then need to worry with a whole new set of problems related to the contrast ranges and which filters (yellow, orange, green, blue, red, and or UV) to use on the lens to properly display those contrast ranges present in the piece in their proper balance for the final publication. If shooting film, those choices may vary according to the emulsion type as different films will react differently to contrast filters.</p>

<p>If you choose to shoot with "that big glowing ball in the sky", what time of day you choose also causes huge variations in the color temperature plus the obvious shadow problems on any textured work, even just the pattern of artist's canvas much less a thick oil or acrylic medium. All will throw strong shadow since that is a single light source blasting from one side. "Daylight" temperature balance is pretty much considered to be an open sunny sky at around high noon. Early morning and later afternoon are much warmer light which is very attractive on portraits or for architecture where the warmth aids viewer emotion is part of the viewing experience, but way off on accurate color reproduction for this kind of situation.</p>

<p>One other thing that I have not noticed in any of the posts is the need for camera alignment with the art. Unless you are shooting in a stabilized permanent set where the camera is always at one angle and the art is always mounted at the precise corresponding angle on the wall or easel, a great investment is an inclinometer. It is a simple leveling device that allows you to measure the angle at which the art work is hung and then using that angle, set the precise angle of the camera to match. This solves all depth of field problems without the need for extremely bright lighting for a large depth of field and assures that the camera is square to the piece so that no distortions or perspective problems arise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim;<br /> With external (overcast) light color balance is no big issue. I have the same old Kodak color patches and greyscale wedges I have used for eons. One has an actual reproduction color target; ie a reference one can use if there are any minor color issues. With a color reference one gains alot of added control. the only reason an external shoot is don is if teh artwork will not fit on my copy board; which si 54" high by about 10 feet wide; ie huge.</p>

<p>In many better contacts it is REQUIRED to have a color reference for the client. For internal work I have a many ton process camera bed that the copy rig is a fixed to; it has been aligned since Ford was president; it is built into my building.<br>

<br /> Getting spot on color is not really an issue either because I print too. I have a modern color meter; an old color meter; a mess of filters too. Getting an exact color match only matters if one has some old client who wants a perfect trany; today most are ok with a digital file; thus any minor tweaks are easy.<br>

Even with a perfect color temp and film one still has the issues of the damn labs color shifts. This is the reason I went digital with artwork back in 1996; ie 14 years ago. One can fart around like 40 years ago with CC filters; calibrating strobes; regulating voltage to a nanovolt:); do samples tests with film; experimentally getting tthe CC filters for that batch; applying CC correction filters for long exposures. *THEN* today a sorry ass lab will botch the tranys with old chemicals; *THUS* it really is not worth it anymore.<br>

That is why I went digital back in 1996 with artwork; to gain control of the process again. One can actually use Harbor Freight 500 watt or 150 watt work lamps to shoot artwork with digital; one has alot more control than farting around with poor E6 labs.<br>

<br /> Overcast days have no shadows; thus there are not any issues with shadows. Getting a correct color balance on the giant pieces I shoot outside has never been any issue at all. maybe it is becuase I have shot for 50 years.<br>

<br /> With mapping one has the issues of barrel and pincushion distortion; besides getting the lens and film/sensor square with the artwork. With a dead seas type maps; it might be in fragments and the map has to be shot straight down. One has a jig saw puzzle to shoot; often with a big piece of glass to hold the potato chip map fragments in place and flat. This is a real mess to do.</p>

<p>Getting correct color balance for me is at best super trivial; the least of my worries and work.<br>

Bigger issues are a client might have day glow rock fluorescent colors that are out of gamut of the film; sensor and printer; but the client cannot accept this. Other issues are wanting 3D artwork shot; or perfect color matching with a faded original that has uneven fading.</p>

<p>folks want the poster from 1965 to look like is new in 1965; but one gets this faded moldy poster with colors barely there.<br>

<br /> There really is *NO* limit to what the public calls *artwork*; or *fineart*; after along time it just means about anything.<br>

One can ask a customer what their artwork is or fine art is and one gets zero feedback. They then bring in something you have never seen before; a 3D shroud of a nude body; welded washers on a plate; goop on a board; a sunset; whatever. One cannot run the steel washer artwork thru the 36" wide scanner; its 3D how do they want it illuminated? Its got dayglow paint on it; the dayglow orange reproduces poorly. It has a 1:2 aspect ratio; they want it reproduced 18x24" with no cropping and not a strip print either. You spend 1/2 hour explaining the concept of aspect ratio and gamut; which never sinks in. dealing with artists is often like this; a huge time sinkhole.</p>

<p>TL:"<em>I have not noticed in any of the posts is the need for camera alignment with the art."</em></p>

<p><em>... </em> well I mention it but with an inappropriate amount of emphasis; "<em>The hard part was making the first panel square to the sensor.</em> " Once the gig we made was aligned, the other identically sized panels fell right into place. I usually organize the photography of many paintings according to their size and aspect ratio, to keep the resetting of both lights and camera position and orientation to a minimum.</p>

<p>Again I concur with Tim on almost all points. While photographing artwork correctly is difficult to do well, and technically challenging, many artists just don't bother to take the necessary steps to obtain accurate reproductions of their work, with sometimes significant results. I was recently asked to jury the annual artist market in my home town. The range of photographic skill evident in the applications was predictably very wide ranging. The other two judges and I frequently kicked artists from the festival because the photography of their work was so poor that it was impossible to assess the quality and qualities of what we were looking at... t</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi, Kelly. Just so you know we're in the same ball park, I've been "farting around" with this for 45 years so we are of the same generation. Even though I shoot digital as well, I just find it easier to keep my tolerances as tight as I can during the shooting so I avoid as many issues as possible. I have had wayyyyy to many conversations with fellow pros regarding the fact that the ease of corrections in Photoshop is often an excuse for not caring enough to learn how to do it right in the camera as we all once had to know how to do. It often takes far, far less time to do it right, than to spend big blocks of time sitting at the damn computer fixing ones uncaring or just ignorant mistakes.</p>

<p>As one of my favorite sayings states, "Why is it there is never enough time to do it right, but there is always enough time to do it over?".</p>

<p>Those color charts are an enormous help in the final reproduction stages. Also, as an art major (decades ago) with several skilled artists in my circle of family and friends, I also recognize the variations that we encounter with artists and their choice of media. Trying to shoot some of those can be a real lightning challenge for either clarity or creativity.</p>

<p>So for now, I stand by everything I said about shooting in sunlight or outdoor shade. There are tons of variables and I like to tighten those as much as possible whether film or digital.</p>

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>Sorry I missed your references to camera alignment. It is crucial for the final product and was not aware that you had addressed this. I certainly agree on the kind of junk photography that lots of artists settle for....frightening that they think it is acceptable and that jurors will allow them in with that kind of visualization. Then again, if that's what they accept to represent their work, they deserve to have their own quality questioned to the point of rejection.</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>If nothing else, after reading this thread, Dan Pulman will probably have an ample set of resources from which to develop an effective technique for photographing large flat artwork.</p>

<p>"If this guy is shooting digital, tungsten lights at 3200K will completely screw up the colors of the painting with digital white balance."</p>

<p>This remark is baffling. Tungsten light has a nice even spectrum, so a custom white balance will work very well. Most fluorescent lights, on the other hand, do not behave like black body radiators, so you'll get color shifts for some colors.</p>

<p>Listen to Kelly and Tim. They clearly have a great deal of experience. Also buy "Light: Science and Magic" so you'll understand why you *do not* want a large light source for reflective surfaces.</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266238459&sr=8-1</p>

<p>Thank you all! I was really blown away by the detailed, thorough and thoughtful responses you have all posted to to my question. This has been a great help. I had overlooked the Polarization technique and I will definitely employ it.<br>

I think my main concern is eliminating hot spots due to the confines of space in the studio and the limitations this places on the positioning of the continuous lamps or strobes. A larger studio would solve all my problems, but is out of the question at the moment. I understand the reasons that soft boxes would not be a good solution (the paintings are in oils and acrylics), but are there any other good methods that can be used to diffuse or spread the light to avoid hot spots, particularly with continuous lighting? <br>

And on strobes...I will probably continue to use continuous lights if I will need 4 strobes as that could prove to be quite an investment, but what kind of wattage would I need for strobes? Should I lower the wattage of my continuous lights 2 or possibly 4 (if I buy 2 more) x 800w might be too much without having the necessary options for distance? And not having any experience with strobes... does a strobe bulb/reflector produce a more even light than an open faced tungsten bulb/reflector like the ones I use here:<br>

http://www.photonbeard.com/Open%20face.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Tim having had some to digest what you said, I believe that the use of continuous lighting in the form of my red head lamps will simply be too hot for the polarizing film. So I was wondering what model are your white lightning strobes i.e how powerful, and what is the minimum distance you need for obtaining good results? </p>

<p>Hi, Dan.</p>

<p>You can use the Polarizing film with your lights, but will have to have big filters due to the need to have them at least a couple of feet in front of the lights to avoid the extreme heat. You will have to make sure you will not have any spillover of the light. The big filter films could get expensive. Then there is the high heat factor for comfort for yourself and for possible damage to the art (and the higher air conditioning bills to stay comfortable).</p>

<p>I happen to use White Lightning Ultras I've had for a minimum of 15 years and one for nearly 30. A great company for my money and they stand behind their product with a very strong warranty and extremely fast turn around if there is a repair needed. (I've had about four repairs in all that time and always had the unit back within a week.) They also make the Alien Bees which are budget priced and seem to still be a quality product judging from the number of recommendations I've seen in this forum and others.</p>

<p>Not to say that many other systems aren't equally fine, but I know this company and their practices.</p>

<p>One thing to avoid is too little power. Because I do product work and architecture, I often need tons of power so mine are the highest power they used to make which is 1800WS. They do make more powerful lights now in the White Lightning X and Zap lines. I bought these lights in my portrait studio days when I often did in-home family sessions, class reunions in big banquet halls and other situations where I needed as much power as I could beg, steal or borrow. Of course, for studio head shots, I would power them way down to get the appropriate exposure levels. I think the Bees have about the same five or six f stop adjustment range irregardless of the actual maximum power of the flash. Each model will have a different maximum power and therefore a different actual f stop setting with that adjustment range. The seven inch reflectors that come with all of the Paul Buff flashes give a very nice coverage and evenness in their pattern.</p>

<p>When you are deciding what power you need, remember that brightness decreases by the square of the distance. So an electronic flash that gives you a maximum of f16 power at five feet (that's without the Polarizing filter which subtracts about a stop and the one on camera drops another it 2-2.5 stops), will drop to f8 at ten feet. With all the Polarizers in place, that means at ten feet you are down to f2.8 at best and you will need more than that for depth of field purposes. I would say f8 minimum.</p>

<p>Of course that arbitrary setting is dependent on your choice of ISO, but if you go too high on that in digital, noise is a possibility. As with film, you are often better off using a lower ISO range when going for fine detail. Experiment with your camera to determine where you should set your ISO for maximum quality for the artwork since that has a definite need for extreme detail.</p>

<p>As to why you need at least that much depth of field, remember that most camera lenses are not process lenses. That is they are not flat field lenses designed to copy flat art (there is often a slight curvature of field) and if the center of the piece you are copying is six feet away, in a large piece, you could be ten or twelve feet away at the edges. If you focus at six feet and are sharp there, you could be soft at the edges if you shoot wide open or any where near it.</p>

<p>If you use the continuous lights and lower the power, you will also alter the color temperature and with multiple lights, that means that you may have one light or more out of sync temperature-wise. That could mean that one area of the art is a completely different color cast blending into the other regions. Not a good idea! Same thing might happen with different ages of the bulbs as they tend to chance color as they age.</p>

<p>As to <strong><em>diffusing</em> </strong> the light more, that is a quality of altering the nature of the beam by placing an introduced fabric or plastic panel (such as translucent-white or frosted Coroplast (from any plastics company), Trans-Lum (Porter's) or even a white sheet or shower curtain) between the light and the subject. Basically the same as using a soft box and not appropriate to this use. What you need is a <strong><em>spread</em> </strong> of the existing beam so that it evenly covers (by a wide margin) the work you are copying. That occurs by simply moving the lights farther away (perhaps not possible in your space) until you have an even spread of the light. This and the potential large size of the piece is why some of us have mentioned the four light set up with power and spacing carefully adjusted for evenness of the beams. With the four lights, you can keep them in closer geographically and keep higher exposure power in the mix due to being closer. As I think you understand, the minimum distance for proper spread is totally dependent on the size of the piece to be copied.</p>

<p>You can actually judge the evenness of the light with a quick visual check using a pencil (eraser end) touching the art at about the centers of each of the four quadrants of the piece. If the shadow density from the pencil looks to be pretty much the same depth, you are likely in great shape.</p>

<p>Perhaps we could all add more info or suggestions if you could share the actual dimensions of your work space. Width, ceiling height and full distance from where you anchor the art to the far limits of your shooting space would be helpful. Please also include the largest size of the work you will be asked to copy as that affects the distance at which you need to place the lights.</p>

<p>Changing from two to four lights is essential with the size of the items you want to photograph. This will go a long way toward reducing hot spots... t</p>