Studio Lights for Photographing Artwork

<p>Hi All,<br>

I have been asked to research different studio lighting options for my university's museum. They will be using these to photograph paintings and drawings, framed and unframed, with and without glass, ranging from 4" tall up to 8' tall. They want to buy strobes that will last awhile and have a budget of $2500. What brand, model, number of strobes, and light modifiers do you recommend? Pack and head system or monolights? These will be used in a small studio or controlled environment.<br>

<br />Thanks!<br>

Jeff</p>

I would look into the Paul Buff Einstiens with a couple large soft boxes. But you'd be surprised at how good the results

can be with just a couple of speed lights if the setup is right.

<p>I agree with Nathan. Additionally, I always go for indirect lighting on art work - make a couple of V flats with tall foam core, place in in front of the art work, and bounce your light off of it. Wonderful even light. </p>

<p>I'd opt for at least 4 heads, regardless the style of system you get. </p>

<p>Two simple hard lights with cross polarization will do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> They want to buy strobes that will last awhile and have a budget of $2500</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a tight budget for professional lighting gear that's expected to hold up under constant use for the size range of the objects in the collection. You'll want to look at Paul Buff gear as mentioned above. They are most likely the best bet in that price range. I haven't used them but I hear good things about them and a few of my students like them for their bang for the buck. There are Chinese made studio strobes in that price range, that I've seen on eBay, of unknown quality and durability. Maybe someone that has a set will weigh in.</p>

<p>You really want four heads of some kind to light those large works evenly.</p>

<p>You may want to get a start on a professional system and build on it over time and spread the cost out over a couple of years.<br>

If you could raise a bit more cash you could get your foot in the door with a starter pro outfit like this:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/50043-REG/Speedotron_11273_2405CX_2_CC_Flash_Head.html</p>

<p>They do have a kit that is similar, at half the power, that is close to your price range here:<br>

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/50021-REG/Speedotron_11275_1205CX_2_CC_Head.html</p>

<p>You'll still want two more heads for the large stuff but that would get you going for a copy set up. If 3-D works are part of the collection, the versatility of the 2400WS system would be very desirable.</p>

<p>Speedotron Black Line (not brown line) is extremely durable, well made, gear with consistent output. Because of the size of your works, 2400WS, gives you plenty of power to divide between four heads and use a reasonable f/stop at a low ISO. For top line studio gear they are among the more affordable options. ProPhoto, Elinchrom, Broncolor etc, are more pricey.<br>

Keep in mind that when shooting paintings often polarization over the lens and lights are used. That eats up plenty of light as does using diffusion filters over the lights (my favorite choice for works on paper and illuminated manuscripts) or bounce lighting. </p>

<p>Later you can add softboxes, beauty dish and other modifiers and a couple of more heads. Since this is basically a copy set up, you may not need a lot of different types of modifiers. Whatever you get, don't forget to order UV coated flash tubes.</p>

<p>You can also consider buying a system used. </p>

<p>Don't forget to add a flash meter in your budget. This will save a lot of time in getting even lighting on flat art. +1 on Buff strobes--I have used the X3200 models for exactly the kind of work you're doing for the last 12 years with great results and few repairs.</p>

<p>A lot of varied answers so far. None really wrong, just varied experience with different objects and sizes. The best answer also depends on the use of the images, insurance pictures or making a fine art book.</p>

<p>If you are using two hard lights, and want even lighting, the distance needs to be large compared to the size of the artwork (maybe 4 times the height). So, for your large artwork you will want 4 lights. You want one light on each side level with the bottom and one light on each side level with the top. Actually level is not the best word, if the artwork is on an easel, you want them on a plane perpendicular to the bottom or top of the artwork. </p>

<p>Oil paintings have shiny globs of 3-dimensional paint. It is often impossible to position the lights so you don't get glare. Here is where you need the cross-polarization (google it). Most of the polarizing sheets don't take heat well, you may need to turn off the modeling lights.</p>

<p>Some artwork might look better with soft light. But, I don't think soft boxes will fit in your budget so I would use large white reflectors, like V-flats previously mentioned, or possibly bouncing the light off white walls.</p>

<p>Getting the artwork square in the camera frame can be difficult. I use a carpenter's angle indicator and measure the tilt of the artwork, then set the camera at the same angle. If your room is a dedicated studio, I would tape a perpendicular line on the floor from the artwork to the camera.</p>

<p>If you need to shoot an 8 foot oil painting, you will need 4 lights with cross-polarization. If your budget is absolutely fixed, I would get 4 White Lightning X1600. Then you can add the light stands, polarizers, etc and still fit in your budget. </p>

<p>If your <em>oil</em> paintings are always smallish (maybe 4 feet high), I would get two Einsteins. Now for the compromise, for the 8 foot artwork, you will need to shoot with reflected light to get it even, and it still won't be as even as with 4 lights.</p>

<p>Note that I have not used either of these studio flashes, but they are highly regarded, reasonably priced units.</p>

<p>If you work for a university museum, I would recommend you contact the Smithsonian here in Washington, D.C. A photographer friend's wife used to be an assistant curator at one of their art museum, and he visited a couple of times with the photographer who photographed artwork for them. They had a state of the art system of proper copy stands and lights that they used, among other things, to create temporary copies to hang on the gallery walls when artwork was taken down to be worked on. I would think they would be glad to give advice museum to museum on best practices for this and what gear you need.</p>

<p>Do NOT use softboxes for copying flat artwork, especially behind glass. You want a hard light with as little spill as possible, and total control over the angle of light. Simple 10" dished reflectors will be all you'll need for most copying jobs. No need for polarisers either, unless the artwork has deep shiny brush-strokes like impasto oils or acrylics. For large 8 foot canvases you'll probably need 4 lights to get the exposure even enough from corner to corner.</p>

I'd go with 4 Einstein 640 monolights if you want monolights or look for two Speedotron 2400 w-s packs and four 202VF

heads if you want a pack and head system. My pick would be the Einsteins as they have an option for constant color

temperature and tint setting for all energy levels, 250 watt modeling lights, and individual head control in 0.10 stop

increments.

 

You will also need stands or some way to rig them, polarizing gels (these will need to be replaced periodically) and a flash

meter.

 

If your budget is $25,000 I recommend Broncolor Scoro.

<p>It's been mentioned that with oil paintings thick depositions of paint may lead to reflections you will have to adjust for. But I've run into this problem as well on very thinly painted works on woven canvas, or in particular areas of the canvas that are thinly covered. What happens is that the light may reflect off of the weave pattern itself in a way that isn't even, because the weave itself is three-dimensional. I remember one painting where the photo seemed to be lit evenly, but appeared to be covered with a strange kind of grainy overlay. Well it turned out to just be that the light was reflecting more strongly off the sides of the vertical threads in the weave. I was trying to do that one with two lights, but just couldn't get it to work. For that one we ended up taking it outside in the shade so that the light was uniform in all directions, and that worked nicely. But of course that's not always a practical alternative. Basically, I agree with Rodeo Joe and others that lighting with four lights at the corners should give you your best shot. But just be prepared to make adjustments no matter what setup you use.</p>

<p> </p>