How to photograph art pieces

[a_slocum]

A artist asked me to shoot his art paintings for him to sell. I have

a studio and have never done art. Any suggestions on lighting.Thank

you.

[cosmo_genovese]

What size and kind of art are you talking about (paintings, sculpture . . .)?

[cosmo_genovese]

Ooops, I meant what size paintings are we talking about?

[tobiasfeltus]

hi ho,

i have seen two techniques used well, but i have also noticed substantial improvements over the years from the same photographer.

 

one way is to use polarized gels on two strobes, and thus eliminate glare.

 

the other way is by using a large softbox as a lightbank, above the painging, and i think a reflector at the bottom. i would also recommend that you set up the lights, then move the painting, and try rotating it, as you may find that there is less glare if the painting is upside down. this saves you having to change the light set up.

 

t+

[michaelmowery]

A copy light set up works well.

 

 

Michael

[brian_faini]

i do this on a regular basis both with ektachrome and digi

 

i just use 3 tungsten photofloods, and a reflector toward the bottom of the piece, use a black backgroud to place the work on so if you are using a ttl meter you are metering for the work and get proper tonality of the piece

my camera equipment is that of of a 70-200mm lens set to f8 with a linear polarizer, tripod, mirror-lock, and a remote

 

you dont have to get too complicated with this have used this set up for hundreds of pieces even for pieces up to 8ftx10ft. it has become very routine to me, just make sure you have the lighting even for pieces with large amount of white.

[cosmo_genovese]

I've had very good success photographing art work using two strobes (Dyna-Lites) shooting through umbrellas. In effect, I create a large copy stand by placing the umbrellas equidistant from each side of the art work at a 30-degree angle. I aim the strobes so that the light criss-crosses the other on the painting; then I meter the four corners and the center of the work until my readings all agree. I aim and focus my 55mm micro-Nikkor on the center of the art and bracket my shots, especially when using slide film (it's especially important to use a flat-field lens like the micro-Nikkor to avoid the barrel distortion you'll get with a regular lens; the 105mm AF micro-Nikkor is also a flat-field lens). Of course, all this is done on a tripod with a cable release and mirror lock-up. Depending on the properties of the piece of art, you may need to either polarize the light sources or use a linear polarizer on your lens.

 

Buona fortuna.

[neil_grant]

I use a copy set-up with camera on vertical stand for small pieces, or horizontally with

camera on tripod for larger works. Lighting is 2 x studio flash, with polarisers on light

sources and camera lens.

[friskybongo]

Check out this link:

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158428028X/qid=1076795395/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-8097278-8776901?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[tom_musselman]

You can also check out this book. Highly recommended. Good luck!<br><br>

 

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0879857641/qid=1138809069/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8002533-7637608?s=books&v=glance&n=283155" target="_blank">Copying and Duplicating</a>

[shoots]

It's funny how meticulous artists can be making there art and how sloppy and

unconcerned they can present them as slides for competition or review. Remember unless

you are going to travel with your images they will have to speak for themselves. You won't

be able to say well that was supposed to be is a white table cloth but I used tungsten

lighting with daylight film...

Now, I have also seen supposed "Art Directors" hold a beautiful 4x5 up to a yellow light-

bulb and talk about how they might use the art except for the dingy colors...sometimes it's

a crap shoot.

 

In either case I dont think it hurts to go the extra distance for photographing your work, or

hiring a professional. That said, what I will describe is for shooting varnished oil paintings,

requires mono-lights and special filters, and although this setup is not the most expensive

setup, if budget is the concern over results this may not be the best way for you.

 

I will supply some pictures here of my setup and a little explanation. First, I use both film

and digital. Competitions and galleries have been slow to except digital so I need to use

both. I start with a black velour background, just stretch the fabric over foam-core so no

light can show through it. You need to securely hang your art so how you do that is up to

you but I punch a hole through the background and run a support through to hang art on.

I think the objective here is to hide the means by which you hang the art. Erasing wires is

easy in photoshop but impossible for slides.

Next, use polarizing filters on each light set 45 deg. from the art and a polarizing filter on

the camera lens. Here's the trick, make sure the modeling lamps are on, or a light source

is shining through the filters because as you look through the viewfinder while twisting the

polarizer you will see the glare disappear from the painting. Without a light shining

through the two lights you will not be able to set the polarizer that is on your lens

effectively.<div></div>

[shoots]

Lights on left<div></div>

[shoots]

Light with polarizing filter and home-made gel holder.

[shoots]

Final pic<div></div>

[howard_anderson1]

so called 2 dimemsoional art painting are in fact 3 dimensional. look at your assignment carefully and deside carfully how you main light, fills, and acscent lights will best bring out the best charactoristcs your client wants.

[lawrence_beck2]

Troy,

Thanks for the photos of your lighting setup. With respect to using digital to photograph

paintings, would a 14 megapixel camera (Kodak slr/c) be sufficient to photograph an oil or

acrylic painting as large as 35x47?

 

I normally shoot 6x7 format or 4x5 but would like to go digital as I live far from a lab and

would love to eliminate the time scanning and all that proper film file prep entails. I am

on a very restricted budget and am looking for the most bang for my buck.

 

Though the slr/c has many shortcomings, my research indicates that it is well suited to

copy work. The color rendition is quite good and the bodies can be obtained used for

between $1,500 and $2,000. Also keep in mind that such a large piece of art is viewed

from 6 to 10 or more feet away... so 4x5 quality is not expected.

 

The white balance feature of digital cameras makes accurate color of copy work much

better than film... so there would be many advantages (for me, at least) in shooting digital.

 

Many thanks for your input... as well as the comments of all others on this subject.

 

Lawrence

[shoots]

Lawrence,

 

I don't photograph my paintings for print media reproduction for posters or large prints so

35mm or a DSLR like a D70 is fine for me. I photograph them just so they can be viewed

by projector or small printout for judging purposes. I don't know what your final output

requirements are but I think even 6x7 would be sufficient.

As far as your question regarding megapixel count and the use of the camera you have in

mind you might direct that question to the nikon or digital forum to get a better answer,

because I can't say for sure.

[twmeyer]

I do photograph for publication, and the files from the Fuji S2, custom WB, RAW and convert with the Fuji software seem to be perfectly adequate. <p>While Troy's advice is all sound, I have found each piece of art requires it's own lighting scheme, much as people do. While a general approach gets 90% of your setup ready, <i>sometimes</i> a standard copy light treatment with cross polarizing renders a flat and boring looking painting, especially with a heavily textured oil or acrylic painting that has any dimensionality to it, at all. If you are photographing pastels, watercolors or charcoals, or any type of truely 2 dimensional work, follow Troys advice precisely. If you want to show texture and a deliberately created surface, try using lights of differing contrast. I have had success by using large softboxes, or two on each side stacked, but removed the inner baffles from the boxes on one side. This helps by creating a subtle shadow of the textured surface that creates good modeling of the paintings surface, while the still diffuse light creates a broader and less specular highlight across the painting, which adds to the viewers understanding of the painting's actual characteristics.<p>Also, if you convert your files to targa files, in 24bit and not in excess of 18 megabytes or so (10x6 at 300ppi) a good lab can output slides from those files that are perfectly suited for submisions to galleries and competitions. Have optical dupes made from the 1st slide that is generated from your digital file, and the costs will be less than shooting slide film, with excellent quality... t

[twmeyer]

............<div></div>

[kelly_flanigan1]

Re <i>With respect to using digital to photograph paintings, would a 14 megapixel camera (Kodak slr/c) be sufficient to photograph an oil or acrylic painting as large as 35x47?</i><BR><BR>Here I use either a 35 or 50 Megapixel 4x5 Phase One scan back. For a detailed map neither is enough for a 35x47" image. For "artwork" this can mean anything, thus the requirements vary with each job. The artwork might be a giant family tree with a zillion ancestors on each branch, lettered with a small Rapidograph pen. The field area might have color coded branches; and colored family coat of arms, and pasted on B&W 100 year old photos of major ancestors, and color images of recent ones. Some folks embark one these many year "creations", and only at the last moment want copies. One of these I had to shoot in sections; and stitch the sections together.<BR><BR>Historical folks want color control patches; steel rules at each side,and a data sheet in the field area of "artwork shots". Wantabee/budding artists often consider the color control patchs as clutter; thus these are often cropped out in the digital copy they get.<BR><BR>Artwork has no real meaning anymore. It really only means the author thinks it is "artwork". Here I have shot artwork since the 1960's.<BR><BR>Some artwork has a 3D surface. The look of you copy may not be what your client wants. A standard settup will not please all clients. If it does, you have not had enough clients. :)<BR><BR>Without the IR filter the Phase One backs often pickup hidden features, retouchings, leader lines. Or the paint be dots numbers :).

[kelly_flanigan1]

Or the paint <b>by</b> dots numbers :).<BR><BR>

[twmeyer]

Kelly, I think you're definition of "artwork" is shaped by many years in the graphic arts, where "artwork" means anything flat with deliberate marks on it that someone has either paid for, or expects to be paid for it's production and possible reproduction. The term "artwork" in this sense is frequently used to distinguish a graphic component from a photographic image. That is certainly one common and accurate interpretation/application of the word. <p>Having been out of the lab biz for several years, I have to wonder if the contents of a digital file that is only a component of a final piece, would be commonly called for with "Have you got the artwork for this comp? The mural is due in mounting today!". Somehow, that seems archaic. I certainly don't miss the environment.<p>I still use the term "artwork" that way, but distinguish it from "works of art" which frequently are made without a "prenuptual" contract, if you get my meaning. They are made prior to and frequently without any anticipation of commercial application or remuneration. Of course they may also be commissioned artworks/works of art, such as a painted portrait or an illustration for magazine. Perhaps there is also some qualitative difference between an "artwork" and a "work of art"... a recognition of value and significance according to some personal or academic standard, but this seems a topic for another thread.<p>People have all sorts of reasons to make these flat things, and have as many reasons to need them documented. The technical concerns encountered in their reproduction are as varied as the works themselves, and I think that's what we are discussing here... t<p>to tell the truth, I'm not sure why I felt compelled to write this. I'm sure I am not alone in this regard.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Tom; Friday we had a call from a customer to laminate their "artwork". It was a 1st grade teacher's watercolor colorfull Happy Birthday piece she uses in the classroom; with alot of 3D features. <BR><BR>To All:<BR><BR><b>Alot of artwork is really not 2D or flat at all.</b> Oil paintings have alot of 3d effect; ie texture. This radically appears differently when lighting goes from grazing angles to 90 degrees, ie flat. A film or digital capture will have a different look as the lighting angle is varied. Whether the customer likes your output needs to be checked. <BR><BR>I prefer a "modifer" to be added to the word "artwork", to add some clue as what folks mean. An oil painting, a pastle watercolor, a line drawing sketch; a free hand pencil portrait, a leaf collection, a colorfull custom quilt, a teenagers collage of photos, a movie set makers story boards; a cake decorators masterpiece all are alot more specific than "artwork". . <BR><BR>Having worked in many industries I find that folks use the term artwork to mean many radically different things. Those who stay in one industry tend to have narrow vision of what artword is.<BR><BR>One trapper I met once had a collection of his artwork, scats and track plasters used to id wild animals. Another electrican friend has is artwork as bugs made out of electrical sockets. Yet another has chrome automobile bumpers welded up like a wild spaceship. <BR><BR>Alot of art is 3D; this means lighting is not trivial at all. <BR><BR>One trap folks newbies fall into is wrongly assuming "artwork" is flat, and that one lighting settup will fit all needs. <BR><BR>Some artists materials are abit odd and more difficult to capture. Learning about different lighting methods for each different type takes some experimenting. Many folks get bogged down with camera details and dont experiment with lighting. The funny thing is that the movie industry lighting experts sweat many details, Food photographers and many still photographers do to. But many folks get blindsided by camera makers hokem and avoid lighting. <BR><BR>Brooks Short could shoot a decent food shot with my Kodak Duaflex II.<BR><BR>It is really good to see more lighting dialog at photo.net. I feel alot of folks get caught in the mire of hardware. When I started out our 4H club photo teacher used Photofloods and alot of different shaped objects. The hands on learning, experimenting with lighting involved very little expensive stuff. When we got a surplus Mole Richardson light we thought it was nifty.

[twmeyer]

<i>"to laminate their "artwork"...with alot of 3D features"</i> <p>glossy, lustre or matte? :^) <p>My "best" request was to retouch a gazebo out of a photo, which (we finally determined from a too long interview) was to reveal an Uncle who was standing <i>behind</i> the gazebo at the time the picture was made. Really... t

[gordon_burns]

I have yet to purchase any studio lighting, but need to now I am photographing paintings for producing giclee prints. Can anyone give more advice on what best lights to buy for this job?