Related Links:
Art - Why Bother? [10/2002]
Basic Procedures for Photographing 2-D and 3-D artwork
Beware of What You Photograph
Copying Artwork Tutorial [10/2000]
Copying Artwork with Tungsten Lights Discussion (RIT FAQ#31.7)
by Lynn M. Lickteig and Carole Cardon
Fine Arts Photo Books
Low cost mirror alignment device homebrew tips [02/00]
Photographing your art-work
RIT's 360 degree simple periphotograph setup for sculpture..
Shooting Jewelry Tips [12/2000]
Thomas Struth Article (NYT) [2/2003]
Polaroid
Transfer Art tips.. (Bob Hutchinson) [02/00]
I have a special interest in photographing art and especially sculpture.
This photography specialty also makes a fine Semi-professional Photography
niche for those interested in a technically challenging field of
photography.
You can also do art photography for fun, as when you make
photographs of grafitti paintings or car grills as abstract sculpture.
I also find that photographing art makes me really focus on and see
the art objects in a more involved and active way.
Books
There are a number of books on how to photograph artwork out there. Some
are aimed at artists, describing how they can get their artwork recorded
on film. Others are aimed at photographers, covering some elementary
issues of alignment and lighting. My personal approach would be to add a
number of books on photographic lighting (esp. on jewelry) to the usual
how to photographic art books collection.
Many photographers use their 35mm cameras and lenses to do various kinds
of art photography quite successfully. Use of flat-field macro lenses is
a particularly handy feature of some 35mm macrolenses for artwork. But as
many artists demand the best quality image of their artwork, you will
also find a demand for medium format and 4x5 or larger view camera work.
Some specialty photo items like large ring-lights and alignment tools are
often needed to do art photography. The biggest challenges are in
proper lighting and careful color fidelity to the original artwork,
especially given the size range (small beads to huge sculptures) and
often delicate nature of the artwork.
| How to Center Your Camera when Copying Paintings |
|---|
| Here's a tip from MP on how to center your camera when
photographing paintings. You need a tape measure. First, measure height of
the bottom of the painting and frame from the floor (e.g., 36 inches). Next,
measure
height of the painting and frame (e.g., 40 inches). Take half to get the
center value (e.g., 20 inches). Add that to the height of
the picture off the floor (e.g., 36+20 or 56 inches). The result is the
height of the center of the painting off the floor.
Now adjust your
tripod center-post so the center of your lens is the same distance (here,
56 inches) from the floor. Drop the tip of the tape measure to the floor,
and extend the tape up to the front of the camera lens. Adjust the center of
the
lens (using tripod centerpost or other controls) so it matches the height
of the center of the picture (e.g., 56 inches here). You have just
aligned your camera to the height of the center of the painting!
The next step is to align the camera with the central axis of the painting.
Drop a plumb bob line (a heavy weight like a key on the end of a string)
from the front and center of your camera lens to the floor. Adjust your
camera so this plumb bob line is on an imaginary line that goes through
the center of the painting.
You can also use your plumb bob line to drop a
line from the center of the painting to the floor, then extend this line
out to the camera with a measuring tape or line. Oftentimes, a floorboard
or pattern in the floor can be used to align the camera quickly too.
By using these tricks, you can avoid some sources of distortion which
arise when you photograph from the sides or too high or low off the axis
of the photograph.
|
Artist's Portfolios
Most artists require photographs of their work to submit to galleries and
grant agencies. An artist's portfolio is as important as a photographer's
portfolio as a selling tool. As a professional or semi-professional
photographer, you already have a good idea what your artists customers
might need and want in their portfolio layouts. In general, most artists
prefer slides or transparencies for their portfolio due to the impact of
slides and relatively lower cost compared to large color prints.
You can cheat here, and use super-slides to dazzle your artist
clients. Superslides are 4x4cm in size, made by cropping 6x6cm or 6x4.5cm
slides (or in special superslide backs). Superslides are about twice the
area of regular 35mm slides, so they have about double the impact!
Gallery and Museums
Galleries also require photography for their guides and sales materials,
as do art museums. At the current time, many museums are beginning to
post their entire collection of artwork on the World Wide Web. This
great project also offers budding art photographers a chance to work
with a huge variety of photographic projects and assignments and
challenges.
Art and Jewelry Collectors
Many art collectors want and need photographs of their
artwork and jewelry collections, offering a potentially lucrative series
of assignments as they add objects to their collections. Insurance companies
may also be a source of paid projects to document recent expensive
artwork and jewelry purchases.
If you have a gemology background, and
the tools to do micro-photographs of gems, you may also find a unique
specialty area in photographing gemstones. The cracks and inclusions
in gems are like fingerprints, enabling them to be identified and
recovered if stolen and found.
Portrait of the Artist or Collector
Finally, don't forget to take portrait and studio
photographs of the artist(s) at work. Keep in mind that today's local
artists may be tomorrow's national art figure. Your copyrighted
photographs of these artists in their studios might provide many
commissions and sales from shows, gallery guides, and art books.
Art students are one potential marketplace for the budding art
photographer. This approach is one way to build both your art
photography skills and a
dynamite portfolio while providing a needed service. Most art students
are unable to retain their original student artwork projects because of
their size and bulk. Yet they may need and want a series of photographs of
their work to apply for grants, workshops, and internships. Besides a
library of artwork and student artists (copyrighted) photos, you will
also likely get many word-of-mouth referrals to other artists needing
such services. In today's digital marketplace, you can also provide
scanned image files and budget color print copies (as from the popular
Epson stylus color printers) for web-savvy student artists.
Collectors are also a good source for portraits of themselves with their
newest addition to their collection. On the other end, collectors will
need an attractive photograph of their item to stimulate sales interest.
I need hardly add that most collectors of art objects and jewelry also
have the wherewithal to finance a professional's services.
| Copying a Tilted Painting |
|---|
| If a painting has been tilted (e.g., to minimize reflections),
you have to tilt your camera to match it or risk seeing distortions in
your photos. You need to precisely align the camera to the painting's
tilt.
Here's how. Take a thin box and hold an edge of it against the side of
the painting's frame (not on the painting itself obviously). Grasp a
short bubble level (from a hardware store) with your thumb on top of the
box. Slowly tip the bubble level until it is level. Now hold it tightly
against the box. Move the bubble level and box to the back of your tripod-mounted camera. Tilt the camera backwards, towards paralleling the painting, until the bubble level shows level again. Lock the camera into position. The camera is now precisely aligned to painting... |
Ultraviolet and IR Photography
One specialty area of art photography involves the use of infra-red and especially ultraviolet light photography to discover art fakes and areas where the original painting was changed or repaired. In the past, this specialty area of photography has required very expensive specialty equipment, especially the ultraviolet formula specialty lenses. Hasselblad has published some very nice brochures on art photography and ultraviolet light photography, which I recommend highly. But some recent discoveries and postings have made it possible to do certain kinds of ultraviolet light photography much more inexpensively. See Bjorn Rorslett's UV Tips posted at W.J. Markerink's great UV/IR site.
Learning from the Masters
The title has a double meaning - you should learn some of the lighting secrets of the master artists and painters, and steal them for your work. But you can also learn from looking at fine art photography, gallery guides, art books, and art-related web sites. Some seemingly esoteric books on photographing coins might have the exact tricks you need to photograph an artistic silver broach. A book on studio photography techniques might provide a new approach to highlighting the translucence of a carved antler bone and silver cup. I am often surprised to find the photograph has better detail and color saturation than the object itself. Careful lighting and macrolenses may bring out details that the eye can't see for itself. In short, the photographer has many ways to express his or her own interaction with the art object in the final image on film and paper. The best art photographers are those who have a resonance to share with their audience...
Notes:
You can use a carpenter's level, such as sears #3995, to get a perfectly level painting.
I think you need to use a regular plane polarizer on the camera. There is
no "cross" polarization on a circular polarizer in this application, at
least that's been my experience. If you check your ciircular polarizer by
holding it up against the light polarizers (looking at a white backgropund)
you should find that no amount of rotation brings you to extinction. It's
the same throughout the rotation.
I photograph oil paintings with cross polarization and find that linear
polarizers on the lens and the lights are the only combination that works
for me.
Jerry McCollum
steven T koontz [email protected] wrote in article > [email protected] wrote: > > > > I am photographing a series of oil paintings for an artist and I have run > > into an interesting problem. First here's my set up: I am using a 150mm Fuji > > or a 210mm Nikkor-W depending on the size of the painting. Camera is an > > Arca-Swiss F-Line. The on-camera polarizer is a Heliopan circular. For > > lighting I am using Two Elinchrom 1000 monoblocs on either side, the output > > of each of is carefully polarized in the same direction while the camera > > polarizer is carefully for cross polarization to eliminate all glare. Lights > > are located at least 45 degrees to the lens/subject axis. Camera is carefully > > centered and made square to the painting. Light output is measured and > > adjusted to be within 1/10th of an f-stop at all four corners and at the > > center of each painting. In other words the light is completely even. A Kodak > > color bar is located next to the painting to assure correct color and > > contrast. The first film I used was Fuji Provia (RDPII) and the results > > were great, except for the following problem: While the Painting looks > > technically great we (the painter and I) feel we see too much of the painting > > (the brushstrokes, even a little bit of the underpainting) etc.) It's not a > > matter of too much sharpness (as if there could be such a thing) but it is as > > if too much is being revealed. We had this problem once before, and I believe > > I resolved it finally by using either EPN or E100S. Once again, I am not > > having a problem with sharpness or resolution (maybe contrast?), but a > > problem with too much being revealed? Any input from knowledgable folk? TIA, > > > while I've never shot this kind of thing, I have done quit a bit of > macro shooting with flash and maybe you have lights angled too low? > This would cause the brush strokes to show up as the low angled > lighting could create shadows on the ripples.. just a thought.. > > > > -- > > > steve's photography and Z car stuff at http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz > [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Tony)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Photographing Oil Paintings, Fuji vs. Kodak
Date: Tue, 26 May 98
It's probably the contrast that you don't like. RDP is more contrasty than EPN, as you seem to have discovered. You might try Fuji Astia, it's low constrast but has more color saturation than EPN.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Photographing Oil Paintings, Fuji vs. Kodak
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
Jerry, Sorry Jerry, you are wrong. the problem is not the use of a circular polarizer. I have no problem going to full extinction of direct reflections from polarized lights when using the Heliopan circular polarizers on camera. I cannot speak for other brands. The problem turned out to one of contrast (the ratio of the size of the light sources to the subject size.) Thanks for the input though. Ellis
From: Arne Croell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Photographing Oil Paintings, Fuji vs. Kodak
Date: Tue, 26 May 1998
Circular Polarizers consist of a linear Polarizer and an attached
quarter-wave plate, the latter side facing the film. If the (linear)
polarizers on the lamps and the polarizing part of the circular
polarizer face each other and are cross polarized the result is
identical to two linear polarizers in crossed positions. Only if the
filter is mounted the wrong way, i.e. the quarter-wave plate facing
outward, the crosspolarization is lost.This is easily shown when one
makes the test described by you, i.e. looking through the polarizer at
the lamp polarizers. Only if the male filter thread (the lens side) of
the filter faces your eye, you get extinctinction, not if the front side
faces your eye.
This is actually the purpose of using a circular polarizer, to avoid any
crosspolarizing effects between the image-forming light and polarization
effects in the camera (i.e. due to reflection on beamsplitters, prisms
etc. - this is usually not an issue with view cameras).
If you see any differences between a linear poalrizer and a correctly
mounted circular one, they may be due to quality differences of the
polarizers.
Arne Croell
rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Lens for photographing Paintings
Date: Mon Jun 01 1998
I photograph fine art for a living, specializing completly, and use the
Schneider GClarons exclusivly. They are flat field and sharp to the
edges. Also
the only film to use is Kodak EPN as it is the only film that is accurate in
color and low contrast enough to render artwork to the satisfaction of
lithographers.
Paul Moshay
From: Frank A Bridges [email protected]
Subject: Response to Shooting paintings
Date: 1998-06-02
I put a kodak standard grey card on the edge of the frame.You and the lab
tech can use it to help get the colors correct. i find its the lab that is
most important. i use vps always in open shade (my carport) . some labs
get it right,most dont.
From: stefan poag [email protected]
Subject: Response to Shooting paintings
Date: 1998-06-03
Dear Sir;
In regard to your photo question of photographing paintings. I have often
taken transparencies of my drawings and paintings outdoors with good
results. I have taken the pictures in open shade were whe light is even,
such as on the shade side of a building, and used a tripod and cabe
release even at a shutter speed of 1/60th to give maximum sharpness. I
used a small carpenter's level to make sure both painting and camera were
perfectly straight and level.
The film I used is Ektachrome 100
slide film; here in the US they call it EPP. I have also used Agfachrome
RSX 100 with good results. These two films give the most accurate color
results. Fuji Velvia will make the paint look unnaturally bright and
saturated. Many photographers include a grey card and a Munsell color card
( a card with many different colored squares) in the edge of the frame
because this allows the printer to know exactly what colors he must match
to get an accurate representation of the picture. I wouldn't use flash;
textured oil paintings especially tend to glare and flare unpredictably.
Leave plenty of space around the painting; I once took slides with my
Nikon and what looked good in the camera was cropped off on film; now I
leave plenty of space around the edges that can just be cropped off later.
hope this helps
good luck
stefan
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998
From: "William Steinhurst" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Oil Painting Photography
1) Can I handle this job with my F-70 or this definitively calls for
medium format?
Quality 35mm slides are routinely used for half-page color
separations for offset printing, but you will want to use the best
possible techinique.
2) Will a speedlight (with a diffuser?) be OK or do I
need studio lights?
On camera flash will give poor results with glaring hot spot
reflection off the frame and paint (and glass if any). Over the flash
diffuser will not help significantly. Good results can be
obtained by using two flashes or two hot lights, one on each side of
the subject pointed at a 45 deg. angle to the subject surface. For
best results use cross-polarization (directions for hot lights or
flashes with modeling lights): Place a sheet of polarizing
material over one light and polarizing filter on the camera lens.
Turn on that light and adjust polarizer on camera until reflections
are minimized. Turn off first light and turn on second light. Without
rotating the on-camera polarizer, place polarizing material over
second light and rotate that sheet until reflections are minimized.
This gives rich color with minimal reflections.
3) What are the better Nikon lens/better distances
to shoot paintings?
Avoid wide angle lenses to minimize distortion and lens hood to avoid
flare.
4) Which is the recommended film for absolute
faithful reproduction?
Slide film is usually prefered by color separation shops and color
balance cannot be affected by lab's choices. Get a standard color
target (e.g., Macbeth) or, at a minimum, a good gray card and shoot
it as the first frame on the roll. This gives the printer a sense of
what to go for. Ektachrome or similar is best. (If you use hot
lights, see if there is a tungsten version available in 35mm or use a
correction filter on the camera.) Avoid Velvia, E100S, E100SW or
similar "juiced" films.
5) Any other tricks?
To avoid embarassment, practice all this in private and check the
results on a daylight corrected light table before going to
the client's location.
W. Steinhurst
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998
From: "Terry Graham" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Oil Painting Photography
Isaac Boy de Souza asked
..I was asked to photograph the art collection of a friend,
consisting of some dozens of oil paintings. The paintings are no bigger
than 1.5m (60in). The chromes will be used for offset reproduction, never
bigger than half a page (6x8in)....
Isaac
A friend of mine does documentation photography of art collections for
corporations and art galleries. This man is meticulous in his preparation
for this. I have been with him several times on these photo shoots. These
are some of the steps that he goes through.
He mainly shoots with a Canon F1 and usually a 50mm macro lens (my old
lens). So your F70 will work fine for this. He will sometimes use a
medium format cameral but very rarely. If he uses any other format he
will shoot
4x5. The camera is loaded with Fuji Provia (usually) 100 ISO film. He uses
this film because in his opinion it faithfully reproduces the colours that
he wants. This is extremely important to him.
He will hang the painting on the wall so that it is as vertical as
possible. He will then set up two strobes on either side of the photo at 45
degree angles at the same height as the painting. He will take a flash
meter reading at all 4 corners of the painting as well as the center of the
painting. All of these readings have to be within .1 of a stop or he will
adjust his lighting accordingly.
He will then set up the camera on a tripod, once again at the same height
as the center of the painting, and perpendicular to the painting. He has a
large black cloth with a hole in it for the lens that he hangs in front of
the camera with a couple of light stands. This is so that there is no
reflections of him or the camera in the slide. As I said he is quite
meticulous but it pays off for him as he is busy and in demand for this
work. If you have any other questions feel free to email me at either
address.
Terry
Terry J. Graham - Freelance Photographer & Windsurfer
Graham Fine Art Photography
From: [email protected] (Scott Dorsey)
Subject: Re: Lens for photographing Paintings
Date: Sun, 24 May 1998
(Photo882) writes: >1. I'd like to use my 4x5 camera to photograph original paintings that rangein >size from about 8x10 to 30x40. I'll be using color transparency material. So >the reproduction ratio is about 1:2 to 1:8. Most of the works are around 1:5. >Would it be worth the investment in a macro lens (such as the Fuji 240A), or >stick with something like a Nikon 300f9 M series, or a Rodenstock 210 >Apo-Sironar S. I've heard that the Nikon M series lenses are xlnt close-up and >for infinity, and so are the Rodenstock S series, while the Fuji A series is >superb close-up but not so great at infinity. I'd like to not spend the money >for a purely close-up lens unless it would give better results for the use >described above.
Have you considered a flatfield process lens? They aren't very fast, but
they are very sharp, and are available at very good prices on the used
market. They are specifically desgined for the kind of work you're doing
here.
--scott
From: Dimitris Metaxas [email protected]
Subject: Shooting paintings
Date: 1998-05-29
Hi
Does anybody write me how can I shoot big paintings 2mX2.50m (or bigger)
under
sunlight ?
My gear is a Rolleiflex 3.5F with Xenotar and a Yashica Mat 124. I also have an old but accurate Lunasix lightmeter. I'm planning to use color positive film.(which one? really) What is the need of a color card in the frame? For the story a cousin who is a painter ask me to help him he is planning to make a booklet to present his job to galleries. Any advice on gear and techniques it will very usefull.
Greetings
Dimitris
From: David Shrader [email protected]
Subject: Response to Shooting paintings
Date: 1998-05-29
Shoot in "OPEN SHADE". In northern hemisphere, that would be the north side of your/his house on a normal day. Make sure NO SHADOWS.
If you use fill flash, the specular reflections from the painted surface will show up as 'hot spots' so cross polarized lighting would be necessary. Cross polarized lighting is N-S polarizer on flash, E-W polarizer on lense.
I like Velvia for positive film but it is too saturated for this type of photography. Others may disagree but I would use Lumierre. And B-R-A-C-K-E-T at least +/- 1 stop in half stop steps.
From: Steve Singleton [email protected]
Subject: Response to Shooting paintings
Date: 1998-05-29
The open shade advice is good, although you might need to add an 81 series (warming) filter to counteract bluish light from the open sky. If you can pick your day, cloudy weather can act like a diffusion panel between your subject and the sun, to soften and even out the light across the paintings. Use a tripod and cable release, in part to eliminate camera vibration that can reduce sharpness and also to carefully frame the artwork to avoid distortion. The film plane should be at the same angle as the painting. Velvia is highly saturated film that will render colors as artificially vivid. Slow speed Fujichrome Sensia or Provia and the Kodak equivalent should provide the most accurate representation of the artwork. Good luck!
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: photos of oil paintings
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998
Friedrich Leisch [email protected] wrote: > > > How do I best take photos of oil paintings, such that I don't have too > many reflections? > > Obviously, when I direct the flash at the painting, I will see a > bright reflection of the flash. Is it sufficient to point the flash to > the ceiling and use the indirect light? Should I take the painting > outside on a sunny day to actually see what's going on (i.e., which > reflections I get)? > > Thanks for any help
Okay, one more time. This is the ideal real world methodology for
photographing oil paintings using electronic flash and daylight balanced
film.
Lighting requirements: at least two flash heads, Place one on
either side of the painting, at 45 degrees off axis. if the painting is
sufficiently large then use at two flash heads on each side. the idea
here is
to get an even amount of exposure in all four corners and in the center of
the painting.
Next: place a large (12"x12") polarizing filter in front of
each of your light sources. The polarization angle for these filters must all
be the same. polarization angle is usually marked on the filter frames by a
double set of arrows pointing away from each other. You want all light
polarized in the same direction.
Camera: ideally you want a longer than
normal focal length lens. It does not have to be a special flat field or
macro lens, but that doesn't hurt (or help, unless the photographs you are
making are 1:1.) square up the camera to the artwork so that the camera's
film plane is parallel to the plane of the painting and the center of the
painting is in the center of your view finder. I have found the easiest way
to do this is to put a mirror over the center of the painting parallel to the
surface of the painting and I look through the camera till I see a perfect
reflection of the center of the lens in the center of the viewfinder. Lock
your camera's position down. check once again for alignment.
Getting rid
of those pesky hot spots. Look through the polarising filter for the camera
and rotate it until you see all hot spots go away. What you are doing is a
technique called cross polarization. If the axis of polarization for your
lights is up/down you want the polarization axis for your lens to be
left/right. or vice versa, it doesn't matter so long as these axises are
oriented 90 degrees from each other. If you have done this right all
reflections will have vanished from the surface of the painting.
Determining exposure: I like to take a reading at all four corners and the
center of the painting. set your hand-held incident at your film's iso
reading (I rate most Kodak & Fuji ISO 100 films at ISO 80) and gdo what you
need to do in terms of adjusting light placement or angle so that all five
readings are within 1/10th of a stop of each other. This is with the
polarizers on the lights. Most camera polarizers need a 1.5 to 2 stop
exposure increase to compensate, so either you can open up your lens that
much after you take your meter reading, or you can reduce your effective film
ISO that much. (For example if you usually rate your film at 100, if you have
determined that your polazizers need two stops of compensation, now change
your meter's iso to 25.)
Now it is time to make some pictures! make sure to
bracket (I like 1/3rd stop increments) When you get back your film you will
think wow these are great, that Ellis guy sure knew what he was writing
about! Or you'll be saying, hey, how come there is no detail in the shadows
but these highlights look fine ( or vice versa)
Since I don't know what the
paintings you are copying look like or how old they are or what state they
are in, or what materials make up the individual pigments, or which glazes,
varnishes etc. the artist is using, the only answer I have is have a
professional do the copy work. Expensive? probably but it is their headache
to get it right.
Cheers, Ellis
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
From: jon miner [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photographing Paintings
Alan Gale wrote: > I'll be using the N90s, have access to two SB26s, and 105 (DC not >micro) and 24 lenses. I may be able to borrow a 60 micro lens or 180 >EDIF lens from a friend if these would be better for this type of work. I >assume I will be working off of a tripod, with SB26s TTL via SC-17 and >SC-18 cords.
If you can get some better studio lights (i.e., not flashes - as nice as
the SB26 is..)
You'll get better results using some constant output lights rather than a
flash..
>The dimensions of the oil paintings range from about 1 foot x 2 feet up to >3 feet x 4 feet. Questions are how to set up flashes for lighting >(distance/angle? direct? bounce?), suggested filters (would a polarizing >lens cut down on reflections of flash off of the paint surface?), and film >(daylight or tungsten?). Also, is it better to shoot these painting while >they are hanging on the wall, or laying down on a floor? Metering >techniques, suggestions (other than to hire a pro)?
I would also recommend using a black background. I prefer to use a large
sheet of velvet, but at the size you're talking about (I generally do
jewelry and some pottery) velvet would be rather expensive. Try a large
_continuous_ sheet of black paper.
Film type, of course, depends on the light source.. If you're stuck using
the flash, use daylight-balanced film, since the flash is balanced for
daylight (try KodaChrome if you're looking for something that will last
forever..) Many studio lights are tungsten, so you will want tungsten
balanced film (I use the EktaChrome version..)
Another couple important tips:
1) Tripod: (duh?) You don't want these things on and angle.
2) _GREY CARD_: meter off a grey card for your baseline.
3) BRACKET, BRACKET, BRACKET: I generally prefer to move the aperture
up/down, but you could accomplish the same result with the shutter speed.
thanks,
jon
Jonathan J. Miner | 2142 Vilas Communications Hall
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998
Alan Gale asked about photographing paintings
jon miner wrote:
i'd add:
bracket, bracket, BRACKET !
and USE A TRIPOD (!!!).
don't use flash, you'll flatten the painting colors. if at all possible use
natural
light (north facing windows) and accept that you'll be taking 2 second
exposures
(you have that tripod right ?).
taking good pictures of artwork is an art in itself.
at the sizes you are talking about (1X2 to 3X4) use an 80mm lens (that 60
might be good too). 180 is too long for the larger paintings.
natural light, kodachrome, tripod, bracketing (as in 2+, 1 correct, 2-,
in half
stop increments)....you should be fine !
m
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1998
I have done some of this work, and the black background is an excellent
suggestion. This is basically a large-production copy job. It is
important to have the film plane perfectly paralell to the painting, and
to have exactly equally-powered light sources coming from 45-degrees
from either side of the painting. Think of a basic copy stand. The
process is the same. I have used SB-25s and strobes with Chimeras, both
to good effect, but the softboxes or even umbrellas are better. Position
the lights far enough to the side so that they do not reflect on the
painting, and bracket widely if you cannot use Polaroid to establish
perfect exposure. I have used Ektachrome Elite 100 and it was great for
the job. A polarizer is not necessary, in my opinion, and may alter the
look of the painting.
Wilson Craig
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998
I received a fair amount of sensible advice on how to take photos of
paintings, i.e. use a minimum of 2 strobes (or studio lights) angled at
45 degrees, shoot outside, etc.
Well, being lazy, I decided to try an experiment. Shooting indoors (at
night) with all artificial lights turned off, I used a Nikon N90s, 105
mm lens and SB 26 flash. Against all advice, I used direct, on camera
flash. The only thing I did was "trick" the flash by manually setting
it to the 20 mm flash head setting (rather than 105 mm setting) by
deploying the SB-26's built in wide-angle adapter. I set the lens to f8
and then let the camera calculate the exposure. Since the painting's
subject was of Venice at night (mostly dark blues) I figured the
camera's meter would be off and therefore took several shots, bracketing
down in 1/3 stop increments from the camera's suggestion.
Guess what, my slides looked great both under the loupe and when
projected to larger than life-size. Most notably, there were no
specular high lights from the flash. Oh, and the first exposure -- the
one the camera selected without any bracketing -- was the best. Three
cheers for Nikon's monitor preflash technology
Maybe I just got lucky, but perhaps on camera flash is viable with a
medium telephoto lens using high degree of diffusion.
Alan
From: [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
Many of these questions are addressed in the book Taking the Leap by Cay
Lang, which I have found to be very helpful. You can find information on this
book at the Chronicle Books web site (www.chronbooks.com) and you can buy it
for less than $15 at www.amazon.com. The author is a photographer although
the text addresses showing art in general.
I currently have a show and the book made a difference, especially in
terms of
protecting yourself when you do get a show.
Jeff Spirer
B&W Photos: http://www.pomegranates.com/frame/spirer/
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998
Hi Bill,
The Biogon has the least distortion (my preference is
for the 40mm though). The SWC has been used to
photograph fine art in museums where there is
insufficient space to use a long lens. With the use
of a ground glass and a (Hasselblad) mirror that
hangs on the artwork the camera does a fine job
of accurately reproducing the piece.
BTW...the mirror comes off the artwork after focusing
but before the shot is made. Just thought I'd better
make that clear.
-Rick
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998
[Snip]
With the use of a ground glass and a (Hasselblad) mirror that
hangs on the artwork the camera does a fine job
of accurately reproducing the piece.
Can you explain this technique in more detail? It sounds interesting, but
I don't follow where the mirror goes or how it helps.[SNIP]
The Mirror that is described above is an old Hasselblad accessory called a
Linear mirror. Basically there are 2 units. One unit id round hangs at the
subject plane is slightly convex (curved out like a ball) the other is
smaller and has a Hasselblad lens mount on it and has a small hole in the
middle/ You mount the "lens" mirror and look through what you will see is
the other mirror and reflected in that you will see the Hasselblad and
mirror with hole. When the 2 mirrors are properly aligned you will see
concentric circles of mirrors. If you are off to one side you will see
half moons. This allows you to place the camera VERY close to exact
parallel plane with the big subject mirror. Assuming the subject mirror is
lying against the art work you are perfectly aligned. AND your images will
have parallel lines.
Joe McCary
From: [email protected] (Sdmey4)
My camera is a small xray machine and my subjects are flowers and leaves.Fine
art black and white radiographs of nature. Would love to here your comments.
http://www.xray-art.com
From: Frank Calidonna [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
Robert,
First, if the drawings are on white paper with black charcoal you will
get much better results, or easier results, with B&W film rather than
color. As for slides call B&H and get some Agfa Scala. It is a gorgeous
B&W slide film. For the negatives- Tmax 100 is a good choice or Tech-Pan
if you don't mind the processing hassle. On the other hand if he is
using colored paper then Ektachrome 64 for the slides and Gold or Royal
Gold 100 would be my recommendation. Since you want a true
representation of the artwork I think the EK 64 is the best slide film
for the purpose. I hear Fujichrome is excellent. It probably is, but I
have no experience with it. Avoid Velvia or any film with super
saturated colors as it will not faithfully record the artwork. Artists
are touchy about changing their work.
Since part of charcoal's charm is the texture of the paper working with
the charcoal forget the 45 degree angle. If you have only one light set
it about 20-25 degrees to the paper to pick up the texture and put a
white reflector on the other side for fill. Forget the umbrella. It is
too soft working for this kind of work. A big piece of foam core makes a
great reflector. If you have two lights set one at 45 degrees and the
other at 20 degrees. Move the 45 degree light a bit farther away. If you
have a meter the 45 degree light should be 1/2 stop less than the 20
degree light.
Do you have a flash meter? If it is incident take a reading with both
lights or the one and the reflector. If it is a refecting meter use a
grey card. If you have no meter use the guide number with one light and
bracket. If you have two lights your guide number is 1 1/2 times the
normal guide number, not 2 times. Hope this is useful. Take care.
Frank Rome,NY
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998
Following this thread of how the 6000 series 60mm Curtagon and Distagon:
can anyone on the list who have used these lenses for architectural or copy
work relay their experiences with this focal length? I find 60mm a very
comfortable length to use as I appreciate the extra coverage, and still
find it easy to previsualize when setting up a shot, similar to using a 35
in 35mm, or a 135 with 4x5.
I was recently using a 60mm Distagon CF on a Hasselblad (an optical design
I assume is essentially the same as the Rollei Distagon) to make copy
photos of a friend's paintings. I'd used that lens because of the
restricted space available in the studio. I was suprised to see how much
barrel distortion that lens exhibits: very apparent when setting the
cropping blades up to the edge of the canvases. While the artist didn't
mind (or didn't notice) the distortion, I would have rejected the results
if not pressed for a deadline.
Has anyone seen similar results with the PQ Distagon? Does the Curtagon
exhibit less distortion? I'm approaching the day when I enter the Rollei
6000 system, and would like to choose a 60mm as my standard lens. But since
most of my personal work is evenly divided between landscape and
architectural subjects, and quite a bit of my freelance money comes from
reproduction of fine art work, noticeable distortion would be unacceptable.
Thanks,
M.Phillips
[Ed. note: bromoil photos are processed and taken to produce a neat
artistic effect...]
Following is a master list of all of the bromoil sites on the web of
which I am aware:
USA
Joe Besse - http://members.aol.com/sixbysixcm/JB.html
Chuck Kimball - http://www.artistsloft.com/chucksworktoc.html
Nan Kimball - http://www.artistsloft.com/nansworktoc.html
Gene Laughter - http://members.aol.com/kallitype/GL.html
http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Laughter/gene_laughter.htm
Ed Romney - http://www.edromney.com/bromoil.html
Ernie Theisen - http://members.aol.com/sixbysixcm/ET.html
ENGLAND
Dennis Atherton (Brit Bromoils) - http://www.dinet.demon.co.uk/
Anne Deniau - http://www.btinternet.com/~edeniau/k_old3.htm
NORWAY
Jurek Karwowski - http://w1.2668.telia.com/~u266801060/index.htm
Per Volledal - http://home.powertech.no/pervo/engind.htm
GERMANY
Eo Albrecht -- http://oellerich.com/photo/eo/foyer.htm
From: "Gabe" [email protected]
Colin Povey wrote
The URL is http://www.rockaloid.com
rec.photo.equipment.misc
The camera lucida is just like a view camera without the film. Instead of
the ordinary ground glass there is a piece of plain glass. The camera is
pointed at the subject in the usual way on a tripod. A piece of tracing
paper is placed over the plain glass which is where the ground glass is
usually, and image focused on the tracing paper. The artist then uses a
pencil to draw on the tracingpaper, guided by the focused image. SKG
--- S.K. Grimes -- Feinmechanik ----
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998
I happened upon you "photographing art" web page via a link from your
posting about bromoil on rec.photo.technique.art. I want to thank you
and all your correspondents for answering most of my questions about
photographing art. You see, my wife is an fine artist, and we've been
trying to get photos of her work but we keep running into the problem
of glare off the glass. The thread about polarizing the light should
solve this. Thank you!
About the only concern I have is that my wife's pastels are framed in
"shadow boxes." That is, there's about 2" of space between the work
and the frame glass and I'm concerned about getting shadows on the
sides of the work when using the strobes at a 45 degree angle. But
then at that angle (thinking out load here), each strobe should fill
most of the shadow created by the other.
It may be a while before I get all the necessary equipment together (2
strobes, stands, filters, etc), but I'll try to let you know if the
shadow issue does, in fact, take care of itself.
Any how, thanks for the information!
-Paul P.
---------------------------
rec.photo.misc
dan wrote:
Hmmm, looks like you are going to have to some improvising.
Ok so lets assume you are using daylight. The sketches shouldn't be a
problem. You can either hang them up or lay them down flat and shoot
them. If the sun is very bright, I suggest you make yourself a scrim.
Normally that is a piece of translucent material in some sort of frame.
If you are shooting in B&W I would suggest using AGFA PAN, and if you
are shooting in colour get something that is nice and sharp and probably
slow eg Kodak Royal 25 if you can find some. But stay away from any the
super saturated ISO50 films such as AGFA Ultra even if it is sharp. And
make sure that the film plane ie the camera is parallel to the sketches,
otherwise you are going to get too much distortion. Use a greycard and
shoot whatever it indicates.
For the sculpture, get a black cloth, preferably velvet as a background,
and then place the sculpture about 2m in front of it, maybe on a stool
or something, and cover the stool in the same background material. Use
the scrim again, then take a reading of the sculpture( make sure it's
not a highlight or reflection), and do some bracketing. The reading of
the sculpture will give you a greyish colour, and if you close the lens
by 2 1/2 stops you should get a nice white. When I say closing the lens
that means the f stops go up. You might want to use a reflector on the
other side, to fill out any shadows.
For jewelery I found it best to place them on a black tile or something
like that, and then create a light tent. Take the material from the
scrim and lay it on top of the jewelery, now pull it up in the middle
and you got a tent. Cut a hole in the top, stick your lens through it
and shoot. Alternatively use the scrim as before and use a couple of
reflectors, but the reflections will be harsher. Also use a poloarising
filter to cut out any reflections and to minimise the specular
highlights. As for the meatering use the greycard again, and shoot
pretty much at the recomended reading. Some bracketing probably won't
hurt.
I suggest you shoot in the morning, when the light is softer. The
afternoon sun tends to be a bit harsh.
Don't be afraid to burn some film, it's the cheapest material in this
whole photography bussiness after all.
Use the 105 macro lens, and if the sun is bright use a lensshade or make
yourself a gobo if necessary, that's just a piece of black cardbord that
you hold next to the lens. Also use a sturdy tripod and cable release if
possible. if your camera doesn't take a cable release, put it on a
tripod and set the self-timer to 2-3 sec. Oh, and don't forget to set
the camera on manual everything.
Let us know how it goes.
Good Luck
From: "John G. Walter" [email protected]
For basic copy work, place the gray card on top of the artwork to be
copied, and meter directly off the gray card. Use the spot or
center-weighted function on your camera, NOT a matrix function (if you have
one). The resulting exposure will be valid for all copy work with the same
magnification and lighting. I suggest that you set your camera to manual
and determine the exact exposure.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[email protected] wrote:
A 50mm f1.8 (or f2.0 (or whatever f Canon supplies this lens in)) will
best meet your needs. Also get a set of close-up lenses - Canon's if
you can get them. The alternative, a macro lens, is many times more
expensive, but will produce slightly sharper slides and let you take
pictures of things only an inch by a half or so - (24x36mm to be nit
picky).
Also get a good sturdy tripod. Tripods are best (most cheaply) bought
used and do not ever wear out - see if there is a local camera club in
your city and see when their swap meet is. If you have to buy a new one
then the Bogen/Manfrotto's are probably the best bang for the buck for
most people.
If you are using floodlights/roomlights for illumination you will need
tungsten slide film: not a drugstore item - visit a good photo store.
You need a #81 filter to use regular slide film with floodlights - you
will also need this filter if you are using color print film with
floodlights.
All of this can be purchased at your local photo store. A local photo
store is a place with piles of junque, lots of old chrome cameras, a
motely crew of owner and sidekicks (no 'Sales Associates') and they will
provide advice the same as a mythical Uncle Henry/Aunt Harriet. Ritz,
Wolf, all mall stores, all stores with new wallcovering and dusted
shelves are _NOT_ photo stores - they are extensions of the disposable
camera bin at the drugstore.
In NY, Chicago and LA there are photo stores with dusted shelves located
in the downtown buisness district.
The local arts guild and camera club can point you to the right place in
your city.
If you are comfortable with dealing by phone then B&H in New York is the
only place worth dealing with.
After you have assembled all the equipment you will need to experiment
with the exposure setting of the camera. There should be a +2.+1.-1.-2
compensation dial or setting somewhere on the camera. Take pictures of
representative artworks at each of the settings - TAKE NOTES. When you
get the slides back see which +2/-2 setting works best with each type of
artwork and then use that setting the next time you shoot that type of
artwork with that type of film and that type of lighting. A notebook
with good notes is the only thing that will gaurantee your success in
this endevour.
The book "How to Photograph Works of Art" Sheldan Collins ISBN
0-8174-4019-4 is a good starting reference.
Nick Lindan
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998
As I used to collect limited edition serigraphs/lithographs, I have my
gallery use
the same mounting technique...a hinge mount (a special piece of tape
whereby the image hangs in the frame) onto an acid free mat. I also get
a simple mat/frame (gray, black, etc.) that draws attention to the
image. I use normal glass (it's not as thick as the glass you purchase
at Aaron Bros...it weighs quite a bit less).
I'm been considering using UV glass next time. My images are never in
direct sunlight, but a friend claims the UV glass will be more fade
resistant. Anyone have any experience for comparison purposes?
BTW, this is off topic, I have been having my 6x6 color transparencies
made into ilfochrome classic glossies, until I discovered Fuji's RP
direct crystal process. The color accuracy is far superior to any
ilfochromes I've had done (whereby I have the original chrome for a
comparison), and at a lower price. Saturated colors on velvia looks just
like that on the print, yet shadow detail is as good as you can get with
a conventional print. I have Fuji labs in Tokyo do them.
--Jim
From: "Marcy Merrill" [email protected]
Dan; I haven't used Liquid Light, but I have used SilverPrint (a similar
product) on other-than-paper surfaces. If you're interested check out
:
Go to the slate section. -Marcy
Dan Hurd wrote
From: Peter [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
If you use polarizing filters on the lights and the camera all of the
glare will disappear whether or not the painting has been varnished. If
you don't have polarizing filters it's better if you don't varnish the
painting beforehand.
--
From: Karla & Reid Webb [email protected]
Varnishing may help but please be extremely careful first. Golden has
some excellent information available on varnishing
(http://www.goldenpaints.com/). Checkout their web site for more
information. In my experience varnishing to reduce glare can help
somewhat but it is not always perfect solution. Using a matte varnish can
reduce glare but not necessarily eliminate it. The downside of varnishing
is that it is extremely time consuming and can potentially harm the
painting beyond repair. If you haven't done it before don't experiment
with a valued painting (especially if it is large). Better to do some
experimenting on other unimportant pieces first.
Karla
From: DAFkite [email protected]
Peter Jones wrote:
I believe the answer is to put the flash gun right up against the glass.
That way you can get no reflections off it coming back at you.
The only other way is to put the flash on a seperate stand at such an
angle that the light penetrates but does not reflect. 2 falshes may be
better. do not use on camera flash!
Also use a polarizer filter to kill ambinet light reflections coming off
the glass if you can't get the camera right up close.
Maybe, if you can, drape black cloth over the exhibit and the camera, so
you get no stray reflections.
--
steam and wind
--
From: [email protected] (ZorziM)
Sounds like a no-win situation: lighting glass objects well is
hard enough, but trying to do it when they're inside a glass case seems
especially daunting. Outside of the suggestion of using a rubber lens
hood to get close to the glass to cut out refections of ambient light, you
might try getting a large piece of black mat board and cutting a hole in
the middle for your lens and then shooting straight through the glass. If
the board is big enough, you might be able to back up a bit and still blok
off ambient reflections. If your flash is far enough off camera there
shouldn't be any reflections from it in the glass you are shooting
through. But shooting glass objects with a single flash is not really
ideal. If you can get the flash behind the objects it might work a
little better, but a lot depends on exactly what sort of objects
you're photographing.
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999
I am assuming you don't have ability to just open case and move objects to
light table etc. but have to shoot in glass case?
Try using a rubber lens hood and press against the glass - this cuts out
primary reflections from glass in front of object - a macrolens or close
focusing lens is obviously needed depending on case dimensions. A black
cloth (velvet) or construction paper behind the glass may help reduce
some reflections.
If you use flash, angle it so minimal reflection from glass behind
object, depending on case design.
Our museum in Dallas permits taking photos of objects of art in cases w/o
flash - fast film is a plus - no tripod - a macrolens or close focusing
normal lens and/or diopters closeup lens kits (+1/2/3/4) are surprisingly
workable. It is very hard to visualize flash without using polaroid test
prints (only on medium format cameras with polaroid back, not 35mm), so
don't be surprised to find a number of flash highlights from bright
objects if you use flash.
HTH
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/film.html for info on fast films etc.
regards bobm
From: "Dirk J. Bakker" [email protected]
Hi Andrew,
I sympathize. It's messy and permanence is not in the future, at least in my
experience, but here is one reference:
http://www.halcyon.com/compline/adhesive.htm
Check the 3M's Photo Mount Adhesive, the Double-Sided Adhesive Film and the
Dryline Adhesive Film Applicator.
HTH,
From: "Pat Warnshuis" [email protected]
I had an extremely satisfying experience copying paintings
done by a self-taught 85 year-old woman. The experience
and her pleasure exceeded the quality of the work, I'm sure,
but that's the point for me. I made up a calendar of select
shots at Kinko's. She was so delighted that she gave away
all the copies, not even keeping one for herself. (Well, she
did have the negatives and prints.) Incidentally, if you do
plan on a calendar or even just an album, be sure to include
some theme shots of the artist himself, either portraints or
candids of him painting.
A couple of suggestions:
1. Do not shoot indoors. Wait for an overcast day and shoot
outside.
2. Use some kind easel or prop to suppor the paintings.
Once you're set up, the shooting will be easy.
3. Go to a fabric shop and get some nice backdrops. Not all
the paintings will be of the precise proportions of 35mm so
you'll get some background around the frames.
4. Shoot at f8 or f11, on a tripod, using remote cable release or
self timer.
5. If some paintings are behind glass (and probably sealed)
plan on using a black cloth hood for yourself and camera to
avoid reflections. (No, a polarizer will not help here. You're
shooting at 90 degrees.)
I'll leave the equipment essentials to the big boys. I used a
100mm prime, thinking it would be optimum for a flat surface
subject.
Good luck....This should be a wonderful adventure for you!
......patrick
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Argyle wrote
Actually, the ability to remove reflections is indeed one of the benefits of
a shift lens. The classic example is removing your (and your camera's)
reflection from the glass covering of a painting or whatever and still
keeping the frame edges parallel. I recently removed my reflection from a
stained-glass window near dusk. I was on the outside and it was lit from the
inside. My reflection was noticable, and the picture was far better with the
reflection removed---I was using a 35mm shift lens.
Another less-well-known use of a shift lens is for panorama shots. By
shifting the lens instead of moving the camera, you can make sure that
horizontal parallel lines in the left picture continue to be parallel in the
right picture---this is only possible with a shift lens. If your shift is
more than 9mm (assuming landscape orientation) and you use a doubler, then
for maximum width of the final image you will three need three pictures,
since a doubler magnifies the amount of shift.
--Jerry Fusselman
From: "John Shafer" [email protected]
I'm not sure if you can still get it but Pushed AgfaChrome 1000 makes a soft
pastel kind of pointilist image.(nice sentence, huh?). Look for a fast
chrome film and then push it one or two stops. You might get a color shift,
but if you want "painterly", accurate color probably isn't a priority.
John Shafer
[email protected] wrote in message ...
From: [email protected] (marc schneider)
"fhalas" [email protected] wrote:
The type and speed film will tend to depend on the type of lighting since no
flash is allowed. Different lights give different light spectrums so one
type
of light will make things yellowish while others more blueish. The available
lighting source and its spectrum "temperature" is all importaant for accuracy
of colors. If that part is less critical then you have to deal with
slides vs prints. Slides tend to be more color true and richer in clors
but are more
intolerant of calculation errors. If the camara does not have a mirror lock
than you should use timer on camara to eliminate the minute shake from
touching the trigger.
I would suggest going to local places and experimenting with various
films and
methods before going to the intended destination.
I would suggest going to local places and experimenting with various films
and methods before going to the intended destination.
Marc Schneider, Psy.D.
[ED. note - a common trick for cutting reflections on metal etc.
sculpture]
Hello All,
One trick I found for photographing circuit boards is to over spray
with Krylon clear matte spray. You don't want to do this to a usable
board, but that's one of the good reasons to photograph a defective
board. We always had at least one board that would not make it past the
inspectors; that was perfect for my use. Be careful to not to over
spray; just a thin coat to hide the worst of the reflections.
Adios,
Bill Hilburn Jr.
From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
I am a 2D artist and I've been shooting my own slides as well as for
others for many years. I mostly use a Pentax K1000 SE. It's utterly
reliable. The SE means that it has a split image focusing screen, but that
really shouldn't be necessary. If you always shoot in the f/8 to f/22
range, DOF shouldn't be a problem. I like to shoot paintings at about
f/11. Maybe sometimes your "focus" problem is camera movement blur! For
the long exposures at these small apertures, you need a solid tripod and a
good long smooth cable release.
For squaring up, you have to face the middle of the painting directly
perpendicular. Put a spirit level to both painting and camera body to see
if you're as square as you think you are. Don't always trust the viewer
for this; each viewer can be different, even if the same model camera. I
have a good body with a slightly askew prism.
Your best bet for a lens is a 50mm. Any zoom has compromises built into
it, and will give distortion at the periphery at certain focal lengths. I
think a 50mm may have the least natural distortion, and a Pentax 50mm is
(in my experience and opinion) as sharp as can be for copy work. I
wouldn't mess with a zoom for this work.
I'm always here.
Good luck.
EJKowalski
From: [email protected] (Ron Goodman)
I've been doing the same thing, but for LARGE artwork--quilts. If you can
get a camera with replaceable viewing screens, the grid screens are nice
for keeping things lined up. I agree with the above--50mm prime lens
unless you need a macro, which will work for everything, but costs more(I
mostly use the Nikon 35mm AF lens, just so I don't have to back up so
far). There are a couple of books currently in print on the subject--I
was just looking at Barnes & Noble yesterday--"Photographing Your
Artwork", I think. Using tungsten or natural light, a good tripod for
sure, with a 3-way head if you have a choice. If you're having problems
with glare off the painting, careful placement of your lights will
help(see above books), but you might need to use polarizing filters on
your lens and lights if its a big problem. Hope this helps. (I'm
seriously thinking about learning to use a large format camera to make my
life easier with these projects...)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
Anders Svensson wrote:
To do it on a budget, use a telephoto, a mirror and the sun. I've gotten
some marvelous slides from standing a painting on a flat-backed easel,
placing the mirror beside it (to create slight shadows of the strokes)
and shooting.
From: [email protected] (Emily Bickell & Peter Harris)
When squaring up my artwork, I always find it useful to measure
precisely from the floor to the centre of the work, and repeat the
same distance from the floor to the centre of the lens. It takes a
bit longer, but will ensure that it is perfectly square in the
viewfinder.
The focus with the pentax K1000 may just take some practise. Or it
could be caused be not using a cable shutter release, or a flimsy
tripod. If you are shooting on a wood floor, make sure no one is
walking around at the time of your exposure.
A zoom is very convenient for shooting artwork, as it means you don't
have to move your whole setup back and forth to fill the viewfinder
with the piece, but unless you can afford a really good one, it won't
be as distortion free as a fixed focal lens. If you have enough room
in your studio to back up far enough, or if your work isn't too big,
get a 50mm. Usually not too expensive.
I've been photgraphing my paintings with a Pentax MX with a 50mm lens
for a couple of years with excellent results.
Peter
From: [email protected]
If your looking for an inexpensive method of creating this effect, and
please no flack from the purists, it can be accomplished.
I use the HP 1120C it has the flat transport so you can feed maximum
size of 13X19 sheets of Canvas.
I buy the Gesso coated canvas at the art store and cut it to the
desired size I need, then I spray it with a matte coating to control
the bleed. I then print the image and give it about 12 hours to flash
usualy overnight, then I coat it with Kamar varnish and voila a very
acceptable image with the look and feel of a canvas painting.
Fine detail in a photograph does not always work, and small subject
fields do not always turn out well, but what you can do is keep some
small scraps of 140lb cold press water colour paper around and print
out a sample on it. If it turn out to your approval then go ahead and
print on the canvas, it will look pretty much simular.
I've done some nice images this way and it wont cost you an arm and a
leg either.
hopes this helps
Buk
[Ed. note: possibly interesting for artists even if an infomercial?]
Exciting residency opportunities for artists of all types
(visual artists, writers, composers, performers and
craftspeople) can be found in many national parks.
To hear a list of the programs begun in 1999, artists may
call the GO WILD! hotline at 651-776-3944. Three new programs
began in 1999.
For a printed list of every national park offering a residency
program, send $3 per list (cash, check or money order) to Lucky Dog,
Studio # 14, P.O. Box 65552, St. Paul, MN 55165. There are
a total of 24 national park residency programs, including the three
new programs begun in 1999.
Available only while supplies last:
Interested artists may also order the 1998 publication,
GO WILD! National Park Artist-in-Residence Programs. This
52-page booklet includes deadlines, two-year histories of
each program, tips gleaned from interviews with park program
coordinators and more. Each booklet costs $5.95. Add $1.50
shipping and handling for the first booklet, and 75 cents
S&H for each additional copy. The total cost for one booklet
is $7.45. Mail check or money order to: Lucky Dog, Studio #14,
P.O. Box 65552, St. Paul, MN 55165.
A web site for the national park residency programs is
currently under construction. Artists can request to be
added to the email list (which will announce the site as
soon as it is open for visitors) by sending an email to
[email protected]. An email announcement will be sent
as soon as the site is up and running.
Lucky Dog & Company BONNIE FOURNIER [email protected]
From: "John Shafer" [email protected]
I'm not sure about the aperture, I'd stop down fairly far. If you're on a
tripod, you don't have to worry about camera shake. One problem with
photographing large pieces of art is perspective. You have to really pay
attention to keeping your camera on a parallel plane to the art. It seems
simple but I've seen a lot of copy film where the art was skewed. Because of
this tendency to be a little off, it's good to stop down to make sure you
don't end up with a soft side or corner.
I would bracket all of them, it's the safe thing to do. You should see about
getting a gray card if you don't already have one. You can buy them at most
good photo/camera supply stores. Kodak is the only maker I know of. You
meter off the gray card to get a normal exposure in a given lighting
situation. Then just shoot with that meter reading. Due to differences in
individual pieces of art, I'd still bracket. I've found that I was often
surprised what exposure worked the best at capturing important highligh or
shadow details in a given piece. A "good" exposure will vary from piece to
piece. If you bracket, you'll have choices.
Good Luck,
John Shafer
Bluevox wrote
From: [email protected] (RMMM9999)
Middle apertures, e.g. 5.6 or 8, are sharpest. Art portfolios are usually
done on slide film, so that the exposure and color that the photographer
records are not ruined by the vagaries of print film printing. Kodachrome
is the world-class standard, but slow speed Ektachrome is also acceptable.
Ektachrome has the advantage that it can be processed same day by
professional custom labs.
If you shoot outside, use daylight balanced film. Indoors, use tungsten
balanced film with halogen floodlights, placed at 45 degree angle on each
side of the artwork.
Use a polarizing filter to saturate color. Subtle warming filters or cooling
filters may be appropriate, but this will be based on your experience.
USE A GRAY CARD TO METER!!!!! In-camera meters will be fooled by the
non-balanced, non-average color and tonality of paintings. Learn how to
use a gray card, IN MANUAL MODE, to set the exposure as a constant based
on the lighting, not on the reflectivity of the artwork. White paper
should stay white, black should stay black, etc.
Good luck. Shooting good art copy work is very challenging and
expensive, and unfortunately, experience is the best teacher.
Richard
From: "JRiegle" [email protected]
Good tips from the others. Here's mine:
Stop the lens down to f8. I found the lens to have a little softness in the
corners even at 5.6. If shutter speed becomes an issue, f5.6 will work, but
no faster. I copy a lot of art work also. I use two flashes angled from each
side of the work in a dark room so I don't have to worry about camera shake.
I use a 90 watt halogen spot lot for framing and critical focussing. The
light is shut off before exposure. If your eyesight is good. Turn off AF and
manual focus critically.
Good luck, John
From: [email protected] (Fingers503)
I happen to paint, and photograph all my paintings. What I do is to set
the easel with the painting on it outside, in bright sunlight.The camera
on a tripod. I use a polarizer for the color and always meter off a gray
card. I use a grid screen in my Nikon to help make sure the camera is
aimed, centered and parallel to the canvas. 50mm works very nice.
From: "JRiegle" [email protected]
I have used the outside too, but the weather isn't always ready when I am -
especially the wind. On small works, I work indoors using the sun through a
window. Some art was framed under glass and would pose reflection problems
outside. When I did this work, I lived on the 3rd floor of the apartment
building. Hauling my equipment and art down the stairs would be
inconvenient. Additionally some of the tenants were lower on the
evolutionary ladder (one was an ex con), so I kept my camera equipment at a
very low profile - if ya know what I mean : )
JCR
From: MikeY [email protected]
I want to glue photo cutouts (1x2 inch)to a photo - build up a 3D thing -
what should I use to glue them down?
Please e-mail me too.
Thanks,
From: [email protected]
3M Spray Glue for lightweight images or Photomount for stronger bond. Buy
in Pro Photo Dealers or Art shops.
derek_ayr
[Ed.note: see Archival Issues page for more
on long term storage problems with many films and prints...]
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
....
There are plenty of films, well, a couple, that give good image results,
but the problem is their archival stability.
Not too long ago I was reading, where I can't recall at the moment, about
some photographers' fine art large sized colour prints printed on Kodak
paper, from about 10-15 years ago. These were sold at high prices to fancy
Manhattan collectors. Guess what? They are disappearing into nothingness.
The fancy Manhattan socialites, who paid large sums of money for these fine
art prints, are not too happy.
These are of course just the prints; what about the negatives? If they were
not VPS or NPS, they could easily be fading away too. And even if they are
not, the cost to replace the prints will be enormous: these were something
like 40x50's or similar, custom printed. If there was fancy dodging and
burning, it may even be impossible to make an exact replacement- even more
difficult now since the printing papers have changed in the interim, and
the negatives must have faded some too.
....
From: "JRiegle" [email protected]
I have not seen your examples. I have heard of a technique where the
photographer will shoot a series of slides "normally". Next, the photog,
projects the best image through a piece of textured glass or plastic. With
the camera behind the glass, the photog. will photograph the image created
by the glass as the light is altered by the texture. I imagine that it would
take a lot of experimentation to get the right effect, but I have seen
photos that look like impressionistic styled paintings.
JCR
John Buol wrote
From: deltablues [email protected]
[email protected] (HRphoto) wrote:
Cool! I didn't think about that. I guess you could even get that crackle
look of a very old weathered painting as well like this.
From: Terry Smith [email protected]
Getting started need not be expensive or difficult. A basic set of Marshal
oils can be bought reasonable inexpensively. There are several good books
out currently, check your local camera store. If that doesn't work, look
under amazon.com and you'll find some.
I took two workshops from Jim Mckinnis, who is the author of one of the
current popular books out now. He also has a video available. I haven't
seen it, but the book is excellent.
The paper I use is the one Jim suggested, Luminos RC-Art. This is a graded
RC paper, so you have limited control over contrast when you print. The
beauty of it is that it acts and feels like a lightweight fiber paper, but
processes easily. It takes oils and pencil very well without having to do
any preparation.
Also, you know the oil paint will come off if you make a mistake, so
there's no reason not to just jump in and be free to do anything.
Coloring with Marshal oils is easy once you know how. I am a
wedding/portrait photoagrapher, and once I learned how to do this, I began
doing it for my customers; it was a big hit!
I am by no means an expert, but I know enough to get some very good results
for my clients.
If I can be of more help, let me know. Probably better to email me
directly, as I don't look at this board much.
[email protected] wrote:
From: [email protected] (Maim the Mime)
Mftrd by Rockland Colloidal as I recall (I bought it freq from
Freestyle in Calif) it is great fun.
Not always easy to use because it is an emulsion which is solid at
room temperature (or it would run off of the paper!) but liquid at
much higher temp. Consequently, its container must be heated in a
double-boiler until it becomes liquid, then the emulsion is painted
onto the receiving surface in darkness or very dim safelight, then
must "set" till hardened again. This is not always as easy as
expected because it must setup in darkness of course but it needs an
airflow for evaporation, but a filtered airflow to reduce dust. also,
the light-sensitive silver in the emulsion will begin to fog if too
much heat is applied or for too long.
I developed (sorry) a respect for paper and film manufacturers after
coating my own for a few years. It's not easy at all to keep it
consistent, so the "hand-crafted look" helps to hide the
imperfections. I found my photos were best printed onto coated chunks
of coal. ;^)
From Nikon Digest:
Dindin wrote:
a) Polarize the flash light with a polarizing sheet; use another one,
rotated in relation to the flash polarizer, on the camera. (To be honest I
never tried this :-))
b) Use natural light (in an open place around midday) and build a light
tent around the painting. I've done this, it's not that difficult. Soft
light, excellent results. Ah! Include a Kodak colour card for your lab!
Roger
- --
From Nikon Digest:
The best way to shoot oil and acrylic paintings is to use polarizing
filters on bothe the lights and the camera lens. Visual Pursuits in
Chicago at 312-463-3668 makes the light filters I own. They cost about $60
USD each but the results are excellent, very saturated and pure colors.
Don
On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, Dindin C. Lagdameo wrote:
From Nikon List:
...
Hello Mark
I routinely have to photograph paintings and frescoes for documentation
(before-duribg-after restauration work)
I like the results with a 55micro because of his flat image and
because I can easily isolate details of deteriorated parts.
For the paintings I tend to use longer glasses 105 or 135 (that's what I
have) because I can obtain a flatter images shooting from a fartest
distance, I sometimes use my 80-200 but usually prime lenses give
sharper results than zooms (see previous threads).
Generally the longer lenses compensate for some possible distortion of
the lens.
The fondamental rule is :
have the film plane (camera back) PARALLEL to the painting surface :
that will lessen any distortion.
Hope this helps
Pierlucio in Montreal
Mark Eclipse@SASAKI wrote...
I have taken quite a few pictures of paintings myself. If you are not doing
this professionally, the 50mm lens will suffice. Set your aperture to about
f4 or 5.6 and whenever possible, use ambient light with color correcting
filters, don't forget that sturdy tripod and shoot dead center. For that
matter my 28-105 zoom produces great results too, and it's definitely more
convenient to use. The 60mm Micro however produces the best result. This
lens has a very flat field and it is sharp, sharp right to the edges.
Paintings, documents, little buggers... these are just the things the 60mm
Micro is designed for.
Looking for something a bit more special, then wait for the coming 85mm
Micro PC with perspective control, that will solve your converging vertical
problems.
Just my 2 sen.
All the best,
Greg
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000
Please consider adding a link to the ART DEADLINES LIST:
A monthly newsletter (email & paper versions) providing information
about juried exhibitions/competitions, call for
entries/proposals/papers, jobs, internships, writing & photo contests,
scholarships, residencies, design & architecture competitions,
auditions, fellowships, casting calls, tryouts, grants, festivals,
funding, financial aid, and other opportunities (including some that
take place on the web) for artists, art educators and art students of
all ages. On the web at:
to your Art Links/Resources page.
....
[ED. note: for a really deep black here is a new alternative
process..]
Dear Members of the newsgroup,
I would like to announce the completion of my research / experiments on my
direct carbon process which I will call the Soemarko's Direct Carbon (SDC)
or the Soemarko's Process I.
Below are some of the characteristics of the process:
For more information including sample images and how to get a sample,
please check out the web site at:
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/SDC/SdcIndex.html
Or you can also go there from my homepage:
http://hometown.aol.com/fotodave/
The site does contain link to get samples and have pricing information,
but I am not trying to advertise here. My main goal for this post is
mainly informational and announcement. Sorry if this offends anybody, but
this will be the last time I post this information (I also apologize for
some cross posting in other newsgroups).
Dave Soemarko
From: [email protected] (ZOck)
"Slipstream" [email protected] wrote:
It will be great if you contact Polaroid in your region. They have
frequently issued the CD package (2 CDs) called Electronic Library &
Theatre (it is everything about Polaroid). There you may find
everything you need.
Hah, I just found the telephone for additional copies: (781)386-5309.
ZOck
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Anand Kota wrote:
Dean Collins has a series of videos and books called "Fine
Light" and is a very fine tutorial and covers jewelry, also
there are numerous posts on the subject in some of the
crafts newsgroups, rec.crafts.jewelry and
alt.crafts.professional, in fact there may even be a faq on
it since there are so many posts about it.
however, a couple tips for simple photos to illustrate your
own works etc,
use a window, a couple white, silver cards with easel backs,
and put your camera on a tripod and use a hand held meter
aimed at the window.
use some large white cards held over head of the products
and bounce your flash, surround the shiny stuff with white
or silver cards till the reflections seem pleasing from
camera possition.
use putty, gum, whatever to hold things up. clothes pins
under the cloth.
fancy stuff, get a sheet of milk white plastic or sanded
glass and flash from under it as a second light to float
your stuff.
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
Chromatic_Death wrote:
You have the wrong camera for this sort of work. What you need is an
SLR, macro lens (or 50mm f/1.8 (or so) prime and a set of extension
rings), #80A filter, a lot of translucent plastic/paper/water jugs...,
and a tripod.
If there is one near you, I would suggest throwing yourself on the mercy
of a good camera store that sells used photo gear. Or place a WTB ad
in rec.photo.marketplace.35mm.
A camera and prime lens, such as a Pentax K1000, Spotmatic, Minolta Xxx
or somesuch should be available for $100 to $150. Since this is business
it is tax deductible.
A set of extension rings, filter and tripod will add another $75 or so.
Use Kodacolor film, as you have been doing. No flash, though. Use
all sorts of lighting that you think makes the jewelry look good. The
sort of lighting in jewelry stores may work. Another alternative used
for many photos of jewelry is to surround the jewelry with a 'light tent'.
For small objects a light tent can be made with an empty water jug. Cut
the bottom off and trim back the spout so the camera lens can poke
through. Put the whole apparatus over the jewelry and light from around
the sides with little Tensor lamps, moving them around to get the effect
you want.
Experiment with placing lamps, sheets to soften the light and
cards to reflect the light. Sometimes a dark red reflection card can
add some extra color to the shot. Play around.
Take notes as you take pictures, so you know what lighting setup and
exposure you used for each exposure.
Take pictures at several exposure settings. The reading the camera's
meter gives will most likely be wrong and you will have to experiment.
A good accessory is a 'grey card' - you meter the exposure using the
grey card, then remove the card and replace it with the jewelry to make
the picture. The 'grey card' technique keeps the camera's meter from
getting thrown by the shiny jewelry on an expanse of black.
When you get the pictures back, compare the pictures with the notes to
see what succeeds the best. Then go back and experiment some more to
fine tune the technique and exposure. Make sure you look at the negatives
to see which ones are more properly exposed. Go with the shots that have
good dense negatives and bright, saturated and sharp prints. The black
background should be jet black on the print. If it is greenish brown then
the photo was underexposed.
Remember, nothing good ever comes of being without there being a lot
of sweat in it's birth.
--
Date: 10 Feb 2000
Hello..
I have been trying to learn how to do this for a project of mine. I have
had some good results in a large room with big windows (facing North and
West I think) with trees to filter the light. Also using lights on stands
aimed at the ceiling and shielded to not cast direct light. Use care to
check that the painting is level and plumb. Check carefully for glare. I
was able to photograph some very shiney paintings this way. But others
didn't turnout as well...
Good Luck, Tony
From: "Autumn Hull" [email protected]
What is the absolute BEST way to go about photographing a painting?
Pretend that I can afford to buy whatever equipment I need (ha!). I
understand about keeping it level and plumb and how to accomplish that,
it's my lighting I'm having trouble with.
Right now I have an inexpensive Smith Victor kit with two tungsten lights,
and I've had great success with unframed watercolor paintings up to about
16 x 20. However, someone gave me two 40 x 40 pastel paintings and I had
a very hard time with them. I ended up with hot spots and it looked very
amatuerish. It seemed that my lights reached too small an area, when I
moved them back, it seemed too dark. Do I need to use four lights, one at
each corner? Use umbrellas to broaden the area being lit? Abandon
tungsten and get something more powerful? Help!
There are quite a few people who are starting to ask me to photograph
thier artwork based on word of mouth from the watercolor jobs, and I want
to feel confident that I have the equipment to handle whatever type of
artwork they present me with, whether it be oversized, oils, or paintings
already under glass.
Thanks for any advice you can provide.
From: Philip Stripling [email protected]
"Autumn Hull" [email protected] writes:
Hi, Autumn,
I use Smith Victor, too, but not for artwork. An issue with the hotspots
is the relative sizes of the lights and the artwork. A rule of thumb is
that your light sources should be bigger than the object you are
photographing -- that avoids the hotspots. Those spots are really
reflections of the bulbs in their reflectors.
I hope you get all sorts of advice, but I really think this is a good time
to hit the books. Check your local bookstors and libraries for books on
lighting for photography. There are many that cover lighting in general,
and severl that cover photographing artwork in particular.
Matters of Light & Depth, by Russ Lowell has a chapter on lighting
art. ISBN 1-879174-03-0
Lighting Secrets for the Professional Photographer, by Brown, Braun, and
Grondin has chapters on controlling highlights and reflections. ISBN
0-89879-412-9
Light Science & Magic, by Hunter & Fuqua has a chapter on the management
of reflection and one on controlling surface appearances. ISBN
0-240-51796-2
(Hope I've got all the ISBNs correct; watch out for typos)
I think all three books are excellent, but they may not work for you --
the style of writing and examples are very personal, and what works for me
may not work for others. I would not recommend buying them without going
over them closely in a bookstore or library to see if they are on your
level.
Good luck with what seems to be a burgeoning business. Have fun.
--
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000
"Noel Tantuico" [email protected] wrote:
Nope, won't do much for you, a polarizer is more for glare than what
you discribe. You are getting reflected light from your souce light as
you discribe it to us ( a reflection is different than glare) , you
need to reposition or otherwise undirect your source light as in
bounce or diffuse it. Reflecting light back in with reflectors will
work but you can not directly light your item with the source light in
the first place. If you want even light , you have to light evenly and
indirectly ( bounce light all over the place at an even rate).
David Grabowski
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000
Please consider adding a link to the ART DEADLINES LIST:
A monthly newsletter (email & paper versions) providing information about
juried exhibitions/competitions, call for entries/proposals/papers, jobs,
internships, writing & photo contests, scholarships, residencies, design &
architecture competitions, auditions, fellowships, casting calls, tryouts,
grants, festivals, funding, financial aid, and other opportunities
(including some that take place on the web) for artists, art educators and
art students of all ages. On the web at:
to your Art Links/Resources page.
If you would like to exchange links, take a look at my Art Resources page:
http://artdeadlineslist.com/ar
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2000
[email protected] (Jean-Luc) skrivningar:
Hello Jean-Luc,
I've photographed a lot of ice sculptures in the north of Sweden, a
number of them by Japanese ice sculptors. I shot them on slide and got
the best results when there was some color in the sky, from the rising
and setting sun. The soft light of the sun through the ice looked great.
Even flash helped when the light was hopeless. Ice in dull light looks
like, well, a lump of ice, even if it's in the form of an eagle or
polar bear.
David
From Nikon Mailing List:
for shiny objects especially metal, straight lighting is generally
avoided;
indeed one will get back underexposed chromes because of the specular
highlights. Even if intentionally overexposing manages to produce a
correct
exposure the highlights will be terribly blown out.
so what to do?
At the "Complete Guide to Close up & macro photography", Paul Hartcourt
Davies recommends making a cone from of a semi-transparent (milky white)
material. 2, 3 or more tungsten lamps are placed all around the
cone. There
is a hole at the top obviously for shooting, the object sits within the
cone and tungsten film is used.
I had *great* success with this kind of setup for metal objects. btw this
is a great book on closeup and macro photography.
However there are cases where this setup is not practical; some insects,
beetles especially, are very reflective. the specular highlights confuse
the metering and the result is a nice and totally underexposed slide.
an example of what happens with straight flash on a reflective insect can
be found here:
http://www.altfactor.gr/private/sergios/crop35.jpg
the original transparency is MUCH worse, more than 1 stop underexposed.
also, one could think that negative film is more suitable to circumstances
like these. I found that is not so. Even on negative film these highlights
are burned out.
as is the case with metal objects, the correct method here would be to
make
something like the cone Mr. Davies suggests.
More experimentation is needed here; I was thinking of cross polarized
light but haven't tried since.
Sergios.
[Ed. note: craft related?]
Good day!
I've been lurking in your group for several weeks and have read several
good ideas on improving my photography skills. I am hoping that some of
you can help with my specific problems.
I design needlework and must photograph the finished product. The photos
must represent the finshed product as accurately as possible since it is
the photo that ultimately 'sells' my charts. A photo of the completed
model is also included in my chart packs for reference when stitching the
design.
The most important factors in my photos are clarity and color. I need to
use diffused lighting with little or no shadows. The photo has to be a
close up of the work and I strive to 'fill the frame' with the model I'm
photographing. I do not use props and tend to use darker backdrops.
Also, I've been photographing the models outdoors on cloudy days. I
position white boards around the model to try to reflect more light. I
also use a flash. Typically I use 400 speed film. My camera is
unfortunatety an 'idiot' model.....I'm happy enough with that but I need
to improve the colors of my photos.
I use many beads and metallic threads that shimmer beautifully in my
finished models and I want to be able to represent them better in the
photograph. Plus I'm having trouble with the lighting...quite often the
photos are darker than I would like. I've also had trouble with the
colors in the photos....if the thread colors are correct the fabric tends
to look darker or lighter than it really is or vice versa.
I have considered having the models professionally photographed but all
the photographers I've spoken to insist on using props, refuse to 'fill
the frame' with the model or will not relinquish the negatives. I
understand that is how many photographers make their money but I simply
can't afford to pay their reprint prices (I use thousands of reprints). I
would need to pay them outright for their time and expertise. The bottom
line is that I want to control all aspects of the photography and not one
photographer I've spoken to will agree to that.
Any advice will be greatly appreciated...my current design photos can be
viewed on my website.
Thanks All,
Mari McDonald
Date: 06 Mar 2000
The most important factors in my photos are clarity and color. I need
to use diffused lighting with little or no shadows. The photo has to be a
close up of the work and I strive to 'fill the frame' with the model I'm
photographing. I do not use props and tend to use darker backdrops.
Also, I've been photographing the models outdoors on cloudy days. I
position white boards around the model to try to reflect more light. I
also use a flash. Typically I use 400 speed film. My camera is
unfortunatety an 'idiot' model.....I'm happy enough with that but I need
to improve the colors of my photos.
Some quick thoughts. I'd probably start with a slower speed film
(perhaps 100 speed) and a reputable professional quality photo lab.
If you use the most diffuse light, that may contradict your need for
specular highlights in the bead. Perhaps instead of using all white bounce
boards, swap one of them for a silver board (either cover a white board
with kitchen foil wrap, or buy a piece of silver mat board or a large car
window sun deflector). Have an assistant change the angle of the silver
reflector while you view any lighting differences from camera position;
shoot when satisfied.
Good luck. ...pt
http://members.aol.com/philtobias
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000
.....
I agree with the above. Typically slower speed films will give you
better color saturation and going to pro lab will allow you to give
explicit instructions on what you want. You didn't say which format
film you are using, but if you're using 35mm you might consider
transparencies as well. Shoot 10 to 15 frames from different angles
and different lighting setups. Then when you get your transparencies
back, edit down to the best two or three and have professional prints
made of them. A pro lab can also take these and make specific color
corrections much easier.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999
The problem with shooting framed pictures as you have found out is that
the glass acts as a mirror. Normally in a studio setting, you would cover
the front of the camera with a large black piece of board with a hole for
the lens, to keep from photographing yourself. As well as turning off all
extraneous lights . But in the situation you describe you can't do that. I
am guessing that the florescent lights are supplying the main
illumination. The only thing I can think of that might work would be to
use a piece of black art board mounted on your camera, with a hole for the
lens to protrude through.and use a wide angle lens. The reasoning being
that with the W/A you would be able to get very close to the work and at
the same time allow the black board to block most of the reflections. Hey
it's worth a shot. Secondly if the fluorescence are the main source of
light, you should know that they lack red in their spectrum.And as a
result some colors can not be reproduced accurately even with a correction
filter.
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999
[email protected] wrote
I think you've got to make a decision regarding quality versus ease of
setup.
I presume that, since you intend to use a digital camera, the latter is of
greatest importance, though ultimately it depends on your application.
The standard method for photographing artwork behind glass is to use
polarising gels over your lights and shoot through another polarising
filter. You need to do this in a dark-ish room so that no stray light
gets reflected off the glass. Unfortunately, the setup requires two
diffused light sources, one each side of the camera, and is therefore
intrusive to the environment in which you intend to be working.
For small pictures, the best compromise is probably to take a piece of
black card , as large as you can handle, cut a small hole in the centre
just large enough for your lens, and simply shoot through thios. You'll
have to juggle the available light so that it's not obviously reflecting ,
but at least you won't see your own reflection in the glass!
Who are your clients, by the way? If the artist wants reference shots of
their work, it makes more sense for them to have this done *before* the
sale rather than after. But, if this hasn't been done, due to copyright
considerations it's still up to the artist to negotiate photography with
the purchaser who ought to be prepared to have the pictures removed (if
only to a spare office) for the purpose of photographing them. If,
however, the "owner" of the finished artwork wants copies, you ought to be
aware that a breach of copyright may well result from photographing work
without the artist's consent (All this assumes that the artist is still
alive or is recently deceased according to your local copyright
legislation) Exceptions are usually made where photographs are required
for insurance purposes, etc.
Hope this is of some use.
--
Date: 18 Oct 1999
I am a painter and a photographer of artwork. Here are a few thoughts:
--Make sure you bracket your exposures well! You never know untill after
the fact whether a particular painter's work will look best underexposed,
right on, or overexposed.
--Use a grey card to figure your exposures, not the subject itself.
Otherwize a dark painting will look too light, and a light painting will
look too dark. Brown corrugated cardboard is usually a half stop,
sometimes a full stop, lighter than 18% grey, and sometimes easier to work
with than a small grey card. Get a piece and test it.
--If useable in the interior space allowed, a 50mm lens will always give
the least geometric distortion.
--Presuming you have a rock-steady tripod and cable release, the slowest
film speed you can use will give you the highest resolutiuon of detail.
--Including the frames will ensure that you don't miss any of the painting
itself in the composition. You can always crop the results, to cut out
areas of the wall outside the frame. With El Greco, I wouldn't want to
leave part of the work out.
--You cannot aim the flash directly at the pieces of art. You will get
terrible reflections off the varnish and bright and dark spots.
If you do not rely on ambient light, you would need at least two light
sources, off to the sides and angled toward the work to avoid a reflection
glare directly back to the camera. If using two or more electronic flashes
in such a manner, and remotely triggered, figuring exposures may be a
tricky matter. Is there the possibility of using any type of "hot lights"
or photo bulbs in either clamp fixtures or mounted on stands, to the sides
and angled in?
--You want an f/stop of f/8 or smaller preferably f/11 or so, to ensure
enough depth of field to have the entire surface of the painting in focus.
I hope this helps. Photographing paintings can involve a lot of details
not common to other types of photography.
Yours,
Date: 18 Oct 1999
.....
First off, if you can rent medium format (or larger!) gear, do so!
You'll get much sharper and less grainy reproduction.
Also note that I'm not a pro, and this is based on reading and
experimentation; hopefully people who have really done this can offer
more.
As for film, if you really want to stick with inexpensive film, try
Fuji Reala (100). If you're prepared to spend more (which I think you
should be for this kind of opportunity), try Kodak Portra 160VC or NC
(the VC is more vivid in color -- I'm not familiar with El Greco's
style, but my instinct would be to go with the VC for art work).
Portra 160 is almost grainless, and Reala also shows very little grain
and is very sharp. Slide film is another option; you'll be able to
get Ilfochrome (or "Cibachrome") prints, which are more expensive but
much, much better (and much more longer-lasting!) than ordinary
C-prints from negatives. I don't have a good feel for slide film;
I've shot Velvia and the amateur version of E100VS, but they're
probably too saturated for this. A lot of people like Provia; Kodak
also makes good 100 speed slide films.
Composition's not the name of the game here. This is documentary, not
artistic (the art here is El Greco's), and the goal is the best
possible reproduction, which means the smoothest and most even
lighting and the most accurate exposure and focus. Just center the
picture in the (viewfinder) frame (with the lens axis dead center
through the center of the painting, and the film plane perfectly
parallel to the picture) and fill as much of the frame as you can, for
maximum sharpness (you might want to leave out the very corners, since
the corners of the frame will be less sharp due to lens issues).
For the lens -- a 50 mm macro would be my choice (again, I'd go out
and rent one for this kind of session). Why a macro? Because macro
lenses (real macro lenses, not zoom lenses with close focus) are
designed to have a flat field of focus and extreme sharpness, usually
at the expense of maximum aperture, minimum cost, and possibly
infinity focus quality. Even though you won't be doing true macro
work, the extremely flat field of focus and inherent sharpness will
give you excellent reproduction of the whole painting, not just the
center. You'll probably be shooting at f/11 or some such, so the fact
that a 50 mm macro will have a maximum aperture of f/2.8 rather than
f/1.8 doesn't matter. As for why a 50 mm macro -- you don't need (or
want) the extra working distance a 100 mm macro will give you. If you
do go medium format, the ideal lens would be longer, depending upon
the actual format.
For lighting, you want two lights shining on the painting from about
30-45 degrees away from the camera (the angle between each light, the
picture, and the lens should be 30-45 degrees). You want to avoid any
direct reflections from the painting shining into the lens.
Photographing a photograph is relatively straightforward, since the
subject is flat, but the painting isn't -- it has texture, and you
don't want harsh reflections from that texture. You want two lights
(at least) partly to even the lighting, and partly so that
microshadows from one light are filled in by the other (again,
remember the texture). If you have access to an incident light meter,
you can use that to measure the light at various points on the
painting, and adjust the lights to equalize it.
Sounds like a really neat opportunity -- you should really try to make
the most of it.
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999
I don't recommend using natural daylight. Color temperature's too
variable and would require the use of a color temperature meter and a lot
of correction filters on hand. Tungsten and flash give accurate,
predictable color temps which you can use with confidence.
Concentrate on getting the lighting absolutely even, i try to keep it
within 0.1 stop as indicated by my digital flash meter. Diffuse light
source to each side. You can control a lot of the glare by careful
positioning of the lights. Polarizer or cross polarizing should remove or
reduce the few remaining specular glares.
As for defects in the actual painting, sounds like a job for Photoshop.
"David Reichel" [email protected] wrote:
--
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 1999
Wait for an overcast day to reduce contrast between the sky and the
transmitted light. A TTL reading using centre weighting should get
you a correct exposure to within one stop. Then bracket 1 stop either
side in half stop intervals on chrome or full stop on print.
--
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
I would definitely use a longer lens, and stop it down for full-frame
sharpness,
but I can't imagine wanting to use filters, especially soft-focus.
I would want to eliminate distortion (50mm or higher) and get it as
sharp as possible (tripod, lens at f8 or 11). Fuji Velvia (for slides)
or Agfa Ultra (for prints), to make the color as intense as possible
(that is if that is what you want).
You almost certainly realize this, but it depends quite a bit on whether
you want JUST the windows, or the windows AND inside the church to be
evenly lit. This sounds sounds like a well-thought-out and
well-rehearsed technique if the main subject isn't the windows. If you
just want the windows, don't worry about this. The original poster just
said: "I need to shoot some stained glass windows"
I would try something like the given strategy, but also doing an average
reading from the windows from inside to give me an idea which way to
bracket more if possible.
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999
If you are having problems with reflections, outside is the worst place
to make the copies. Outside, light is striking the painting from all
angles. As a result, there will be reflections in all directions. To
minimize reflections, you have to carefully position the lights. To
eliminate reflections, you have to use polarizers over the lights and a
polarizer over the lens.
Ray
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000
jd wrote:
you need to have light shining through the glass, which
means shooting while the frame is leaning against your front
window. I like the other posters suggestion that you
surround the stained glass with black cloth.
If you are unable to prop your stained glass pieces up,
perhaps cause they are not assembled, you can make a light
table by placing a sheet of white plastic over a couple saw
horses, or a couple chairs, place your objects on it, bounce
another flash off the floor, oh yeah, put some white paper
on the floor to reflect the light. I suppose your camera is
one of those point and shoot types that will not let you add
another flash via a PC cable (this is not a computer cable,
Photo contact cable is thin round flash connectors) then
attach the flash to a long PC cable and use a slave eye,
place the slave eye in your hand and cover the in camera
flash, this will trigger the second flash while not letting
the built in flash give your work a white glare reflection.
a little fiddling with the exposure and you may get it down
perfectly.
an alternative to flash, use a doorway or window that has
direct sunlight spilling on the floor, place your white
glass or plastic pannel so the light bounces off the floor
and makes your work area glow, shoot fast cause the sun
moves fast when you have everything set up for it like
that. You may need to place a dark 'flag' between the
subject area and the window on the upper half.
this reply was echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at
egroups.com
Date: Thu, 05 Aug 1999
there is a guy in San Fran who makes a bundle doing that, he
projects a slide onto the pebbled textured glass and copies
it from the other side. prints huge wall size images for
big bucks.
[Ed. note: often a problem when shooting in museums and galleries
too..]
"Don Marcotte" [email protected] wrote:
Diffraction has nothing to do with the phenomena.
The colors appear because plexi is exibiting optical birefringence.
In fact, it is probably one of the best known materials exhibiting
this property.
Birefringence is an optical property of materials which means that the
effective index of refraction (ie, essentially, the velocity of
propagation) of polarized light propagating along one direction is
different from the index for a beam of different polarization or
propagating along a different direction. Without going into all the
details, essentially what happens is that for some wavelengths, after
passage through a fixed thickness of plexi, light of one polarization
may wind up exactly in phase with light of the orthogonal
polarization, while the two polarizations for another wavelength may
not wind up back in phase, and hence you will get peaks and dips in
the transmitted spectra, which is the fundamental definition of
"color".
Birefringent materials can pull other tricks as well, for example,
turning linearly polarized light into elliptical or circularly
polarized light.
Birefringence is always due to some anisotropy in the material, in
this case, usually material stress. Usually, the stress is there from
the time the piece was made (ie, cast, molded, shaped, cut, etc.), but
externally applied mechanical stress (eg, due to mounting) can also
induce birefringence.
Hope this helps,
Tom
PS - Birefringence is discussed in most comprehensive freshman /
sophomore physics texts.
PPS - I also have a degree in Engr. Physics. (CU - '68)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000
jd wrote:
Try putting white paper behind it and backlighting the paper.
Just another of many ways.
Date: 12 Apr 2000
Just get some light behind them coming at you and meter with a reflective
or in camera averaging meter. I've done it to stain glass windows in
churches many times. It works fine.
Erwin Arthur Siegel, Alexandria, Virginia USA
Date: 29 May 1999
I've found outside in the shade on a sunny day is the best lighting for
shooting slides of my acrylic paintings. If you use flashes, use two off
to the sides and point them at the oppisite side of the painting.
From: [email protected] (Ron Goodman)
I photograph a lot of quilts and have been happy with Astia(or Sensia II)
for accurate colors. As far as print film, I haven't used a lot, but I
recently had good luck with Fuji NPC, which I rated at 100. If you can't
afford an incident meter, use a grey card. From what I've heard,
reflections are often a problem when shooting paintings--polarizing
filters are sometimes needed to knock out the glare.
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999
"fhalas" [email protected] wrote:
The type and speed film will tend to depend on the type of lighting since
no flash is allowed. Different lights give different light spectrums so
one type of light will make things yellowish while others more blueish.
The available lighting source and its spectrum "temperature" is all
importaant for accuracy of colors. If that part is less critical then you
have to deal with slides vs prints. Slides tend to be more color true and
richer in clors but are more intolerant of calculation errors. If the
camara does not have a mirror lock than you should use timer on camara to
eliminate the minute shake from touching the trigger.
I would suggest going to local places and experimenting with various films
and methods before going to the intended destination.
Marc Schneider, Psy.D.
rec.photo.technique.nature
If you can get onto the glass and the subject fits into the field of
view this way, get a rubber lens shade either normal or wide angle to
screw into your largest filter thread using step up/down rings if
necessary to accomodate your different lenses. This protects the display
glass or acrylic against your scratching it ans is appreciated and
perhaps required by the exhibitors.
If you are using flash, get an off=camera flash extension cord. You or a
companion hold the flash away from the lens at an angle to illuminate
the subject and not cause a reflection of the flash back into the camera
field of view.
From: "Tim Kingston" [email protected]
Connie wrote
Not a good idea in my opinion. Use a rubber lens hood. That way you don't
risk scratching the glass or your lens. A rubber lens hood is one of the
most inexpensive accessories you can buy. It also cuts down on stray light
entering the front of your lens, dust etc. One the best features I found ,
is that with the lens hood fully extended you can shoot in light rain and
the lens glass still stays dry. I'd say you've been lucky you haven't
scratched something . . . or maybe you have and just didn't notice.
PS. It really helps to cut down on stray light with a flash, especially
off
the camera. I never shoot without a lens hood, if I can help it.
Tim
From: [email protected] (Paul Secinaro)
[email protected] wrote:
Yes, the closer you can get, the better, because it restricts the angle
from which reflections can enter the lens. You can use a lens hood to
give you a little more standoff distance or if you're worried about
scratching the front element. Also, a flexible hood makes focusing easier
since it lets the lens rack move more freely. I've used this technique
successfully for photographing my aquaria, for example. Though in the
case of fish tanks or other glass enclosures, another thing you have to be
careful of is your flash unit bouncing off the rear glass wall and showing
up in the shot (much better to use an off-camera flash coming in from the
top or side. Pushing the lens up against the glass does limit you in the
sense that you can't control your distance to the subject, so it can be
tricky to find a lens that gives you both the field of view you want, and
can focus close enough to allow you to be right up against the glass.
I've found that a 50mm macro works well for small aquaria, for example.
A zoom might be a more versatile choice if the subject isn't too close to
the glass.
Paul
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Connie
[email protected] writes:
Pretty much, yup. The glare you get off the glass is a result
of light coming from behind you, striking the glass, and reflecting
towards your camera. If you stick the lens right against the
glass, it's blocking the light.
A lens hood can also help with this.
If you're using flash, you're adding light that will strike
the glass and bounce back at you, so it's even more important to
block the light. But if you can't quite do this, make sure you
shoot at an angle to the glass - so that most or all of the
light from the flash reflects in a direction other than towards
the lens.
--
From: [email protected] (William Wright)
Assuming that these sculptures are clear glass, you may want to read
a textbook about "white line" vs. "black line" photography of glass.
Both techniques require a background with some space between the
background and object.
"Black line" means that the background is white, and the background
(not the object) is lit. Often the background is white cloth that is
lit from behind. As light from the background travels toward the
camera, it passes through the glass and is refracted (bent) different
amounts depending on the details of angle and thickness of glass. Light
that passes through the _edges_ of the object refracts (bends) the most
and therefore doesn't enter the lens. Therefore the edges of the glass
appear black in the photograph.
The result is clear glass (ie: you see only the white background)
outlined in black -- hence the name "black line."
"White line" means that the background is black, and the object
(not the background) is lit from behind by a diffused (large) light
source. With this technique, you are using _reflection_ to intercept
most of the light that is coming toward the camera, bouncing this light
away from the lens. Only the edges of the object transmit light
straight through to the lens. The result is black glass (ie: you see
only the black background) outlined in white -- hence the name "white
line."
'Diffused light" (a large source) is important with this technique.
Since a single light source directly behind the object wold appear
in the photograph, and therefore the light source must be a little bit
to one side, the image will be lit asymmetrically. This is attractive
sometimes and unattractive other times. If you want symmetrical, then
you use two diffused light sources, both behind the object but each of
them a little bit to one side or the other.
Steuben wrote a least one book on this subject. There are all
sorts of variations and combinations of black line and white line,
including lighting from below the object, and so forth.
Have fun with it,
Bill
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Bruce wrote:
I think someone in rec.crafts.jewerly or
alt.crafts.professional did a faq on this. but basically you
should bounce your flash off the ceiling or hang a large
white card to do so or make a big cone out of tracing paper
and shoot through the opening, or cut one at the right angle
and blast your flash through the white paper.
use a sheet of glass and place a background a couple inches
under the subjects, you may even want to light the
background with a separate flash but try it without first.
if your digi cam has a built in flash you can avoid it by
using a small mirror, or a piece of film or plastic to
really cut back the amount of flash, but a minor bit is
enough to trigger a separate slave flash.
From: "Richard Knight" [email protected]
Dave the "shine" you are getting is a result of the light being reflected
directly back into the lens. Remember like in pool, the angle of incidence
equals the angle of reflectance. This can actually work to your advantage
if you want to emphasize the sharpness of the blade or the curve of the
edge. Get your knife off of a flat surface using some type of stand (pole,
pipe, etc.) and secure it with something sticky (silly putty or something
else) to isolate it. Try using the method "Z" suggested and in addition,
try placing a light above or below that will highlight JUST the thin edge
or back of the blade. This will require moving the light and observing
from the lens position (best done in a dark room with only the one light
on). As far as background, use a plain background (that does not echo any
colors in the blade or handle) well behind the object to get away from
shadows. Forget the on-camera flash unless you can redirect it to fill in
shadows (bounce using cards remembering angle I = angle R).
--
From: "W. Keith McManus" [email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
This is the best advise given. The texture of oil paintings require the
use of polarized light and a polarizing filter on the lens.
In addition, use a hand-held incident light-meter to determine that an
even lighting of the painting has been achived.
Best,
Keith
--
From: [email protected] (David Elfstrom)
I've made some interesting photos of thin-film intereference patterns -
with simple household dish detergent!
They look a lot like oil paintings.
Have a look: http://elfstrom.com/lavalight/tour/
David
--
FRom Pentax Mailing List:
The simplest, least expensive means is to use tungsten slide film, 3-5
lamps on either side of your artwork to increase ambient room light, with
no reflections from the glass to the lens, and then shoot using your
in-hand or on-camera light meter. Try not to get the frames. If you want a
more expensive option, let me know.
Tim
Tim
Johnson - Photography, Calligraphy & Performing Intimate Weddings
From Pentax Mailing List:
Tim, I hope you simply chose the wrong words and did not REALLY mean to
recommend increasing the ambient room light. Speaking from ACTUAL
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE (not through my hat) this is a recipe for more
reflections, not less or none! It is essential that the only illumination
on the glass covered pictures comes from the copy-lights and nowhere else,
hence my earlier suggestion of the black card surrounding the lens that
would fill the glass with a black reflection, i.e. no visible reflection.
If you have not noticed reflections it is probably due to copying pictures
with a predominance of lighter tones that tend to camouflage reflections.
An extreme example of this precaution is the macro and repro studio in the
photography unit of the Australian Museum (where I worked in pre-freelance
days). We would photograph small specimens and artifacts on a glass
stage, and copy originals under glass (eg. to flatten the pages of an open
book). The ceiling as well as the wall behind the repro stand were painted
matt black to suppress all reflections from the room itself.
Photographing glass encased displays in the galleries would involve the
use of temporary black velvet curtains to intercept any ambient light
other than that of the display itself.
Anthony Farr
From Pentax Mailing List:
Reflections from glass cannot be eliminated, but before any fellow Pentax
users beg to differ, let me explain. If the reflection is of only black
objects, then there will SEEM to be no reflections. So, make up a piece
of stiff black card large enough to cover the whole extent of reflections
at the distance you will be copying from, and cut into its centre a hole
just big enough to get the front of the lens through. I usually pinch
this into place on the lens by screwing a lenshood in front of it. If you
are using a lens with white lettering on the front bezel this needs to be
blacked out. My SMCP-M 50mm 1:4 and 100mm 1:4 macros have both had this
treatment for copying, as has the lettering on all my cameras for when
there is anything reflective in shot. Use the longest focal length you
can manage, this will reduce the angle from which reflections are
collected so that a smaller black card will "trap" them.
If the pictures to be copied are so large that this technique is
unmanageable, then I would make 2 large black curtains (preferably velvet
- the photographer's friend) which can be hung in front of the camera with
only the lens protruding where they overlap in the middle. You can hang
this curtain on a string or wire strung up temporarily, just remember to
carry lots of clips, pegs (clothespins to US readers) and/or clamps with
you if you are away from home/office/studio. This method requires a
horizontal set-up (picture on a wall) otherwise a vertical set-up using a
copystand or an enlarger column (remove enlarger head and substitute with
tripod head) is best.
Copy lighting has been described before so I won't elaborate.
Anthony Farr
...
From Pentax Mailing List;
Two lights, each side of print. Must be positioned so as to NOT see
reflection of light in glass from the camera's lens position. These should
be the only light sources. Glass must be spotless, not even a little lint.
Regards,
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Let's not overcomplicate this. The process is simple.
My suggestion:
* Use a longer lens perhaps a 70-210mm or 70-300mm zoom. Move as far back
as you can while still getting tight framing. (This helps avoid distorted
perspective you'd get if you moved close and tilted a shorter lens
upward.)
* Don't worry too much about using a zoom lens. I use one professionally.
The slight bit of pincushion distortion is not really troublesome.
* Use a tripod.
* Matrix metering works fine; even Center Weighted is ok if the window is
near the center of the image. Yes, you can shoot on Automatic.
* If shooting slides, try one frame as per the meter, and one frame with a
+1/2 (+.5) exposure compensation.
* With color print film, set +1/2 all the time and then point-and-shoot.
* Compose very carefully.
* Try f/11 - with most zooms at long focal lengths, you'll get the best
optical performance.
Peter Burian, Co-Author
From: David Littlewood [email protected]
....
Steve,
I won't repeat the excellent advice you have received, but be
careful with the exposure since if the dark surrounds fill an
appreciable amount of the frame, especially in the metering area, you
might get over-exposure as teh meter tries to make the internal walls
lighter. You may get better results on a slightly overcast day to lower
the fierceness of the outside light, but we can rarely choose these
things.
On a different note, I have a large and detailed book on stained glass
(its history and development, no details on how to photograph). It has
lots of location photos, and from the gazeteer supplied quite a lot of
the locations are in the USA, including a dozen or so in Pennsylvania
(if I have deduced correctly where you are). You might check it out:
"Stained Glass", text by Lee, Seddon and Stephens, photos by Sonia
Halliday and Laura Lushington, Artists House, London/Mitchell Beazley,
1976/1982, ISBN 0-86134-050-7. Could well be out of print of course.
--
From: Philip Stripling [email protected]
"Steve Cohen" [email protected] writes:
If the windows are big, you have a problem using a 35mm camera. If you are
in a dimly lighted sanctuary, take a reading from the window, then take
the picture. With a tripod, shutter speed and aperture are likely not an
issue. Depth of field won't be a problem (so long as you are focused
correctly) on a window.
The problem is keystoning. If your camera is not level, tall windows will
appear to recede at the top -- sort of like the scrolling titles on the
old Star Wars movies (or better yet, like Mel Brooks's spoof of Star
Wars). View cameras have shifts, and tilts, and all sorts of stuff I don't
know about that keep things in perspective. Your best bet with tall
windows (or windows high up off the ground is to use scaffolding of some
sort so that the camera gets the full window in its field of view while
the camera's film plane is parallell to the window.
Film choice is an issue as you want to show all the colors in their glory.
I use slide film, and that seems to work well. If you use color print
film, you need to have a way for the printer to know what filter pack to
use on the prints to match the colors. Use a gray card outdoors or shoot a
person so the printer has a guide for correct colors. The less lighting
inside the sanctuary the better, as reflections and bright lighting
detracts from the light shining through the window.
Good luck, and shoot some test pictures before you do the real thing.
--
From Minolta Mailing List:
I do a lot of shooting through glass at the Bronx Zoo. I have had great
success with the following method (which was recommended by the official
zoo photographer at a workshop I took at the zoo):
Take the flash off the camera. Use a lens shade and press it up against
the glass. Hold the flash against the glass also.
I have been using this technique for years, and in most cases, you can't
tell that the shot was taken through glass.
---
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
[email protected] wrote..
Glass cleaner and paper towels. One or two flashes angled at 45 deg. to
lens axis Kill reflections of lights, camera, photog w soft lens hood up
against glass or.. 8x10" black card cut w central hole to tight fit around
end of lens.
Paul
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000
"David G."
[email protected] wrote:
I don't know about little critters, but many times while traveling on
public transport in Europe, I found that using a rubber lens hood and
placing it right on the window glass, removed all reflections.
"Rudy Garcia" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000
For really top quality copies of artworks you need to "push" your film at
least one stop. If you have or can borrow a spotmeter do this; Take light
readings at the brightest and darkest sections of the artwork to be
copied. You will find up to 7 stops difference, (dynamic range). Next,
take spotmeter readings of the brightest and darkest sections of the best
photograph you can find, these will probably be one of Ansel Adam's
landscapes. You'll find the photo has at most 3 and a half stops contrast
range. This tells us a photograph can only record half the contrast range
of reality or a good artwork. This is why a photo copy can never be as
good as the original. We can compensate somewhat by pushing the film to
it's theoretical limits. To do so we have to push shoot and push process
the negative. This involves shooting 100 speed film as if it were 400
speed. You then notify your specialty shop to push process the negs by two
stops. You'll get the best possible reproduction but it may still not
match the original in dynamic contrast.
MountainMan
[Ed. note: possibly useful to sculpture and other reflective surfaces]
Steve Terrell wrote:
you are photographing what is reflected, reflect what you want to see.
hang a sheet across the set and bounce a light off the ceiling. an
advanced tip, stretch a piece of black or gray tape diagonally across
the sheet to imply texture, make sure it is out of focus.
[Ed. note: some sage words on art photography ;-)...]
Johnny, your comment brings to mind a discussion I had with a well known
"fine art" large format photographer He is published, represented in a
number of galleries and has lead 15 workshops a year for the past 20
years.
I asked if there were certain types of people who seem to take to fine art
photography most readily. To paraphrase his answer: He said, "no, I
can't say who does best, but I can sure say who does worst -
"professional" photographers. They seem to be trying to create something
they think will please an audience, and not what will please themselves".
Having talked with a number of painters over the years, the idea that you
have to please yourself first, seems to be a common commandment among
those whose artistic (photographic) work ultimately sticks out above the
crowd.
Bob
FRom Nikon MF Mailing List:
I have just finished doing this for an artist friend, and so did some
research into it.
Most folks who do this professionally use hot lights and tungsten film.
The lights are set approx 45deg on each side, with the piece the third
part of an equidistant triangle. The lights may be 'feathered' so the hot
center part of the light doesn't cause reflections, and also diffused.
Having said that, I rented some lights and bought tungsten film, and the
results were terrible. I was unable to match the lights' color
temperature. So I decided to use the same technique but with what I
understand; strobes and umbrellas.
The results were much better but you have to bracket each shot a stop in
either direction. It's amazing the way different pieces seem to reflect
different amounts of light.
It helps if you use a grid screen and bubble level to help you get the
camera back exactly parallel to the work.
Velvia would not be my choice of film. You want accurate color, not
eye-popping color. My choice of film would be E100S or its amateur
brother, Elite. For large pieces, I would use a 50mm; for smaller an 85 or
105 as you suggest.
Your friend is complicating your life immensely by asking you to do it
under glass, polarizing filter or no. Ditto for asking you to use two
films. Even with two bodies, when changing the body if you move the tripod
a tiny bit by accident you have to re-align everything. Boo!
you wrote:
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Here's an old trick I used to use when I shot nothing but available light.
It's great for museums that won't allow tripods. They usually don't mind
if you bring in a small bean bag, especially if it's in the form of a
child's bean bag animal. (I used to have a frog that was about 8 inches
long; you can choose your own animal!) You can nestle the camera into the
bean bag on any handy stationary surface, and it's rock solid. I believe I
first learned this trick in a Nikon School class back in the 1970s. Works
great!
William Sampson
From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Polarizing gles over the lights and on your camera lens is the best way
but the filters for the lights are about $65 USD each. I've had fair
success by lowering the angle of the lights to the painting. Instead of
the standard 45 degree angle of light to work, try 35 or 25 degrees. Hot
lights or strobe with modelling lights are almost essential to see what is
happening before the film is exposed an processed. Also, be sure to
observe the results of moving the lights from exactly tho position of the
camera lens. This is not a perfect method but gets much better results
than the standard 45 degrees and saves lots of cash.
Don Lintner
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000
NoSpamMan wrote:
are you trying to take arctectural photos of the church that features
stained glass? that's different from taking a picture of just the
glass.
The latter may not be coming out to your expectations due to a
missunderstanding of the metering process and/or your lab isn't paying
any attention and letting the machine average the normally exposed glass
with the surrounding completely underexposed church walls. I would
look at the negs, but of course to me they are not just weird orange
ribbons but weird orange images and can tell if there is a major
exposure problem.
There is an enormous difference in exposure from the brightly lit glass
and the barely lit interior. the only thing you can do is:
double exposure, shoot one while the glass is lit by the sky, wait for
dark and shoot another when only the interior is visible, you would want
to underexpose the interior by one stop, maybe one and a half stops so
it is rendered darker but still reveals detail. It would be possible to
time a twilight shot so the exterior light is just brighter than the
interior.
You could augment the interior light by bouncing a flash, since you will
have the camera locked down on a heavy tripod, right, you can shoot
four, eight, sixteen times however many pops it would take to light the
interior, keep in mind that you can't do this while the window is
lighted by daylight. (oh, and remember that 16 pops is ONLY one stop
more than 8 pops) the flash boost will minimize the orange color light
that is typical with tungsten lighting. a little bit would be OK as it
would warm up the interior.
rent a powerful flash and a radio slave, time expose for the interior
and trip the slave that is outside and lighting up the window, heck,
then you can bring it in and light up the interior too.
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000
Two methods of shooting jewelry:
This may be useful for people who shoot macro:
http://home.earthlink.net/~stevens4000/camera.html
(All shots are digital, even though the camera that serves as a model is
film.) Any suggestions for improvements to this page are welcome.
Cheers,
From Rollei Mailing List;
Allen;
You're not kidding about lighting that publicists' piece of work. I had
to photograph one for a poster that was used during a demonstration
against the presentation of an Oscar to Kazan. The one I had access to
was withheld from Michael Wilson and Carl Foreman, both blacklisted
writers for Bridge on the River Kwai. The statuette had a black
blindfold in protest. I polaroided the damned thing, tried an umbrella,
raw light, nothing worked.
Finally, looking at it, it dawned on me that
it needed to be lit like it was piece of jewelry or an utensil. Since I
didn't bring a tent, I painted it with my raw strobe. It was perfect,
highlights with good modeling, good separation over the carcass, with
good facial modeling. Got to tell you, nothing sucks up light like a
statue, whether it's bronze or marble.
Slobodan Dimitrov
....
[Ed. note: Mr. Peach is the sponsor of the Nikon MF Mailing List...]
....
Apologies for the big quote. Sculpture is one of my passions, and I see
a lot of photography of it that doesn't do it justice (Sharon and I
collect sculpture). I haven't really tried photographing it myself, but
in general the images that I have seen that work the best are what
product photographers call 'North Light'. A lot of the best sculpture
has great texture and detail that is not really the 'focus' of classic
portraiture techniques (i.e., you can have a great portrait if the eyes
are sharp and all else is blurred/shadowed; rarely is that a decent
photo of a sculpture).
If you have total control of the lighting, I'd probably start with a
softbox roughly twice the size of what's being photographed. If you're
doing life-size outdoor installations, this is probably unworkable, and
I'd shoot for an overcast day instead. If you're doing stuff on a
tabletop, you can whip up a North Light out of an appliance box and
judicious use of aluminum foil and some kind of tranlucent material (a
white bedsheet would suffice).
-Todd
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001
I do b/w negative emulsions. They are blue violet sensitive till i add
erythrosin red then i can get green and yellow. it is blind to orange and
red and since i work in the field out of a tent i use 3000 mcd leds of 700
nanameter which i get from radio shack # 276-0307 The red illumination is
plenty. I seek others that do glass plates and make their owm emulsions
for film and paper. I seek the way emulsion was tested years ago to
improve my own method. I also make holders and all work is contact from 8
by 10 to 14 by 17 on homemade paper, I prefer to do it all and one day
some one else will carry this on. Thank you for your site as persons like
yourself make it easy to inform those that want to know.
From Rollei Mailing List;
Andrei:
I agree with Bob Shell that intended use is the most important question to
be answered before advice can be given. Most of the artists I work for
want
35mm slides (to show to galleries etc.) and the ability to make accurate
color, good quality 11x14 color prints for their portfolio. I usually
encourage them to have some B&W done at the same time, in case they need
to
submit something for one-color catalog printing. This is different from
clients who want "before and after" images of a work they are having
conserved before sending to auction. They usually want one 8x10 color
print. I've never shot anything for insurance purposes.
Here's the advice I would give for good results, not knowing the intended
purposes.
-Put polarizing gels over the lights and a polarizing filter over the
lens.
This really helps cut down glare on paintings with a lot of medium in
them.
You'll have to be able to rotate the polarizing gels in front of your
lights for this to work.
-Use a spirit level on the film plane and the painting. Saves a lot of
time
over trying to tilt/shift/swing the lens around to square up the image.
You'll may still have to tilt/shift/swing, but it will be faster to figure
out.
-Since a lot of what I shoot shouldn't be in front of hot lights, I use
strobes. I mention this because if color accuracy is important, I've found
Kodak EPP to be the most accurate color slide film. For color negative I
use Portra 160NC and a Kodak color bar. Since I don't use hot lights for
this purpose I can't give advice on the tungsten films.
-Remember, this is like copystand work, so use a grey card or an incident
meter, reflective metering isn't likely to be accurate. I meter nine
points
(four corners, one center spot on each linear edge, and one spot in the
center of the painting) to ensure even lighting.
-Arrange the paintings by size, largest to smallest. This way you don't
have to reset lights, camera, backdrop, and easel every time you put up
another painting.
Andrei, as I recall you expressed disbelief that the Fuji GX680 had any
value. Can you guess what camera I use for this kind of work? It's perfect
for paintings. I can put a variety of lenses on the front and
tilt/shift/swing to my heart's content...all the while I'm shooting roll
film. (For the 35mm work I use the Canon TS-45mm.)
Best of luck, 200 paintings is going to be a lot of work.
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Without seeing the pieces I would suggest that the
likeliest problem is to be one of contrast.
From personal experience, single texture with a single
substance limits the transposition of 3d into 2d.
Therefore, do all you can with the lighting setup to
maximise the contrast to enhance/maximise the form.
Remember that sculpture is essentially 3d and gains
its merit from being able to be viewed, touched and
surrounded, whereas a photograph has only the 2d's
containing only an image. That image needs to be
concentrated in order to represent the 3d construction
to the best advantage.
Regards
--- Edwin Hurwitz [email protected] wrote:
=====
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Further to my early reply,
Terracotta is notorious, make sure you don't lose the
texture by blowing it away with light. Keep the light
as low as possible, and perhaps even go for long
exposure.
Look at photographs of flowerpots for a good example
of what is possible.
Mike.
P.S. Might be useful to use a rough wood background to
provide a contextual contrast...but that would also
depend upon the emotion of the pieces.
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000
Dane wrote:
the easy way would be to shoot in a smallish white room and bounce your
lights off a side wall, the next easiest thing is to surround the
subject area on both sides with a curtain of white translucent material
and just recently I have found the almost perfect stuff and amazingly
enough it is also the cheapest, go to a garden supply and get some
'floating row covers.' If you go to a consumer place like a kmart or
grocery store the clerk won't know what the heck we're talking about,
this is something serious grow and can your own foodies are into. It is
a white translucent fabric, some is not woven but a layer of spun fiber
and it is excellent for transmitting the full spectrum with minimal
light loss of diffusing the light and it's like ten bucks for 5x25 feet,
sucks up less light than rip stop. Why you want it is to diffuse and
spread the spectral highlights, metal is basically seen by what it
reflects and using a point light source gives you a point reflection
which blocks up and lots of shadow which hides detail, a huge but soft
spectral the size of the subject shows the metal at it's lovely best and
reveals the texture and shape in the minute shadow(lets). You may want
to have a large reflector on the opposite side, get some white styrofoam
insulation pannels at a hardware warehouse, and a few mirrors to reflect
a direct light to skim across texture and detail shapes on the shadow
side.
this reply, like most of my BS is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list
at egroups.com
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001
I have had some success using a lighting tent. I used construction
paper to form a large cone that more than covered the glass subject.
Made a cut out for the lens. Aimed two flashes at the paper tent. The
result was very even lighting all round (wraparound). Metering was
difficult but propped my flashmeter so it faced the camera. Took the
base reading then bracketed +/- two stops on either side.
hope this helps
R.
"JR" [email protected] wrote:
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
"Andy White" [email protected] wrote
Well, Andy, you can certainly shoot art work any way you prefer. I'm
trying to be very helpful here and I've had lots of experience doing this.
I'm a photographer and I used to be an art dealer for many years. I shot
all my own things as well as artwork for clients. No one would use
natural light unless they had to. There are many, many reasons for this.
In fact, I don't know anyone who does it for a living that uses natural
light. The chances for color accuracy are small and that is reason enough
not to use natural light. With studio lights, you have infinite control.
Just think about it. But, maybe you don't have experience shooting in a
studio environment. How do you think all the art books are done?
Jeff
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
Andy,
I beg to differ with you. "Natural light" by which you mean daylight
is seldom the best light to use for copying purposes. Particularly
open shade, the color temp is way cooler than the eye realises, this
results in color shifts that are much harder to correct for than
simple ones like tungsten/daylight.
If you have no other way to light the subject I suppose you do what
you can but I recall the original poster mentioning owning some studio
type lights.
These are far more favorable than daylight. Even if he has to filter
them.
John Emmons
From hasselblad mailing list;
Dear Anne,
If you only have an 80 mm Planar then that is the lens to use and it
will give a great result. If you have access to a 120 mm Planar that is
the lens to use and it will give a great result too, from a little further
away.
When you get your copy stand get one that is sturdy enough to let the
HB track up and down without wobbling, and allows the camera to be srewed
in square in two axes to the baseplate. You are aiming to look down
exactly into the center of the picture that you want to copy.
Your copy stand needs to have space for at least two lights that
light the picture. These generally shine down at about a 45 degree angle -
one on each side. Fancier stands make provision for 4 lights that
essentially illuminate the picture from all 4 corners - but you can do it
with 2. These lights can be regular bulbs, photofloods, or electronic
flashes - the main thing is to have both lights the same.
Sometimes you need to shield the lights and then put sheets of
polarizing film in front of them to help cancel out reflections fronm the
surface of the picture that you are copying. Sometimes you can get away
without this step if the front surface of the picture is matte or has no
peculiarities.
You estimate the exposure with an incident meter on the copyboard -
either regular or flash depending on your source of light or if you have a
meter on the camera you can put an Kodak 18 % grey card down and read off
that through the lens. The subject of film and development can be very
complex for some copying - please see the relevant Kodak data book - but
if you are doing monochrome you can get pretty close to it with Plus-X.
One thought on the copy stand - avoid ones that are just a pole and an
arm with no track or wheel to work the ups and downs if you are planning
to do a lot of copying. The constant adjustments will be a pain!
And for the record - I got my friend Bob the Welder to make me up a
copy stand for my HB and large format cameras. It is a long steel double
track set at 45 degrees to the horizontal with a rider that slides up and
down toward the copy board. It is a BIG copy board and holds up to 24 x 36
inch colour posters for copying. The 45 degree angle lets the picture rest
on the board without taping it up but also lets me look into the
viewfinder of the camera at a convenient level to focus. And the lighting
is done by 2 Elinchroms on stands. Most civilised.
Uncle Dick
From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Anne Brackett wrote:
If you only need to copy one print, try reversing the column of a tripod
or renting a stand.. Gitzo makes a tripod where accessories can be added
to enable you to do some copy work. Or attach the print to a wall with
double sides tape and use a regular tripod.
As for the 80mm, the closest focus is 3 feet which means about a 24 inch
square inch coverage. This might be OK if you enlarge the negative. If
you need full frame, look into renting an extension ring. I don't know
which one you need off hand, but I can look it up. Perhaps one of the
other group members know which one. Or you rent a 120mm if it's only for
a one time use.
If you intend to do a lot of close up and copy work, look into the
possibility of buying a used 120mm although they're not too common.
As for a copy stand, cosmetic appearance isn't as important as rigidity
and ease of use. A *shop worn* used one would cost less. One again, if
you intend to to a *lot* of copy work, then you might want to spend a bit
more. Bogen has some excellent ones available, but there are others just
as good.
Essentially, it all comes down to how frequently you are going to do copy
or close up photography as to which solution will work best for you.
Gene Pallat
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
Jim Schmidt [email protected] writes
Try to get hold of "How to Photograph Works of Art" by Sheldan Collins,
Amphoto 1992, ISBN 0-8174-4019-4, which is fairly comprehensive.
Also, Kodak Publication M-1 "Copying and Duplicating in Black & White
and Color" (no ISBN) has a chapter on copying artwork, and also is
invaluable if you wish to do any duping.
--
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
In a nutshell, use polarising filter gels over the lights and on your
lens.
Place the lights at an approximate 45 degree angle to the wall where
you hang the painting.
Center the painting in the viewfinder, making sure the camera is level
and the film plane is parallel with the surface of the painting.
I use a black fabric background, kills any stray light or
reflections, allows the frame to stand out. You can purchase Duvateen
or try Tuf-Flock to use as a background.
After you price out the polarising filters and the background material
and any other equipment you might have to purchase you'll appreciate
why it costs a few dollars to have art work photographed properly.
Almost forgot, if you're using tungsten lights use tungsten balanced
slide film, or you will also have to use a correction filter on the
lens.
John Emmons
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001
I don't normally reply to my own posts but I forgot a few things.
As for lens choices, if you have a macro lens use it, if not, you
should seriously consider renting one.
If you own the Canon 28-105, don't use it, you will experience
pincushion distortion which is very noticeable when shooting
rectangular or square subjects. Barring the availibility of a macron
lens, use a fixed focal length lens if at all possible.
I also re-read your post and noticed that you mentioned having prints
made, if that's the case then use a good slow speed color neg film,
you should be able to get by without filtering it for color correction
but you will undoubtedly get some color shifts.
It is virtually impossible to photograph oil pigments and have them
record accurately using film, the dyes involved in the film emulsion
simply do not always record pigments the same way your eye does.
I've done quite a bit of artwork photography and whenever oil paints
are involved it's really a crapshoot. You will also have to contend
with a color printer trying to balance the color. It's tougher than
most people think.
John
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002
From: Rich Evans [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Coin photography
Q. Has anyone in this list tried photographing coins or other flat,
metallic, shiny objects (watch movements etc)? I have problems with
highlights -- they invariably burn out slightly
A. I've done alot of work with highly reflective objects - primarily glass,
brass, and jewelry along with an occasional coin or two. Depending upon how
you want to illustrate your subject (highlight, slight shadows, flat) you can
very easily and inexpensively get the images you want. The cheapest thing to
do is go down to your local dollar store and pick up a small white lampshade,
they run usually less then $3 - set your subject in the center and illuminate
with two small high intensity lamps from either side or however you like to get
the effect you want. You can add lights or use only one, and if you can
reposition them while looking through the finder, you'll get what you
want. I found some really nice and inexpensive lights at IKEA, but I'm sure they're
available at most hardware stores. Be sure to use an 80A or 80B filter, or
better yet take slides with tungsten balanced film.
Good luck,
Rich
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Coin photography
[email protected] writes:
> Not to be a stickler, but light reflecting off of metallic surfaces IS
> polarized, which is why a polarizing filter has little to no effect on it.
>
> Correct advice, incorrect reason.
Huh? Here's an excerpt from Kodak's "Filters & Lens Attachments":
"Don't expect to control reflections from bare metal surfaces [with a
polarizing filter], because the light reflected from these surfaces is not
polarized and the screen will have no effect."
And from an academic publishing web site:
"There is no polarization whatsoever produced by reflections from metallic
surfaces."
However, the Edmund Optics web site gives a suggestion that may solve the
problem originally posed by the coin photographer:
>> 2. When the object has a metallic or shiny surface:
Mounting a polarizer on the light source as well as on the lens is
recommended for enhancing contrast and bringing out surface details. The
polarized light incident on the shiny surface will remain polarized when it's
reflected. Surface defects in the metal will alter the polarization of the
reflected light. Turning the polarizer on the lens so its polarization axis
is perpendicular to that of the illumination source will reduce the glare and
make scratches and digs in the surface visible.
3. When the object has both highly reflective and diffuse areas:
Using two polarizers with perpendicular orientation will eliminate hot spots
in the image caused by the metallic parts. The rest of the field will be
evenly illuminated due to the diffuse areas reflecting randomly polarized
light to the lens.
Steve
[Ed. note: an interesting promotional approach?...]
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002
From: Boris_Lipner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Art
Dear Madam and Sir,
The Art Gallery Gallery-A www.gallery-a.ru invites you to the new
exhibitions.
Today on our page you can see more than 200 new wonderful paintings.
We hope you will like them.
Our company, "GALLERY-A" www.gallery-a.ru , offer both modern
and classical art, deals in a line of pieces of art by talented artists.
The most part of the paintings was painted by the St.-Petersburg artists.
Their works include original paintings, sculptures, etc., copies of
masterpieces of various styles, countries and epochs, portraits made to order.
These professional artists are high-skilled graduates of educational
institutions such as the Academy of Fine Arts, High School for Arts and Design
and other art colleges.
You establish contact and find out new customers who would like to buy
a masterpiece of realistic Art.
SITE: www.gallery-a.ru
Best regards
Boris Lipner, General Manager
From: Julio Serna [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: ?Help finding diffraction grating materials?
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002
Hi Glen,
Maybe you should consider having a real rainbow, i.e., something that
works like a real rainbow. That means using dispersion, not diffraction.
In that case you need real waterdrops or something that works like them,
such as glass beads. Those are not too hard to find, they are used as an
aditive for highway paint (but they do not use it inside the city, at
least in Madrid. They say it is too slippery). You can buy the beads
from companies doing that kind of works. Then you could glue them to the
wall or to a cloth using the right kind of glue. The rainbow angle
should depend on the refraction indexes of glass and glue. I remember a
discussion about this subject in this newsgroup some time ago. Someone
mentioned other safety products with glass beads (3M Scotch?).
Blue Sky Associates (http://www.blueskyassociates.com) offers
educational videos about rainbows, and they sell glass beads too
(http://www.blueskyassociates.com/sbvideos/BDS200.html). They offered us
some at 1996 OSA meeting.
Julio
Glen wrote:
>
> Hello group,
> I am a sculptor working on an architectural project. We
> are looking for an economical way to create rainbow effects on the walls
> of a rather large interior space. I know about that inexpensive plastic
> diffraction film that Edmund Sci. sells but I am wondering if anything
> like this is available with a mirrored backing so we can make panels and
> bounce the rainbows around the space? I believe this effect is in use
> at the new planetarium in Manhattan. Any sources or suggestions would be
> most appreciated.
>
> TIA, Glen S. Gardner
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How'd they do that?
Philippe Tempel at [email protected] wrote:
> I just walked by a she she poo poo clothing store
> (fcuk near 51st St and 6th Ave in NYC). I saw their
> display in the window. What caught my eye is that
> they had some nice B&W photos made on glass. Anyone
> ever had this done? Was it expensive? I wonder if
> they use some sort of liquid silver emulsion on the
> glass. Interesting stuff.
You can buy liquid emulsion from Rockland Colloid Corp
and put on glass, rocks, eggs, you name it.
But the glass images you saw may have been silk screened
onto the glass. That's an old technique.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How'd they do that?
I've seen similar pictures printed on clear mylar sandwiched between glass or
lucite sheets. But it's also possible to print directly on glass using liquid
emulsion like Black Magic. They advise using a pure gelatine precoat and
chemical hardner to "improve adhesion and mechanical qualities." See their
website at www.mahn.net. Arthur
From Rollei Mailing List:d
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002
From: Lewis Weber [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] How'd they do that?
I don't know how that particular display was made, but I have made
perhaps similar displays using Kodak Duraclear material. It is like a
Duratrans, but with a clear rather than translucent backing material.
This enables "white" areas to be printed "clear." It is a color
material, but can make an acceptable black & white "print" if properly
color balanced. Sandwiched between glass it looks as if the image was
printed on the glass itself. To display the images, I framed the glass
sandwhich in a standard black aluminum frame.
-Lewis Weber
From Rollei Mailing List:d
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: How'd they do that?
... (quote above)
Duratrans and Duraclear and two of the coolest print mediums ever
developed... used to use them liberally for set and exhibit work... the
impact of these materials when properly lit and displayed can be
tremendous...
Eric Goldstein
From Rollei Mailing List:d
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002
From: Lewis Weber [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: How'd they do that?
Very true, Eric. Although inkjet has come a long way, the vibrancy and
longevity of duratrans, I think, has yet to be matched. Of course, the
fact that the duratrans is a traditional process does not prevent it
from being enhanced by digital imaging. I routinely print my duratrans
from digital negatives. This enables me to increase saturation and
sharpness in the negative, yet sustain the advantages of the
conventional duratrans material.
-Lewis
...
From: "Anatoliy Lazarenko" [email protected]
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: ?Help finding diffraction grating materials?
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
Hello group,
Coburn Corp. (www.coburn.com - it seems to me) produces self -adhesive
metallized holographic films of about 40 patterns. Among them is
two-dimensional gratings named BrightOverall - like two superimposed with
90degrees turn EdmundSci ones. Width -61cm, price - about $20 per sq.m.
Unfortunately, direct application of it gives only static rainbow effect.
More sophisticated application of some holographic patterns can produce even
DYNAMIC sparkling effect in sunshine conditions (as shown in my signboard
mock-up http://users.kpi.kharkov.ua/lazart/anita.html)!
Best regards,
Anatoliy Lazarenko
[email protected]
http://ktts.kharkov.ua/~lazart/
>Glen wrote:
>>
>> Hello group,
>> I am a sculptor working on an architectural project. We
>> are looking for an economical way to create rainbow effects on the walls
>> of a rather large interior space. I know about that inexpensive plastic
>> diffraction film that Edmund Sci. sells but I am wondering if anything
>> like this is available with a mirrored backing so we can make panels and
>> bounce the rainbows around the space? I believe this effect is in use
>> at the new planetarium in Manhattan. Any sources or suggestions would be
>> most appreciated.
[Ed.note: although this is an ad, it might be an unusual or useful pointer
for those wanting an unusual texture (canvas..) and other options offered...]
From: "BroadPrints" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.large-format
Subject: POSTER-SIZE PRINTS FOR PHOTOS & GRAPHICS
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002
You are invited to visit BROADPRINTS.COM - where you can have your
treasured arts, graphics & photos (film or digital) enlarged and printed on
ARTIST CANVAS, BACKLIT FILM, and more - and transform them into lasting
works of oart.
A 20 x 16" print on archival ARTIST CANVAS (canvas size of 24x20") is only
$27.00 or $9 per sq ft. (This service usually costs more than $100 in most
photolabs.)
BroadPrints - for your lowest-priced online wide-format digital printing
services.
Thank you!
-----
BroadPrints
PO Box 21705
Roanoke, VA 24018
http://broadprints.com
[Ed. note: an ad below, but just in case you are looking for photo to stitch pattern s/w]
From: [email protected] (Graham Hadfield)
Newsgroups:
soc.genealogy.marketplace,rec.crafts.marketplace,rec.crafts.textiles.marketplace
,rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: Turn your photos into cross stitch patterns
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002
JiGraH Resources do more than just printing family tree charts.
Would you like to create a unique gift for someone special? We can
create a cross stitch pattern from any photo you have.
For full details see our web page at http://www.jigrah.co.uk
Regards,
Graham.
[Ed. note: another quasi-ad, but some possibly useful info to some artists?...]
From: "Island Art - Graphics Department" [email protected]
Newsgroups:
alt.picture-framing,alt.photography,rec.photo.misc,alt.art,alt.art.colleges
Subject: ~~~ A beginners guide to marketing images with mats & frames ~~~
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002
A beginners guide to marketing images with mats
by Jim Fishwick, Manager, Matshop.com / MatShop.ca
Professional and semi-professional artists and photographers must
effectively market their images. This market is very competitive, and
keeping costs down while using quality materials is of prime importance.
Thoroughly professional ways of presenting your product in an effective
manner is essential. In some instances an image can be marketed by itself,
but more often an art mat is used, and at times a frame is added.
Some of the common places to marketing matted images are through retail
stores, street markets, art and photography exhibitions, craft shows and
find raising projects. You will find a lot of competition with any of these
alternatives, so you must be prepared to provide the best possible product
at the least price. Assuming you have a photo or artwork that is readily
sellable, there are ways to present that product to the end user in a highly
attractive manner.
Using art mats: Try putting your artwork behind several different mats. This
can be done at most....
To view the this article in its entirety visit:
http://www.matshop.net/sellimages.html
MatShop Webmaster
[Ed. note: another ad, but again, possibly useful if you want a photo on canvas..?]
From: "BroadPrints" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.medium-format
Subject: YOUR FAVORITE PHOTOS ON ARTIST CANVAS
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002
You are invited to visit BROADPRINTS.COM - where you can have your
treasured arts, graphics & photos (scanned, film or digital) restored,
enlarged and printed on ARTIST CANVAS, BACKLIT FILM, and more - and
transform them into lasting works of art.
A 20 x 16" print on archival ARTIST CANVAS (canvas size of 24x20") is only
$30.00 or $9 per sq ft. (This service usually costs more than $100 in most
photolabs.)
Gift Certificates also available.
Thank you,
BroadPrints
PO Box 21705
Roanoke, VA 24018
http://broadprints.com
From: Stefan Patric [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Recommendations for Photographing Stained Glass
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002
Carol and Matthew wrote:
> My wife is a stained glass artist. I've taken lots of pictures of her
> work, but it's clear I could do better.
>
> You can see some examples of the photos I've taken at
> http://home.cmpsource.com/mlybanon/carol_stained_glass.html (and other
> pages linked to from there). Most of them don't do justice to the
> work.
>
> My biggest problem is not knowing what the best way of setting up the
> shots is. Lighting is all-important; there are MAJOR differences
> between pictures with back lighting and those with front lighting.
> The
> ones on the web page are back-lit. Some also used flash to bring out
> details that couldn't be seen otherwise.
In general, glass photographs best, if backlit, but if it's etched,
textured, etc., you need a little off axis front lighting to show that
feature. Front lighting is needed to show the leading as well, and it
must be off axis enough so that the light source itself does not
reflect off the glass and into the lens.
I usually use a large sheet (9' feet wide by 8' high) of white seamless
background paper evenly illuminated by two lights at 45 degrees to the
paper like your basic copy setup. I hang or otherwise place the
stained glass piece about 6' to 8' in front of the paper, so that the
lights illuminating the paper are behind the glass and no light from
them falls directly on it. I place gobos ("go betweens" -- black cards
or fabric, etc.) around the glass piece, so that light is only coming
through the glass itself. The gobos also block the bright off-axis
light from the paper from entering the camera lens and producing flare.
Next, depending on the orientation of the glass leading, I place one or
two lights between the camera and the glass piece to illuminate the
leading and to put "gentle" highlights on any textured glass. Where
these lights are placed depends solely on the design of the stained
glass piece itself. You'll have to experiment to determine best
placement.
With the lighting set, I take an incident meter reading at the seamless
paper and at the glass position, adjusting the lights as required so
that the background lighting is 1 to 1.5 stops brighter than the
reading taken at the glass. I set the camera based on the reading
taken at the glass, shoot a Polaroid to verify everything, making any
other adjustments in exposure and composition, then lastly bracket a
series of exposures.
If you're using your in camera meter to determine exposure, fill the
finder with the stained glass piece, lock that reading and bracket your
exposure plus and minus 2 stops. If shooting negatives, bracket in
full stops; if transparencies, use 1/2 stops.
Good Luck. . . .
--
Stefan Patric
[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fighting with shine oil paintings
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002
I used to a lot of copy work that had a lot of layers of clear plastic
overlays on it and the solution I came up with is as following:
I used white muslin and put it between the lights (far enough away from the
hot lights not to catch on fire but not in the image) and the art. It
increased the exposure but did not change the color of the lights.
Eventually I made some frames out of PVC pipe and wrapped the muslin on it.
Worked very well and I can not see any reason it would not work for you.
OR, you could take Bob's advice. Either should do a good job for you.
lee
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fighting with shine oil paintings
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002
You need to get a couple of things. Some Polarising gels for your lights and
a Polarising filter for your camera lens.
Attach the gels in such a way as to avoid burning them up.
Strobes are much better for this sort of thing than hot lights. And the
color temp will be more reliable as well.
After you gel your lights, attach the filter to the camera lens. While
behind the ground glass, turn the filter until the glare is minimised.
You should be aware that some oil paints, ie, pigments will not translate
accurately to film. No matter how well you light the painting.
A few other tips, hang some Duvateen or similiar flat black cloth behind the
painting. Or paint the wall behind it flat black. Use an angle finder to
match the angle of the painting and the film plane, if you have to hang the
painting at an angle from the wall. A grid screen will help a great deal
with keeping the lines parallel.
Don't let the lights get too close to the artwork. 2K watts of heat will
ruin an oil painting.
Shoot at least 2 sheets of film of each setup, process one and check it for
proper exposure, if it's ok then process the second one. If the exposure is
off on the first one, you might be able to push or pull the film enough to
save it. I'm assuming you're using transparency film. If you're using
negative film, get it as close as possible and then let the printer correct
it.
If you are using negative film, you need to be aware that the color is even
more apt to be off. You might want to invest in a Macbeth color checker. Put
it in the frame with the painting, shoot one exposure. Then take it out,
shoot another. Have the lab process the images so that the colors on the
Macbeth match.
Good luck. You're going to find out why good copywork is expensive.
John Emmons
From: "UrbanVoyeur" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Slide film for photographing art work?
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002
I've done quite a bit of this work and it depends on the end use.
If the artist plans to use the slides to show galleries & dealers, then any
fine grain chrome will do. Don't worry about what's too blue or to red -
subtle color balances won't matter here. I've use Provia 100 and sometimes
Velvia to punch it up a, but then I also use strobes so I have lots of light
to play with. You can even use a less expensive Sensia as long as its fresh.
Remember - they just want to see the work; perfect color rendition is not
that important.
I you plan to use this for a gallery catalog or invite, then something with
a slightly lower contrast will reproduce better - say an Astia 100. Include
a color chart in the first frame of each roll, and get the same batch of
film. Color corrections can be done in photoshop.
If you plan to use these slide for a serious book, bound catalog or archival
record, if possible, shoot medium format or large. In this case I would use
Provia 100 or a Kodachrome 64, with color charts and at least one roll form
each day's shooting for clip tests at the lab. Also, when your start, shoot
a roll with your set up, have it processed normal, and then correct your
color on the set with gels and correct your exposure before you proceed.
Try to get them colors as close as possible on the set or in lab - it will
make the printer's like much easier. Most pro labs can do +/- 10-20 cc in
any color direction.
Kodachrome will last longer without fading or shifting than any E-6.
--
J
www.urbanvoyeur.com
"Riceman" [email protected] wrote
> I'm looking for a good 35mm slide film to use when photographing art
> work. My searches turned up the suggestion of Kodak 64 or 64T slide
> film. I was thinking Provia 100F but I'm wondering if it's too blue? If
> so would anyone recommend a warming filter? I'm photographing paintings
> for a portfolio and would like the best results possible. Also has
> anyone heard of Kodak's colors in the slide film turning over time? How
> about Fuji's? Thanks for the input.
>
> Jeremy
>
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
> can anyone tell me the best way to photograph art? i've taken photo classes
> before of course. and i know that i should use a studio/etc., but some of
> my things are *extremely* huge (as in 10 x 16 feet) and some are also
> framed. is there a way to prevent glares? and the photo studio for my
> university's pretty big, but not enormous. i'm trying to take photos of my
> artwork for my portfolio to apply to grad school, so i was hoping to get the
> best quality possible. also, any tips on developing color? i haven't been
> able to take a color photo class yet (or maybe not at all).
I am sure there are books in the library about copying photos and art, I'll
bet none deal with anything larger than poster size.
professionals that specialize in art copy use polarized light sources along
with a filter on the lens to eliminate nearly all glare. They light from
four sides at a 45' angle. They use a large format camera to capture as
much detail as possible, usually with a flat field lens, which means that
the plain of focus is as flat as the usual copy and not arc'd. Usually a
technique called pre-flashing is used which is a method of controlling
contrast they expose the film with specific amounts light to deliberately
fog of the film.
Question, is your art textured in any way, paint strokes, stippling
whatever? if the art is very flat it could be possible to photograph in the
sun without microshadows effecting the colors, with minimal spectral
highlights on the sun side. Set up so the art is at an angle to the sun.
You have a more difficult time making sure your camera is perpendicular the
work. but paint can have a shininess about it, and each textured brush
stroke or bump or whatever will have a sparkly highlight and a shadow,
watercolors are often rippled even slightly and that can have an effect.
Can you set it up in a windowless room? You could tripod the camera, and
use a flash you can set off with a button. Have a friend stand with the
camera and a black card to hold over the lens while you 'paint with light.'
with a regular copy stand set up you have four lamps at four corners to
light the entire piece evenly, so one side nor up or down gets any more
light than the other. with a flash you could do the same thing, stand on
the far right and aim at the left side of the piece and flash, you could
hold the flash up high and then down low. Each time you tell your assistant
to unblock the lens, flash and cover.
you will have to adjust your exposure. four flashes is two stops, 8
flashes is 3 stops,(square root principle) and you would be wise to bracket
your exposures. If you use a battery flash you should wait twice as long
as it takes to recharge as those damn ready lights tend to come on when the
thing is 2/3rds charged.
do a test roll, perhaps a set with each different method you may have to
use, the large room and multiflash, outside with sun at a 45' angle, etc.
what kind of camera are you going to use? 35mm? 4x5?
as for the tips on developing color, yeah, take it to a pro lab. seriously,
inconsistency in color processing will totally screw up what you are trying
to do. one degree difference, improper agitation, and your colors are off
to outright weird. I consider pro lab developing a reasonable bargain.
and I'm considering that your school may have a lab with large tanks, water
bath temp control and nitrogen burst agitation. most likely they have a
water tank and some stainless steel reels and light tight tubes, especially
for slide film. btw, the photo dept or art department may have a copy
stand to use with your smaller pieces.
rec.photo.technique.misc is probably the group you were looking for.
From: "Leen Koper" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002
...
> Question, is your art textured in any way, paint strokes, stippling
> whatever? if the art is very flat it could be possible to photograph in
the
> sun without microshadows effecting the colors, with minimal spectral
> highlights on the sun side. Set up so the art is at an angle to the sun.
> You have a more difficult time making sure your camera is perpendicular
the
> work. but paint can have a shininess about it, and each textured brush
> stroke or bump or whatever will have a sparkly highlight and a shadow,
> watercolors are often rippled even slightly and that can have an effect.
I 'm doing this kind of work on a regular base for a local art gallery.
It is not the best way, that's with polarized light, but the results are
pretty good. At least good enough to be used for ads in classy art magazines.
Instead of full sun I always prefer an overcast sky, the largest softbox you
can imagine. Turn the painting a little towards the direction of the light
and use a polarizer on your lens to eliminate a lot of reflections from the
sky. This always works. The results are 95% quality for 5% of the price of
perfection.
> as for the tips on developing color, yeah, take it to a pro lab. seriously,
> inconsistency in color processing will totally screw up what you are trying
> to do. one degree difference, improper agitation, and your colors are off
> to outright weird. I consider pro lab developing a reasonable bargain.
> and I'm considering that your school may have a lab with large tanks, water
> bath temp control and nitrogen burst agitation. most likely they have a
> water tank and some stainless steel reels and light tight tubes, especially
> for slide film. btw, the photo dept or art department may have a copy
> stand to use with your smaller pieces.
You definitely need a pro lab. Include a color chart in your image as a
reference for the printer and most of your problems will be solved without
any hassle.
> rec.photo.technique.misc is probably the group you were looking for.
Leen Koper
www.fotografieleenkoper.nl
From: Joshua Putnam [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
Date: 30 Jul 2002
[email protected] writes:
>I am sure there are books in the library about copying photos and art, I'll
>bet none deal with anything larger than poster size.
Kodak's _Copying and Duplicating in Black-and-White and Color_
does address photographing large oil paintings and other art
works, with information on lighting, avoiding glare, getting the
texture right, color balance, etc. Publication M-1 if I remember
correctly.
--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002
From: hogarth [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
...
To photograph a big piece of art, you have to light it evenly, and control
reflections. How to do that is more than can easily be written in a newsgroup
posting. There is a great source though:
Light Science & Magic by Hunter and Fuqua
Highly recommended. You can read it in a day or two. For your efforts you'll
find that all your lighting endeavors, photographic and painting, are much more
easily solved.
From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Taking shots of reflective items
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002
Mike Graham [email protected] wrote...
> I have been having some grief taking shots of items that have reflective
> surfaces. I get overexposed areas from the flash. These are off-the-cuff
> shots with an Olympus C3020 digital camera, so external lighting usually
> isn't an option. I've tried toying with the exposure time, but that usually
> results in a dark shot with the previously overexposed area being not quite
> as overexposed. My best success so far has been by putting the flash into
> 'slow' mode. Is there anything else I can do to improve my results?
Probably not much. Direct flash is direct flash, and will produce
highlights.
You can try diffusing the flash with a piece cut from a plastic milk
jug, or a couple layers of white tissue. For either one, you want them
significantly larger than the flash itself, and a short distance (2") away -
that way you're using more of the light cone as it emanates from the flash
tube.
You might also try a very narrow piece of black tape, the same width and
length of the flash tube (NOT the whole flash window, just the narrow tube
itself). Put it directly over the flash tube, to block only the direct
light. The reflector around the tube will supplement the light, but you'd be
reducing the direct glare.
Or a combo of both. Or shut the flash off and use room light (white
balanced as needed).
Reflective objects are usually shot using multiple softboxed
lightsources, often with gobos. What I've outlined above are simpler
versions of the same thing.
Good luck!
- Al.
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Taking shots of reflective items
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002
> I have been having some grief taking shots of items that have reflective
> surfaces. I get overexposed areas from the flash. These are off-the-cuff
> shots with an Olympus C3020 digital camera, so external lighting usually
> isn't an option. I've tried toying with the exposure time, but that usually
> results in a dark shot with the previously overexposed area being not quite
> as overexposed. My best success so far has been by putting the flash into
> 'slow' mode. Is there anything else I can do to improve my results?
A. skip flash, use window light and a reflector, make a tent out of white
cloth like sports nylon, or a cut open milk jug.
b. use a small mirror to redirect the flash towards a side wall, or a white
mount board used as a reflector.
c. cover the flash while using a small slave device to fire off a flash in a
softbox or bounced off a side wall.
From: Michael Quack [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002
Joy Waranyuwat says...
> can anyone tell me the best way to photograph art?
Studio flash in a black environment.
Two flash heads of identical power, pointing at 45 degrees
towards the middle of the piece of art from both sides.
They must be in a distance of at least the diagonal length of
the painting away from the middle, more does not hurt.
Use barn doors, flags, other grip equipment to make sure
the light only hits the painting and not the camera, the
tripod, yourself or anything else in the room.
Adjust the two flash heads in order to both dispense
exactly the same amount of light. If they have a nice
even characteristic, standard reflectors perform well,
often much better than softboxes with polarizer filters.
Position Kodak color control and grayscale patches
(Q13 or Q14) and a gray card next to your painting
for postprocessing reference.
> and i know that i should use a studio/etc.,
That would be best. If you have no dedicated studio, you
might as well drape black velvet or black stage cloth
over all walls.
> but some of my things are *extremely* huge (as in 10 x 16 feet)
No problem as long as the room is big enough that you
don't need to use a wide angle.
> and some are also framed.
Framed with glass, is possibly what you wanted to say.
> is there a way to prevent glares?
Sure. Eliminate all reflections from anything else in
the room.
> and the photo studio for my university's pretty big,
> but not enormous.
If you can put the paintings against one wall, and still
have the complete painting in the finder from the back of
the room, it should be enough. If not, why not just cheaply
rent an empty warehouse for a night?
> i'm trying to take photos of my artwork for my portfolio
> to apply to grad school, so i was hoping to get the
> best quality possible. also, any tips on developing color?
Have a pro lab do the job. If you never did it before,
it will take you too long to learn now.
--
Michael Quack [email protected]
From: Michael Quack [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.people
Subject: Re: photographing art
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002
zeitgeist says...
> I am sure there are books in the library about
> copying photos and art, I'll bet none deal with
> anything larger than poster size.
The technique is basically the same.
> professionals that specialize in art copy use polarized
> light sources along with a filter on the lens to eliminate
> nearly all glare.
Only if the surface is structured like in certain oil painting
techniques. On paint which is applied flat without protruding
paint heaps or even peaks this is rather uncritical.
> They light from four sides at a 45' angle.
Only with yery large paintings. 10 x 15 ft. can easily be done
with just two lamps.
> They use a large format camera to capture as much detail
> as possible,
This depends on the output target. It would be stupid to use
a view camera when you are aiming for newspaper or magazine
print in rather small print sizes.
> usually with a flat field lens, which means that
> the plain of focus is as flat as the usual copy and not arc'd.
There are special reproduction lenses for view cameras,
with medium format and 35 mm macro lenses are the tool
to choose.
> Usually a technique called pre-flashing is used which is
> a method of controlling contrast they expose the film with
> specific amounts light to deliberately fog of the film.
This is history, modern film doesn't need that anymore,
not even mentioning that most of todays art reproductions
are done digitally.
> Question, is your art textured in any way, paint strokes,
> stippling whatever?
That would ask for polarized light.
> if the art is very flat it could be possible to photograph
> in the sun without microshadows effecting the colors, with
> minimal spectral highlights on the sun side.
But reflections from the environment often spoil the colors.
> You could tripod the camera, and use a flash you can set
> off with a button.
This leaves too much open to chance. I would always suggest
to have the flash heads on stands and synced together.
> with a regular copy stand set up you have four lamps at
> four corners to light the entire piece evenly,
Two should be enough, as long as the flash heads are aiming
at the center of the picture in an angle of 45 degrees at
no less distance than the diagonal length of the painting.
> with a flash you could do the same thing, stand on
> the far right and aim at the left side of the piece and flash,
the far right and aim at the left side of the piece and flash,
No, you always aim at the center in order to compensate
possible uneven reflector characteristics.
> Each time you tell your assistant
> to unblock the lens, flash and cover.
That will almost certainly go along with very slight
movements of the tripod between flashes, and even more
likely in stray light.
--
Michael Quack [email protected]
From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Slide film for photographing art work?
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002
William E. Graham [email protected] wrote:
> I have not done much photography of paintings/art works, but
> it strikes me that you would approach it just as if it were
> a live scene....If it's got lots of warm colors, i.e.: reds
> and yellows, use the Kodak product, and if it's cooler, with
> more blues and greens, then go with the Fuji....
Are you using the same films I'm using? Fuji films have fairly
lousy greens, despite the color on the box. They (including the
currently favorite for film worship, Provia 100F) are especially
poor at rendering olive greens and yellow-highlighted greens that
are so common in areas like California and Italy.
T.P, the reason I mention EPN and EPP is that the Kodak engineer
who hangs out on photo.net recommends them for art reproduction,
and for other difficult color problems like rendering UV-spectrum
blue flowers (Morning Glory, Ageratum, and Bluebells) correctly.
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003OsQ
(Funny remark about Velvia => Purplebells, 100F => Magentabells.)
From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: taking pictures of paintings
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
I do the following with good results. Place the picture on a flat
surface either horizontal or vertical. For horizontal placement, I use
a copystand and table but you could use floor and tripod. Use an area
where you can control the lighting. I illuminate from the side with
the center axis of the light shining at 45 degrees to the surface. The
lens axis is of course at 90 degrees to the surface. Color temperature
may be a problem, that can be corrected with the correct lights and
filters. Turn off all overhead lighting. Remove the picture from the
glass (if any).
The "art form" is know as photocopying and Kodak has a publication by
that title.
A polarizing filter can sometimes be used to control some specular
highlights from heavy oils, but you cannot control them all if that's
what you are trying to do. BTW, eliminate and control are two
different things. You try to eliminate with the lighting angle, you
try to control after you can't eliminate any more.
I'm fortunate to have a three season porch with lots of windows. I
place my copy stand arrangement on the floor at 45 degrees to the
corner (i.e. I have windows then on two sides of the copy work). The
windows are above the work and I can control the angle of the lighting
with the angle of the copy stand to the floor; rotate in the corner -
careful this can light one side stronger than the other; shutter or
filter the windows (with white sheets); etc. Lots of control with
mostly daylight light temperature.
The nice thing about a copy stand or tripod is that you can fix the
camera, then the object and play with angles, filters, shades etc till
you get what you want.
Regards,
Roger
"Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote:
>i want to take some pictures of paintings.
>
>The problem i get is that i have to watch out for reflections from the
>painting.
>The best results are by taking them outside with normal light conditions.
>
>Who can tell me how i best can create a situation where i do not get the
>reflections.
>Thanks,
>
>Willie.
From: "Ray Paseur" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: taking pictures of paintings
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002
If you can use two strobes, use a large umbrella or softbox and place the
two strobes well out at the sides so that they fire across the surface of
the painting at about 15-20 degrees off parallel. You can retain some
texture this way, and won't get too much reflection. Beware of shadows
around the frames. If they are undesirable, you may need some fill flash.
"Willie wjb" [email protected] wrote...
> the problem i have is that the person in question want photo's from his
> paintings for a portfolio, so i am stuck with shooting them from the front.
> "Onepercentf" [email protected] wrote...
> > Try taking them from the side. I used to work for a fine art valuation
> > company, and we took a lot of pictures for identification purposes.
> Always
> > from the side. regards, David
From: "jriegle" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: taking pictures of paintings
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002
Willie wjb [email protected] wrote...
> i want to take some pictures of paintings.
>
> The problem i get is that i have to watch out for reflections from the
> painting.
> The best results are by taking them outside with normal light conditions.
>
> Who can tell me how i best can create a situation where i do not get the
> reflections.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Willie.
I prefer an SLR. Use a 50mm lens stopped down to f4-f8 range. A 50mm lens
will have low distortion and be very sharp. Get the camera's film plane
aligned parallel to the plane of the art. With the camera on a tripod
(assuming you don't have a copystand) Using the
viewfinder's edge with the edge of the painting should work good enough. It
will take some fine tuning to get it just right.
I use slow slide film or 100 speed print film for this work. I will
overexpose the print film by one stop and develop normally.
If the art has a glaze or is under glass. beware of any background
reflections.
After trying various lighting, I found two strobes on each side works best.
I don't have to worry about additional color correction. Put the strobes at
30 deg from the plane of the art with each 10' from the center of the
subject works best. Any more angle will result in reflections from the
surface of the art. I've been able to not need polarizers at 30 deg also. If
the art is large in size, say over 3 feet long, increase the distance of the
strobes. The idea here is to keep the illumination even on the art. This
angle will help to show the texture of the painting or paper somewhat. Use a
shallower angle for more texture. The strobe's axis should pass through the
horizontal center axis of the art (but at 30 deg to the front) . If your
tripod is silver, cover it with a dark cloth to control reflections. Once I
had to do a reshoot because something shiny reflected off the glass of some
framed art. Using a black cloth on the wall behind your subject will reduce
stray bounce light. Making a snoot for the flash out of black posterboard
will control stray light also. If the art is propped up on a table, cover
the table with dark fabric to illuminate reflections of the surface of the
table.
At the 30 Deg angle of the strobes, the illumination is the same as one
strobe head-on (sine of 30 deg times 2 =1) so it is easy to figure the
correct aperture needed for the distance with my manual flashes. Set the
camera to its maximum X-sync and turn out the room lights before shooting. I
use a halogen spot lamp to illuminate the subject brightly enough so I can
focus accurately. Of course it is turned off during the shoot. I recommend
making at least two exposures with print film and bracketing with slide
film.
John
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
I used to do this as a small-time business many years ago (early
1980s). If you're working with film, you have to do a lot of testing to
obtain repeatable results that accurately characterize the colors ...
paint pigments don't always come out the way you might expect on film.
I always used a lot of broadlight scrims, did a standard lighting test
with a color/grayscale chart first, and used an incident light meter to
obtain an exposure baseline. A film with good color and a long toe
region was essential, as was a tripod and level.
You want a lens with excellent rectilinear correction ... Nothing makes
a painting look worse than barrel or pincushion distortion. When I did
this, I most often used Nikon with motor drive and MicroNikkor 50/3.5
or Nikkor 85mm f/2 lenses. Sometimes, for highly textured paintings,
sidelighting was necessary to illuminate the texture.
At the time, I was shooting primarily 35mm because the artists needed
2x2" slides for submission to competitions and galleries. There were
occasional calls for 6x6 transparencies or 8x10" B&W prints. It's
important you find out what the artists' needs are before you decide on
format. I suspect that more and more submissions are being made on CD
or via Internet delivery, so scanning or digital capture might be
warranted.
Godfrey
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
> we have a job that's a bit unusual for us so I want to ask your advice
> on this. A friend of ours wants us to photograph his paintings. It's
> pretty much up to us to decide what equipment and film to use. The
> options are 35mm or Hasselblad. We are thinking of renting some studio
> lights for the job.
>
> I'd like to hear people's experience doing that kind of job, what
> equipment would be the most appropriate, what type of lighting, setup
> and film they would use.
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Bernard Ferster [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
you wrote:
>A friend of ours wants us to photograph his paintings.
I have done a little bit of this kind of work. Hassy, of course. Here the
size of the negative is paramount, since camera weight or portability is
not an issue. The 120 lens is good since it is compounded for close up
shooting.
Use studio floods for this work. It eliminates hot spots and can be easily
adjusted to insure even coverage. (Use reflector umbrellas to spread the
light, and a good incident meter to check illumination at various spots on
the canvas.) Insure accuracy with a Polaroid check print.
Two odd thoughts: If the artist's technique uses thick globs of paint
liberally applied, texture may invite inventive lighting. Some years ago
Hasselbladd made a mirror device to insure paralleling the film plane and
the hanging art. Never used one. The bubble level and a good tape measure
gave me good results to insure that the camera was dead on.
Good luck.
B.F.
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Hi,
...
I would definitely use the Hasselblad to get the fine details of a
painting. But in the end the choice of film format depends on the intended
use of the film.
I would look into low-saturation, accurate color scheme films, such as
Kodak Portra NC, Fuji NPS, Fuji Astia, Kodak E100, maybe Kodachrome, etc.
Test the film and lighting setup before doing the actual shoot.
Then I'd find the sharpest, most distortion free lens in my collection. For
the 'blad I'd rent a Planar 100mm/F3.5.
...and obviously use a tripod... DUH! :-)
Tom
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
You'd be astonished how many artists never think to use a tripod when
they photograph their work!!!
Godfrey
Tom Christiansen wrote:
> ...and obviously use a tripod... DUH! :-)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Michael Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Get a copy of the excellent Kodak publication:
"Copying and Duplicating" published by the Silver Pixel Press. Explains in
detail anything you'll need to know.
One consideration that is frequently important in photographing paintings is
the use of polarizing screens on the lights (photo floods) and a polarizing
filter on the camera lens. Quite often this results in a much better color
representation than without polarization.
For larger pieces, I hang them on the studio wall backed by a large piece of
black velvet fabric. Two photo floods on stands are placed by careful
measuring 45 degrees to the subject. I clamp a yard stick to the tripod
parallel to the film plane of the camera and measure from each end of the
yardstick to the wall to ensure that the camera is parallel to the art work.
Careful measuring with an incident meter over different parts of the
painting will alllow you to fine tune the light placement for even lighting.
As someone already mentioned, quite often what the artist needs are 35mm
slides to submit for juried shows or gallery proposals. While I have
everything set up, which is the most time consuming part, I usually shoot a
medium format (Hassleblad, naturally) or a 4x5 transparency for future use
by the artist for possible publication.
Michael Gardner
...
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002
From: Joseph Codispoti [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Manu,
Having done this kind of work professionally for several years, I can speak
with some authority on the subject.
First, unless your client wants slides, forget about 35mm.
For a light source, you cannot do better than the sun. Outdoor lighting
against a neutral background/surroundings is the easiest you could use.
Find a place that has large cement surfaces so that reflected light will not
alter its neutrality.
Place the painting at a 45 degree angle to the sun (9-11 AM and 1-3PM).
Use a tripod mounted camera pointed squarely at the painting. Pay particular
attention to the perpendicularity of the camera to the artwork.
Use the sunny 16 rule and open the lens 1/2 stop.
If your client is particular about color rendition, have him/her paint some
colors on a background and photograph them with all the chrome films you can
find. Different emulsions reacts differently to chemical colors and render
them differently.
Once you have established the type of film to use do not change unless you
change light sources.
I have had excellent results with this method photographing artwork for
artists and architects.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me off-list.
Good luck,
Joe Codispoti
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Hasselblad, 120mm lens, Ektachrome 100 or Provia 100F daylight film, two
studio strobe heads, one on each side at 45� angle. Use a flash meter, back
on the painting, dome pointed at the lens. Bracket.
A Leica and a 60mm macro works perfectly also.
I've used both.
I have a Dynalite 500 pack and two heads, set for 62 WS to each head. This
puts the f/stop at about f/5.6-f/11. The best for lens performance.
Works every time.
Jim
Manu Schnetzler wrote:
>All,
>
>we have a job that's a bit unusual for us so I want to ask your advice on
>this. A friend of ours wants us to photograph his paintings. It's pretty
>much up to us to decide what equipment and film to use. The options are
>35mm or Hasselblad. We are thinking of renting some studio lights for the job.
>
>I'd like to hear people's experience doing that kind of job, what
>equipment would be the most appropriate, what type of lighting, setup and
>film they would use.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Manu
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: Manu Schnetzler [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Thanks to everybody for the input. Here's what I ended up doing:
- lighting: 2 speedotron 1200w/s rented from Calumet - it was a bit
overkill but that's all they had left that day.
- camera: Nikon FE-2
- lens: 85mm f/2
- film: Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus (EPP)
I decided to go with 35mm instead of Blad because that's what the
painter needs, and 6x6 -> 35mm dups are about $5.50 each. I initially
wanted EPN but they had only a few rolls left, and I wanted to make sure
I could get a set of rolls from the same batch.
We set up the lights, I took some readings all around the painting
(incident on my Sekonic L-508 - f/11) and I took 2 series for each
painting at 0, +1/2 and 1/2 compared to the reading I got.
So that was 6 shot per painting. At the end of the roll, we had shot 6
paintings and I dropped the film to be rush processed. An hour later I
went to pick it up with the painter to look at it. The color balance was
fine. For some painting, the "0" exposure was right, for some it was the
darker or the lighter one that worked, but we always found one.
We went back to pick up a few more rolls of the same film and finished
photographing the rest of the paintings in the painter's house with the
same setup. We're finishing the rest of his paintings that he has in a
gallery tomorrow.
That was less painful than I thought!
Thanks again for the advice.
manu
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002
From: Charlie Goodwin [email protected]
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
On photographing artwork...
>From: Manu Schnetzler ...... I decided to
>go with 35mm instead of Blad because that's
>what the painter needs, and 6x6 to 35mm
>dups are about $5.50 each. ......
I'm dealing with galleries and art consultants with my artwork. I was
wondering whether Manu's job was going to demand 35s as an end product. Most
galleries and art consultants want 35mm to project to evaluate artists work.
For better or worse, 35 is the standard at this point for artists to submit
work to most venues.
Regardless, if you have the time and money available for the job to shoot some
larger stuff, it is a great supplement. I often include 120 sized
transparencies when I am sending out my work to a gallery or consultant. For
some of them, 120s are easier to use to get a quick sense of what my paintings
are about. Some people really appreciate them. If the artist ever needs
best quality transparencies for reproduction; then those larger films will
prove valuable.
But, every marketer the artist needs to deal with wants 35s as the most
important and most standard artist's submission, since they can load up a
carousel with lots of work and conveniently see it greatly enlarged. Much
like computer software, sometimes it is better to have some standard so that
everyone knows what to do, rather than to have everyone heading every whichway
looking for the "perfect" format or whatever. There is a consensus on 35mm,
plastic slide pages, slide projectors, carousel trays etc.
Even though I would rather have 120 or 4x5 or 8x10 as the standard, I start
with 35 and regard the rest as supplements to the basic submission.
Shooting the artwork ...A longish lens is very helpful ( not super long, just
1.5x to 2x or 3x normal or so ) since unless you have a dedicated copy setup,
it's hard to be dead on center of the artwork. Get further back, and 6" to
the right or the left is a lot less damaging than if you're using a short lens,
and you are a little off. Basically, I try to be further towards the back
wall of my studio than closer to the work whenever possible. For 35mm slides
a 105mm or so works great for me. On 120 film, I like the 150mm for 6x6, and
210mm for a rollfilm back to get 6x7 or 6x9 on a 4x5 ).
Really - really even illumination is seriously important. I use a meter that
reads out in 1/10th stops, and I get the light even to within that tenth.
Check the corners and the center of the artwork for evenness, and if it's large
work, check the middle of each side too. ( Large work defined as - your
lights are closer than several times the longest side of the work away from the
work. If the art is say is 4' wide, ideally you want the lights 16 to 20 feet
or more away to keep the light even.) A bigish studio space really helps.
Charlie
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002
From: Charlie Goodwin [email protected]
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: Photographing paintings
Re:Gary Todoroff's Photographing paintings
Interesting problem - how to work with an (I believe) inherently contrasty Ciba
reproduction from a transparency. A great solution.
Are your "contrast adjusted" transparencies workable for general use?
Did you ever experiment with masking the transparencies to get contrast buildup
under control when you do Cibas?
Charlie
> At first, I lighted everything evenly.... Then I printed from the
transparency to Cibachrome. I had to do lots of burning and dodging to even out
...Finally, I learned to dodge and burn using the hot spots of the flood lamps!
...By varying light by as much as a full stop over certain parts of the
painting.... Eventually, I was able to light the scene by eye,
already visualizing the darkroom process.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002
From: Gary Todoroff [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Photographing paintings
Many have mentioned the value of careful metering to get even lighting over
the entire subject when photographing art pieces. However in my experience
with large oil-painted photographs (Sam Swanlund's old scenes of North Coast
railroads, logging camps, shipwrecks, etc), *uneven* lighting worked best.
At first, I lighted everything evenly with photo flood for a 4x5 photo on
Fuji 64T (tungsten) using an Ektar 203mm lens. Then I printed from the
transparency to Cibachrome. I had to do lots of burning and dodging to even
out bright sky scenes and dark forest.
Finally, I learned to dodge and burn using the hot spots of the flood lamps!
By varying light by as much as a full stop over certain parts of the
painting, I could then print the Ciba straight with hardly any darkroom
manipulation. Skies kept detail in the clouds and forest shadows came
through looking natural. Eventually, I was able to light the scene by eye,
already visualizing the darkroom process.
The biggest problem was when a flood lamp burned out and I had to learn a
whole new hot spot configuration from the new bulb!
Would love the hear about anyone doing copy repro work and how you bill for
it.
Regards,
Gary Todoroff
Eureka, CA
www.northcoastphotos.com
from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002
From: Robert Lynch [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photos of shiny things..
--- Smitty [email protected] wrote:
> I booked a gig to photo a couple with their motorcycle and a 66 GTO. I have
> not have much luck with chrome plated subjects due to numerous reflections
> off the metal etc. Can anyone give me any hints? Should I take some pancake
> makeup to powder the parts that reflect?:) I'll probably shoot print film
> and print 11x14's.
> smitty
Other posters have suggested using a polarizer. Keep in mind that a polarizer
will have absolutely no effect on the reflections from any bare metal such as
chrome, unless you have a polarized light source. Read here:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001cWJ
However, you should still take your polarizer with you. It can be useful for
reducing reflections from shiny paint and glass. Unfortunately, my experience
photographing cars has been that when the polarizer is oriented to reduce paint
reflections (and thereby increase color saturation), the reflections in the
glass are visible. It is usually an either/or situation. I rarely get both
reflections eliminated.
from minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photos of shiny things.
Robert is right. A polarizer will have no affect with bare polished metal
or chrome plated objects. That's why the car and motorcyle photographers
get paid the big bucks. ;-) They know how to position the vehicle and how
to use the existing light. Heck, most of the pros shoot the cars and cycles
inside using huge light tents. Of course, Smitty, you can always do what I
do to cut the unwanted glare. Dulling spray. Hair spray works too in a
pinch. Of course the owners don't like cleaning the stuff off their pretty
chrome. ;-) Your best bet Smitty is to wait for an overcast day or shoot
during the "Golden" hour.
Dave Saalsaa
From: Dean Van Praotl [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: 4x5 of artwork
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002
[email protected] (ed hopper) apparently said:
>I am about to shoot some 4x5 trans of my paintings. I usually shoot
>35mm slides, and now I'm going to rent a 4x5 camera. I am looking for
>any help or suggestions in this format. I shoot the 35mm slides on
>tungsten film using Tota lamps at about 1/8 or 1/15 second, and meter
>the f stop accordingly. This gives me the best color results. I
>realize the specs on the formats a quite diferent, so what should I
>look at for my settings on the 4x5. I think I'll be using a 150 lens.
>My paintings are 36" to 48". Thank you for your help.
If you can get the same film in 4x5 that you've used in 35mm,
do so. Use a magnifier on the ground glass to fine focus the
camera. Since DOF won't be an issue, you won't need to stop
down very much, I'd start with a couple of test shots at f/11 and
f/16. And that's the main thing: shoot a few test shots and have
them processed before you burn a pile of expensive film.
Try metering a gray card or use an incident meter. If your
35mm camera's meter gives you good exposures, you can
use it to meter for the big camera as well.
With large format cameras, you should keep in mind that
*_everything_* is manual. Things that you take for granted with
a 35mm camera, like the shutter being closed when you change
or advance the film, can (and will) bite you with LF. Be
methodical.
From: "zeitgeist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: 4x5 of artwork
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002
since you are renting the 4x5, you might as well rent a polaroid back and
buy a pack of film, that could prevent any nasty surprises when you pick up
the film later.
keep in mind that f/8 is f/8 in 35mm and any other format camera. (however
f/8 in any particular camera is just a marking on the barrel and like any
piece of equipment may or not be accurate and in some consumer goods
consistent.)
The important thing is even lighting without picking up any unpleasant
spectral highlight reflections off texture
4x5 view cameras can swing and tilt and shift the lens and film plane, you
should check to see that everything is at zero, centered, perpendicular and
parallel.
use a loop (lupe) to check your focus.
if dimensions on the film is critical keep in mind that the image size
shifts as you focus.
> I am about to shoot some 4x5 trans of my paintings. I usually shoot
> 35mm slides, and now I'm going to rent a 4x5 camera. I am looking for
> any help or suggestions in this format. I shoot the 35mm slides on
> tungsten film using Tota lamps at about 1/8 or 1/15 second, and meter
> the f stop accordingly. This gives me the best color results. I
> realize the specs on the formats a quite diferent, so what should I
> look at for my settings on the 4x5. I think I'll be using a 150 lens.
> My paintings are 36" to 48". Thank you for your help.
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002
From: Rich Evans [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to photograph oil paintings
Hi James,
I do a lot of photography of artwork, primarily works hanging in museums -
unfortunately this limits me to available light and frequently no tripod, so a
fast lens and a steady hand are a must - I also use the 28mm PC and 85mm PC
Nikkors for many of these in order to eliminate keystoneing.
However I also shoot for art students at local colleges who need chromes or
digital images for their portfolios. The FM3a is a good choice - I would
definitely recommend using the 55 f/3.5 micro assuming you will have the room
to work as it gives exceptional edge-to-edge sharpness. If I were doing this,
I would either have the works hanging or if you have the option, place them on
an easel. I prefer not to use flash as it can be too harsh and create hotspots
and excessive contrast unless properly filtered with an 81a or other similar
warming filter. With the camera on a tripod, I illuminate the artwork with 2
500W bulbs in reflectors, each on a stand and set about 10 feet from the
artwork, one to my left and wone to my right, each set at approx. 45 degrees
angle to the art and at the same height as the piece. Since I shoot mostly
chromes or digital, I use tungsten balanced film, but you can use print film
with the appropriate filter on the lens, probably an 80a should do nicely. I
know you will get some responses that will tell you how to use flash for this,
and they will work fine, this is just the way I do this and have had excellent
results - and many returning clients.
Regards,
--Rich
From Nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003
From: "Dan Lindsay [email protected]
Subject: Re: How to photograph oil paintings
I recommend a film like Kodak's Portra for good color matching on oil
paintings. Many chromes out there today (like Velvia) sort of make up their
own idea of what color is and color matching is critical to this project. I
highly
recommend that you keep within the image area a color chart so that as you
color correct the image with PS or something like that you have a reference
within the field of view.
Personally, I use mid-day sun with some reflectors to keep the painting and
the frame balanced lighting wise. Of course, a polarizing filter is very
useful.
Here's a http://www2.photosig.com/viewphoto.php?id=394971
to some further tips I put together on this subject on PhotoSIG.
From Nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003
From: Koskentola Jaakko [email protected]
Subject: Re: photographing oil paintings
Hello,
At first, pardon for the sligthly verbose post.
I recently undertook to photograph some 30-odd oil paintings and sculptures,
sizes ranging from 1x2 to 10x20 feet. I used a medium-format camera with
normal lens (80 mm), but the same technique applies to 35 mm format as well.
Of your equipment, I would recommend using the micro-nikkor, since it is
very sharp and relatively flat-field.
It is important to be aware of reflections on the painting. Oil is quite
shiny, and any reflections not only look unnatural but they also cover the
tiny, exquisite details of the paintings, reduce contrast and dull the
colours. Therefore, it is perhaps best to try to polarize the light hitting
the paintings.
For lighting I used two 800-watt tungsten photo floods with barn doors (I
borrowed the lamps from my camera club) and polarizing sheets. In oil
paintings cross-polarization helps immensely to get rid of reflections, and
it also brings the colours alive. Cross-polarization refers to a method
whereby the lights are set at an angle of around 30 to 45 degrees to the
painting, on both sides and equidistant from the centre of the painting. Aim
both lights to the outer edge of the painting, for this makes it easier to
have an even illumination on the painting. Polarizing sheets should both be
aligned to the same direction (this is easily accomplished by holding them
on top of each other and then turning one. You'll see that at full
polarization the sheets become black. At minimum polarization they let
through the most light: then they are aligned to the same direction).
You will also need a linear polarizer filter on your lens. Once you've
fitted the lamps with evenly-aligned polarization sheets, you rotate the
filter on the lens and watch reflections vanish and colours come alive. The
effect is quite astounding when seen the first time. This also works if the
paintings are framed with glass.
See eg www.popularphotography.com/pdfs/ 2002/0902/Polarizer.pdf
for more details.
Tungsten lamps require the use of tungsten-balanced film, which I haven't
yet found for prints but slides only. Or you may use a blue
colour-correction filter, which cools the colour temperature of the yellow
light to more normal.
You can also try to hire or borrow studio flashes and fit these with
polarizing sheets. This enables you to use any daylight film you like.
A hand-held incident light meter makes it easier to measure the evenness of
illumination. I found the exposure value (EV) scale very useful for this
purpose. Try to borrow one if you can. Of course, with studio strobes you
will need a flash meter.
A week ago a colleague took some photos of different layers of paint on a
wall for restoration purposes. He used a somewhat simpler approach to
polarization. He had a single flash fitted with a polarizing filter (the
kind used for stereo photography) and a polarizing filter. With these he was
able to get rid of most of the reflections while shooting the flash almost
head-on to the wall.
If you have no easy access to the above equipment, please do not despair.
Paintings can also be photographed in diffuse daylight. If the paintings are
not very shiny, you may also get away with not using polarizers. A slightly
overcast day would be good, avoid strong sunlight. You might consider using
a warm-up filter to enhance the colours a bit and to avoid the slight blue
shift caused by the high colour temperature of an overcast day. Place the
paintings so that they are as evenly illuminated as possible.
Centre the lens to the middle of the painting to avoid converging lines on
the final image; a tape measure is useful in this. Try to put the film plane
parallel to the painting for the same reason. Paintings are flat, so you may
comfortably shoot with the optimum aperture of your lens, which rarely is
the smallest one. Oh yes, bracket your exposures, bracketing is cheap
insurance against having to do it the second time.
Hope this helps,
jaakko koskentola
From: "konabear" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shooting flat artwork with a Crown Graphic 4x5
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
Be sure to review copyright and fair use info... ;)
If the subjects are behind glass I'd worry more about the reflections all
the chrome on the from of the Crown are going to make before worrying about
a copy vs. non copy formula lens. Also it was my impression that copy
lenses are optimized for 1:1 ratio work, and 24x30 to 4x5 is not quite 1:1.
My guess is that you'll be shooting at diffraction limited f-stops anyway so
probably not to worry.
Hope for no glass. ;) If there is glass black fleece hung behind the camera
will do wonders to knock down reflections, though you'll need enough to
cover a large area. Mask out that chrome too. Cut a hole in a smaller
peice of fleece and poek the lens through it. Watch out for chrome tripod
legs too. White T-shirts are a no-no. ;)
"Steve S." [email protected] wrote
> I plan to shoot trannies of some paintings & drawings ranging in size
> from about 30x24 inches up to about 8x10 feet. Apparently I could use
> a copy lens for this, but I don't know much about current types
> available, nor how to recognize one if I saw it. I understand there
> are some good old Ektars out there, but can't quite figure which
> models are copy lenses. I have an Ektar 203mm (in Kodak or Graphlex
> shutter, I forget which) that I think may work, but before I go
> burning a lot of Ektachrome, I could use some guidance.
From: "Stanley K. Patz" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: shooting flat artwork with a Crown Graphic 4x5
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003
Steve S. wrote:
> I plan to shoot trannies of some paintings & drawings ranging in size
> from about 30x24 inches up to about 8x10 feet. Apparently I could use
> a copy lens for this, but I don't know much about current types
> available, nor how to recognize one if I saw it. I understand there
> are some good old Ektars out there, but can't quite figure which
> models are copy lenses. I have an Ektar 203mm (in Kodak or Graphlex
> shutter, I forget which) that I think may work, but before I go
> burning a lot of Ektachrome, I could use some guidance.
Dear Steve,
The equipment you have is fine. If possible, dedicate an area for the
shooting and try to do it in one session. Spend time leveling the camera
and making sure you are perpendicular to the wall on which you hang the
artwork. Position the camera lens at the center of the artwork.
You did not mention what lights would be used. A simple tungsten setup
can be made with two 500w 3200K* floodlights in 10" or 12" reflectors
set on either side of the camera at about 45* to the wall. Walk an
incident light meter from corner to corner to center and look for even
readings to about 1/4 f-stop. From the camera, make sure you do not have
any art destroying reflections from your equipment.
Shoot a test 'chrome or two with color charts and a gray scale or a
typical subject. Once the tests are good the job should go fine.
Stan Patz NYC
www.PatzImaging.com
Photography Editor | 821 University Avenue
The Daily Cardinal | Madison, WI 53706
http://www.cardinal.wisc.edu | Voice: 608/262.5857
[email protected] | Fax: 608/262.0404
From: Mark [email protected]
Subject: Re: Photographing Paintings
> Another couple important tips:
> 1) Tripod: (duh?) You don't want these things on and angle.
> 2) _GREY CARD_: meter off a grey card for your baseline.
> 3) BRACKET, BRACKET, BRACKET: I generally prefer to move the aperture
> up/down, but you could accomplish the same result with the shutter speed.
From: [email protected] (Wilson Craig)
Subject: Re: Photographing Paintings
From: INSTALLER [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: This seems too easy, but worked.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.marketplace,rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Art Galleries
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998
>
> Hello Photographers,
>
> In NYC there are many art galleries that have photos for sale. How does one
> go about displaying their photos at art galleries? Does one walk off the
> street into the galley and show their work to the manager/owner? If anyone
> has their photos in a gallery what was the process? Are there web sites that
> have this info?
Color and B&W Photos: http://www.hyperreal.org/~jeffs/gallery.html
Axiom/Material: http://www.hyperreal.org/axiom
P>
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 38 Biogon or 40 Distagon
From: Joe McCary - Photo Response [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 38 Biogon or 40 Distagon
Photo Response
http://www.erols.com/mccary
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: fine art xray photographs
Date: 5 Sep 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Charcoal drawings
Date: 24 Sep 1998
> I have a friend that has charcoal drawings he will be placing on
> exhibit. He wants me to photograph them as slides and negatives for
> printing to as large as 16x20. I plan on using my studio light (WL1000)
> through an umbrella set at a 45 degree angle to the print. The umbrella
> and light angle will reduce the glare of the charcoal. They are black
> and white, but I thought I would use color film and copy them with 35mm
> Kodachrome 64 slide film and Pro100 color 120 film for the negatives. Of
> course I will use a tripod.
>
> Any comment out there from those with more experience than I?
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Schneider Equivalent Versus Zeiss Version
From: Gene Laughter [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Master List of Bromoil Sites
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: getting an image onto fabric...
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998
>Liquid emulsion is available. Company called Rockland )Rocklan
>Colloid?) makes it. Do not know the URL, but I have seen it on the
>web.
They also have photo-sensitive silk screens, meaning you can expose the
screen in the darkroom usin a standard enlarger & then silk-screen a
fabric
From: "skgrimes" [email protected]
[1] Re: Camera Lucida
Date: Sun Nov 22 1998
From: "Paul P." [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Photographing Art
In the Land of the Blind
The One-Eyed Man is King
From: Chris Buechner [email protected]
[1] Re: Need Help Shooting Artwork
Date: Wed Dec 02 1998
> I've got an SB-24 flash, but it's not completely in synch with the 6006.
> Therefore, I've got two options: use the built in flash, or available light.
> I'm leaning toward the latter. I'm going to shoot tomorrow morning on my
> roof.
>
> Thanks to those who have answered my post. If you have any further tips,
> I'd love to hear them.
--
Chris Buechner
WILDfire [ photography ]
Sydney, Australia
[email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Need Help Shooting Artwork
Date: 1 Dec 1998
> My cousin needs slides of her sketches, jewelry, and sculptures for her
> college applications. Many of the sketches are black/white. She also has
> one white sculpture that she wants presented on a black background. This is
> a metering nightmare. Should I meter on a gray card and just shoot whatever
> the meter reads for the gray card? Or do I have to make some adjustments for
> the white/black combination? Also, some of the jewelry is reflective, and is
> driving the meter crazy. Any tips on metering or shooting art work are
> greatly appreciated. I'm fairly confident shooting nature scenes, but this
> is all new to me.
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
>
> BTW, I'm using a Nikon 6006. I have access to a 28-85 zoom, 100-210 zoom,
> and a 105 macro lense.
From: "Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected]
[1] Re: Advice for photographing stained glass
Date: Sat Jan 09 1999
> I am interested in attempting to make my own slides of my glass work -
> I have recently purchased a Canon Rebel camera and was interested in
> what you would recommend as a good lens for slide production - items
> to be photographed will range from about the size of a shoe box to
> panels that might be 2.5 feet by 4 feet. All to be shot with draping
> (Black) in background. Thank you - Mary
From: jchow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: How do you hang your Rollei images
> >RUG,
> > I know there are a few of us that actually use our rolleis. Since
> >acquiring mine, I've started to accrue some really nice images and even
> >had a few blown up to 11x14 on fiber. What method do you use hang
> >them. Do you dry/wet mount or free mount. Do you sign and date them.
> >What is the best method for negative storage.
> >
> >Merry Christmas!
> >John
>
> A lot depends on how formal and "proper" you want to be. The absolute
> proper way to do it is with a backing of acid-free mount board. The print
> is never dry mounted to the board, but taped with a special tape at the
> top, so it is free to breathe. It is held flat by the matte, which is also
> acid-free archival board.
>
> For display I use those metal sectional frames in steel gray or black. I
> want the image to catch people's attention, not some fancy frame. I use
> acrylic instead of glass because it weighs so much less and makes it less
> likely that the framed print will fall off the wall.
>
> If the print is to be sold, I sign and date it and put the edition info on
> it.
>
> I store all of my negatives in Vue-All archival sheets. These are then put
> into file folders and stored in standard filing cabinets in my office,
> which is kept dry by a dehumidifier in the summer.
>
> Bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: liquid light help ?
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998
>I am interested in using liquid light on Canvas (sealed ) . Anybody ever
>work with this stuff ?
>
> Dan Hurd
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Varnish painting before taking slides?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998
> I have a large painting which I need to take a slide of, would you people
> recommend me to varnish the painting before taking a slide? (acrylic paint).
> Thanks
P.M.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Varnish painting before taking slides?
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Flash photography of objects behind glass?
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999
> I've been asked by a friend to photograph some glass objects which are
> in glass fronted museum display cases. I haven't actually visited the
> site as yet, but suspect that the available light will be insufficient.
>
> I can foresee some problems with both reflections and exposure with
> flash and would be grateful for any advice.
> I'll be using a Canon AE1 and have a Metz 45CT-4 flash gun.
> --
> Peter Jones [email protected]
> London NW6
David Forsyth DaForce A-T Iwr.Ru.Ac.Za
Keeper of the listserver for South African Railways fans _|_ His
Part time gricer, kiter, photographer, father etc etc | Way
http://www.ru.ac.za/departments/iwr/staff/daf/welcome.html | Up
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Flash photography of objects behind glass?
Date: 04 Feb 1999
>I've been asked by a friend to photograph some glass objects which are
>in glass fronted museum display cases. I haven't actually visited the
>site as yet, but suspect that the available light will be insufficient.
>
>I can foresee some problems with both reflections and exposure with
>flash and would be grateful for any advice.
>
>I'll be using a Canon AE1 and have a Metz 45CT-4 flash gun.
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Flash photography of objects behind glass?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Photo Sculpture
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999
Dirk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: taking pictures of paintings
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999
From: "cmesa" [email protected]
[1] Re: What is a "shift" lens?
Date: Sun May 09 1999
>It is a perspective control lens.
>It has nothing to do with reflections.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Painterly Chromes
Date: Fri, 7 May 1999
[email protected]
www.photographyreview.com
>I am interested in finding out the method of producing these rich textured
>"painterly" color shots I see so frequently in ads these days. My best
>guess is a highly pushed chrome film, but I am uncertain.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: photographing paintings in a museum
Date: Mon, 10 May 99
>Working on a virtual reality tour of a museum (Chagall Museum in Nice,
>France), a friend of mine will take pictures of the paintings.
>
>Most of the paintings are large (2 by 4 metres) and very colorfull (bright
>primary colors). She's allowed to use a tripod, but no flash. She uses a
>Canon AE1
>
>Any tip on film type, speed, and technique will be greatly appreciated.
>
*****************************
e-mail to: [email protected]
From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
From: "Bill H. Hilburn Jr." [email protected]
Subject: Re: Close-ups
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: problems shooting artwork; new camera recommendation?
Date: 21 Apr 1999
>I'm looking for a good quality new or used camera to shoot my 2D artwork
>with. I've done a first pass of all my paintings using tungsten lighting,
>shooting on EPY 64T and they came out pretty good. My main problems seem to
>be an occasional focus (DOF?) problem and squaring up. The squaring up I
>suspect is just practice (although maybe some viewfinders make this easier
>than others?). The focus seems to be related to the focus system of the
>lens. Instead of a split-line focus on my Nikon EM, the Pentax (w/ Tamron
>lens) I used has some sort of a pixelated focus ring, where things look more
>pixelated in the center when out of focus. I definitely prefer the
>split-level, but I needed a fully manual camera so I used a friend's Pentax
>K1000 w/ his 35-80 zoom.
>
>I'm also supsect a tiny bit of the zoom distorting the image a bit, as I
>seem to occasionally get a bit of a curve in places.
>
>So, I'm on the hunt for a good fully manual camera and a nice lens for it.
>I'm not sure if I can live with a 50mm lens or if I'll need the short-range
>zoom. The Nikon FM10 looks like a logical choice; how good is the lens
>included with that? My reading has shown that the body doesn't matter near
>as much as the lens, and I'm a bit wary of a camera that includes a lens I
>guess.
>
>I would also like to do more shooting of other things, so I'm also curious
>about a camera that has full manual, but maybe also includes AF. I would
>definitely like DOF preview if possible too.
>
>Any recommendations for a camera that fits this bag. Also reccomendations
>for used cameras are welcome, as are places to buy them. I know about B&H;
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: problems shooting artwork; new camera recommendation?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999
From: William Davis [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: problems shooting artwork; new camera recommendation?
> Almost any 50 mm normal lens would do for you. A good choice would be a 50 mm
> macro lens, especially if your artwork is small in size. If they are so large
> that the usual focusing is more then, say, three feet (one meter), there would
> be no need for a macro lens, and 50 mm normal lenses are usually very sharp and
> distortion free.
>
> Problems with zooms include distortion, wich you don't want. Also, some have a
> curved focal plane, and you don't want that either. So, the FM-10 with the (not
> exactly lousy but not a true Nikkor) 35-70 zoom would give you no special
> advantage over any other good camera. Consider a used, older model in good
> working order, then you can have a split prism very cheaply. A new camera with
> exchangeable screens will be expensive. The one you used was a "microprism" - a
> variant of the same principle.
>
> Look into lighting, (*slight* side light adding a little relief (highlight) to
> oils) and make absolutely sure that the artwork you are photographing is
> paralell (in both planes) to your film (camera back). This is very important,
> and extremely easy to miss.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: problems shooting artwork; new camera recommendation?
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999
> My main problems seem to
>be an occasional focus (DOF?) problem and squaring up.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Oil painting look on photo's
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999
From: "Bonnie Fournier" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: FYI: No-cost housing for artists in Nat Parks!
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999
Get FREE info on new Nat'l Park Artist-in-Residence Programs
Studio voicemail/GO WILD! 24-hour Hotline: 651-776-3944
Post Office Box 65552, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55165 U.S.A.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
>But then, how do I determine the optimal exposure ? (I don't want to bracket
>overy one of the 30 paintings!)
[email protected]
www.photographyreview.com
>I have been asked to take some pictures of paintings. Acrylic, watercolor
>and oil. I have a Canon 2000, and the 50 1.8. I'll put the camera on a
>tripot.
>
>Aperture f/8 ? Or is 5.6 best for this lens.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: 26 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: Wed, 26 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: 27 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: Thu, 27 May 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Gluing photos to photos
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999
MikeY
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Gluing photos to photos
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: Re: Pop Photo says VPS to be discontinued late 99
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: photos that look like paintings
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999
>I'm new to photography and have a question.
>
>How can you take a photo that looks like a painting? I've seen a couple of
>photos recently that, at first take, looked like a painting. The June 1999
>issue of the "American Rifleman", page 38, is the best example I've seen
>recently. For those of you who watch TV, the opening scenes of the CBS
>sitcom "Becker" has the same look, even though it isn't a photo.
>
>Please respond off line to [email protected]
>
>Thanks,
>John
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: photos that look like paintings
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999
> >> The most common method is via digital manipulation in Photoshop or a
> >> similar product. These are elaborate digital "filters" that are
> >> applied to give varying degrees of brush-stroke effect.
>
> Another method is to apply brushstrokes to the photograph. There are several,
> laquer type materials available at art supply stores to do this with. In
> addition, part of the photograph can further be alteres by applying acrylic or
> oil colors to further enhance the impression of a painting.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: painting B&W pictures
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999
> I went to the local Art Festval and the two most interesting exhibits
> were two photographers that specialize in B&W photography and then hand
> color them with oil paints. I'm very interested in learning how to do
> this and would appreciate any information in terms of classes, books,
> web sites or other information that would help me get started.
>
> Thanks, Art Salmons
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: homemade photo paper??
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 1999
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999
From: Roger Eritja [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Taking Pictures of Acrylic and Oil Painting
>Hi. I've tried taking pictures of paintings but I always experience the
>problem of reflections. The flash reflects on the picture. How do I
>correct this?
Dr. Roger Eritja ([email protected])
Biologist
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999
From: Don Lintner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Taking Pictures of Acrylic and Oil Painting
> Hi. I've tried taking pictures of paintings but I always experience the
> problem of reflections. The flash reflects on the picture. How do I
> correct this?
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1999
From: Pierlucio Pellissier [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Lens for paintings - 50mm or 60mm micro?
From Nikon Mailing List
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999
From: "Gregory Matanjun" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Lens for paintings - 50mm or 60mm micro
> Since I don't need the macro capabilities
> (and since I'm not getting paid to do this) would a 50mm
> lens be sharp enough for an 8"x10" final print..
> would a 60mm micro be significantly better?
From: Richard Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: link
From: [email protected] (FotoDave)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Direct Carbon Process
Date: 28 Nov 1999
It is a pigment process.
It has a deep, rich and matte black.
It has a beautiful, natural, random, fine grain pattern.
It has a nice and smooth gradation from shadow to highlight.
It can be printed in monotone , duotone, or multitone (full color process
coming soon).
It can be printed on different fine-arts paper including watercolor paper
and printmaking paper.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: poloroid photography
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999
>Is there anyone in the So. Cal area that knows (and/or perhaps teaches) the
>Image Transfer or the Emulsion Transfer process. Also any recommendations
>regarding purchasing a Day Lab would be greatly appreciated.
>
>Thanx!
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Help Needed in Jewelry Photography.
> Hello all,
>
> Could someone recommend any technical sites or books in photographing the
> jewelry.
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Pictures of Shiny Objects
> The camera I'm using is a Pentax IQZoom140. ... My girlfriend and I
> design and make silver jewelry. [We need photos, help...]
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email protected]
From: [email protected] (Wantoyster)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Photographing oil paintings
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Art Copywork Question
Date: 22 Feb 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Art Copywork Question
Date: 24 Feb 2000
> What is the absolute BEST way to go about photographing a painting? Pretend
> that I can afford to buy whatever equipment I need (ha!). I understand
> about keeping it level and plumb and how to accomplish that, it's my
> lighting I'm having trouble with.
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.cieux.com/ | civex.com is read daily.
From: [email protected] (David Grabowski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Using a Polarizer for Studio Shots?
>Will using a polarizer make much of a difference in studio strobe
>lighting shots? I'm doing product shots where the lightbox is above the
>product. (The product is cube shaped and is painted black.) I see a bit
>of reflectance at the top panel of the product. The side panels meter =
>about 1/2 stop darker.
>
>I figured that a polarizer would reduce the reflectance and make the top
>and sides more even in exposure. Using white boards to try and light the
>sides doesn't do too much. Any suggestions to improve the shot and
>overall exposure?
From: Richard Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: link
From: David Hay Jones [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: tips on photographing ice sculptures?
> Hi all,
>
> I'll have the opportunity in the near future to take pictures of an ice
carvings exhibition and, as I haven't taken similar shots yet, any tips are
> appreciated. I'll go for prints not slides (I don't have experience with
the latter). Most of them will be taken during daylight. A couple of specific
> questions:
>
> 1. I haven't tested a polarizer with ice reflections, any experiences
here? Does it make a difference? If so, is it worth it?
> 2. Assuming clear, what exposure compensations would be recommended? +1?
+1.5? 2? If it matters, assume a) a sunny & cloudless day and b) overcast
> with light gray clouds. I'll bracket the more importants shots of
course, but I won't have the budget to bracket all.
> 3. Any experience with Fuji Reala [100] for ice shots?
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> --JL
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000
From: Sergei [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Shooting techniques for shining objects
>A "Light Tent" is generally home-brewed (although there probably are
>ready-made ones available) from light, preferably white, translucent
>material, and literally is shaped like a tent around the shooting
tableau.
>The bigger the area of the tent, the softer and more non-directional the
>light. A hole is cut through one of the sides of the tent to poke the
>camera lens through. Light, either natural, tungsten or other
>incandescent, or strobe, is positioned around the tent which heavily
>diffuses the light and produces a very soft and creamy effect. This also
>could be called a "Light Dome" by some.
Date: 06 Mar 2000
From: [email protected] (WispWindxs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: need advice on commercial photography
From: [email protected] (Phil Tobias)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: need advice on commercial photography
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: need advice on commercial photography
From: [email protected] (Robert Molson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Need help photographing framed art
From: "Martin J.Winfield" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Help with photographing framed art
> I need help. I'm trying to take pictures of framed art. Problem is,
> the glass in the frame reflects whatever's around it so that reflection
> gets in the picture I'm taking.
>
> I'll be using a digital camera. Haven't bought one yet, but I went to
> the local camera store and tried one out on the art they had in the
> store. I think it was the Olympus C2000 that allowed a filter to be
> added on. We tried a couple polarizing filters, one that was warm and
> one cold. The cold did a better job reducing the reflection (the
> lighting was flourescent), but it just reduced it and I need it gone.
>
> Also have tried taking the picture at an angle so at least I'm not in
> the reflection. Even propped the picture on a chair and faced it
> towards a blank wall, which at least gave a uniform reflection. That
> one wasn't so bad, but the art was mounted on a black background that
> looked brown with the reflection.
>
> A friend of mine suggested putting non-reflective glass in front of the
> picture. Would that work?
>
> I dont' have the luxury of dismantling the frame and removing the
> glass. Also, can't have a lot of production. I'll be taking pictures
> of art in people's offices so it has to be non-disruptive.
>
> Any ideas?
Martin J. Winfield
Herefordshire, UK.
From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing works of art (paintings)
>Folks,
>
> I have an opportunity to photograph one of the most complete
>collections by El Greco (72 of his works) and would appreciate feedback
>as to what type of film to use, f-stops, lighting, angles etc.
>
> At my disposal I have ASA 100, 200 and 400 Fuji Super HQ film as
>well as ASA 400 Kodak Gold and Royal Gold. I seriously doubt if I will
>be permitted to use a flash but should I try? If so, do I shoot (and/or
>aim the flash) directly at the pieces of art? What is the best
>composition for such pictures (with/without frame etc)? What f/stops are
>adviseable?
>
> Since this is a rare opportunity to assemble a nice set of photos
>of a very extensive collection by El Greco in one session, I would like
>to exploit this opportunity as much as possible and your feedback, as
>always, would be much appreciated.
>
>Anthony.
EJKowalski
From: Robert Krawitz [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing works of art (paintings)
> Since this is a rare opportunity to assemble a nice set of photos
> of a very extensive collection by El Greco in one session, I would like
> to exploit this opportunity as much as possible and your feedback, as
> always, would be much appreciated.
From: [email protected] (Logan McMinn)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc,rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Shooting Oil Paintings
>I have an assignment to photograph several oil paintings. I'm required =
>to take slides, as the work will be used in magazine advertising. From =
>prior experience, I'm anticipating glare and reflection from the oils. =
>I may be able to avoid using a flash, as existing natural light should =
>be good, but I'll want to use a slow film to avoid grain. Also, the =
>paintings are over 50 years old, and after being cleaned, revealed =
>imperfections, small areas of fading, and some apparent prior attempts =
>at cleaning that left stains.
>1. Any advise on avoiding reflection and glare from the oils (e.g., =
>polarizing filter, lighting....)?
>2. Any advise on minimizing the contrast between the faded / stained =
>portions with the remainder of the painting?
Logan McMinn
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
From: Peter Madeley [email protected]
Subject: Re: Metering for Stained Glass
> How should I meter for taking pictures of stained glass inside a Church? I have
> two images in my mind: one is only the stained glass, the other one is the
> stained glass plus the surrounding brick wall, both to be taken from inside the
> Church.
Regards and phrantic fotography 2U
Peter (DPS Design & Photography Services)
From: Benjamin A Maclaren [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: How to shoot Stained Glass
> at an f stop of about f11,
>bracketed in +/- 2/3 of a stop in 1/3rd stop increments, and with and without
> filters (try unfiltered, soft focus, polarizer, and 2-3 color correction
>I would guesstimate the proper exposure for the windows by taking a light meter
>reading outside of the light falling on the glass. Then add 3 stops. Like
>if the light reads f16 @1/100 for 100 ASA film, then use an exposure of f8 @1/50
>inside the church. Then I would use flash bulbs inside then church to raise
>the light level to f8. If you cannot find flash bulbs then rent a studio
>electronic flash unit to raise the light level inside the church. This assumes
>using daylight balanced film. I have had success with this method.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: reducing glare on an oil painting
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: How to photograph stained glass?
> I make small stained glass pieces and would like to start a picture catalog.
> Does anyone have suggestions on how best to take pictures of stained glass?
> I have an Olympus digital camera and most pictures come out good, but I'd
> like to get pictures with the light coming through the glass.
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Watercolor effect
> There was an article a few years ago in one of the photo magazines that
> suggested this effect (sorry I don't remember the specifics). They said to
> shoot through an opaque pane of glass like they sometimes use in bathroom
> windows. It's the glass that has a slightly wavy surface. As far as focus, you
> would want it as sharp as possible and let the glass soften it.
> I always wanted to try this but never got around to it.
Date: Sat, 11 Sep 1999
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tips for shooting thru plexiglas?
>I don't understand the physics, and me with a degree in Engineering Physics.
>Diffraction will occur but I fail to understand why the polarizing lens will
>cause it. Thanks for the warning.
>
>Don M
>
>Anthony wrote in message ...
>>>
>>Polarizers can produce color fringes when you shoot through certain types
>of
>>plastic, of which Plexiglas is one, if I remember correctly. The most
>>obvious examples I've seen are in aircraft photos where the canopies of
>>military aircraft (made of plastic) are shot with polarizers, and all
>colors
>>of the rainbow appear in the canopies.
Washington, DC
From: Walter Donovan [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: How to photograph stained glass?
> I make small stained glass pieces and would like to start a picture catalog.
> Does anyone have suggestions on how best to take pictures of stained glass?
> I have an Olympus digital camera and most pictures come out good, but I'd
> like to get pictures with the light coming through the glass.
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> JD
From: [email protected] (Erwin eas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: How to photograph stained glass?
From: [email protected] (Claraj5151)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: pictures from paintings?
Date: Sun, 30 May 1999
> >I have been asked to take some pictures of paintings. Acrylic, watercolor
> >and oil. I have a Canon 2000, and the 50 1.8. I'll put the camera on a
> >tripot.
> >
> >Aperture f/8 ? Or is 5.6 best for this lens.
> >
> >Fuji Sensia II ? Something else? Realistic colors ? What print film?
> >
> >Cloudy, overcast weather ? (not raining of course (!))
> >
> >But then, how do I determine the optimal exposure ? (I don't want to bracket
> >overy one of the 30 paintings!)
From: [email protected] (marc schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: photographing paintings in a museum
>Working on a virtual reality tour of a museum (Chagall Museum in Nice,
>France), a friend of mine will take pictures of the paintings.
>
>Most of the paintings are large (2 by 4 metres) and very colorfull (bright
>primary colors). She's allowed to use a tripod, but no flash. She uses a
>Canon AE1
>
>Any tip on film type, speed, and technique will be greatly appreciated.
From: Ron Ginsberg [email protected]
[1] Re: is there a way to take photographs thru glass?
Date: Sat Apr 22 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: is there a way to take photographs thru glass?
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000
>Yes, put the lens touching the glass, if you can reach it.
>OR as close as you can get. I've always touched the glass.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: is there a way to take photographs thru glass?
Date: 23 Apr 2000
>put the lens on the glass? you mean put it up real close, touching the
>glass?
From: [email protected] (Stephen M. Dunn)
Subject: Re: is there a way to take photographs thru glass?
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000
$I have taken many pictures through glass, historical places
$that have glass to protect the contents of the room, etc.
$and have had good results. My son, who took a photo course
$at summer camp, told me to put the lens on the glass to get
$rid of any glare and it has worked.
Stephen M. Dunn
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Dan Chihuly's glass sculptures
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Help shooting small shiny metal objects.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000
> Hi All,
>
> I've been trying to get some good close up shots of knives and I'm
> having great difficulty getting the result I want. What I want to
> achieve is a clean shot of the object with a solid background that can
> later be made transparent with an editor. I'm trying to do this with a
> digital camera. I have some good 35mm equipment, but I really need to go
> digital for this project. I'm not saying that I know how to do it with
> film, just pointing out the medium I want to use. My biggest problem is
> glare from shiny blades. I'm thinking of getting (or making) some studio
> type lighting to get good light from different angles in hopes of
> canceling all the shadows, but I don't know if that will solve my
> "shiny" problem. The flash on the camera is basically out of the
> question. It just gives a big glare on the blade and horrible
> underexposure of the handles. That's another problem I'm having. The
> contrast between a shiny blade and a black handle is difficult to
> balance. Anyway, someone suggested a "lightbox" to me, but I'm not sure
> what that is or where to get one. Is that what I need? Any tips or
> pointers to websites etc. would be much appreciated.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: Help shooting small shiny metal objects.
Richard AKA The blindsquirrel.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing oil paintings
> You need to try polarizing gels on the lights (about 12" from the
> bulbs) and a polarizing filter on the lens. The edges of the painting
> where the canvas is rolled over the edge of the frame will reflect
> more light, similar to any curved edge. The polarizers make a dramatic
> difference in glare and color saturation.
W. Keith McManus - Assistant Professor
Applied Photography Department - Visual Journalism
School of Photographic Arts & Sciences
Rochester Institute of Technology
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Date: Mon, 29 May 2000
Subject: New technique: thin-film interference macro photography
David Elfstrom email( [email protected] web( http://elfstrom.com
From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000
Subject: Photographing behind glass
From: "Anthony Farr" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Photographing behind glass
From: "Anthony Farr" [email protected]
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: photographing behind glass
> I have a number of limited edition prints that are already matted and
> framed, I would like to photograph them for my records but I get a reflection
> from the glass, any suggestions?
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000
From: Bob Blakely [email protected]
Subject: Re: photographing behind glass
Bob...
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Stained Glass
National Geographic Photography Field Guide - Secrets to Making Great
Pictures
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Stained Glass
David Littlewood
London
Energy Consultant and Photographer
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 22 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Stained Glass
> Any advice on the best way to shoot stained glass would be appreciated.
> Tips on lighting, lens choice, film choice, shutter speed and aperture -
> anything anyone has to share. 35mm Nikon. My project is to shoot stained
> glass in houses of worship. Thanks.
Philip Stripling
Legal Assistance on the Web
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000
From: Bob Schwartz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Pictures Through Glass
Bob Schwartz
From: "Paul Skelcher" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: photographing through glass?
> A beginner question if you do not mind? What is the best way to take
> photos through a glass enclosure?
From: [email protected] (Rudy Garcia)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: photographing through glass?
> A properly aligned polarizer should eliminate the reflected light. Also,
> if you can use a faster film and a tripod you may be able to capture an
> image w/o flash.
>
> -david
>
> [email protected] wrote in message
> | Hello,
> | A beginner question if you do not mind? What is the best way to take
> | photos through a glass enclosure? The type of enclosures like a zoo or
> | wildlife exhibit would have for reptiles or insects... How can you use
> | flash on a subject a short ways behind glass without the reflected
> | light affecting the shot? I really like close up photography and as a
> | beginner it would seem this would be the easiest way to get some good
> | shots for the learning experience (not to mention a chance to
> | photograph critters not normally found in upstate NY :-P ) Thanks alot
> | in advance! David H. Corning NY
> |
From: "Mountain Man" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Re: Photographing Art Behind Glass
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: photographing polished steel.
> i'm trying to photograph knives, like kitchen steak knives etc. the
> reflective surface on the ones with highly polished steel blades are
> giving me a headache. my efforts so far have all ended with unwanted
> reflections, glare, and even odd colors on the steel. i've tried
> bouncing the flash in various ways. i also tried photo-floods ( with
> required filter) in hopes i could better see the reflections, all
> without success.
>
> it's getting a bit expensive to continue experimenting so i'm hoping
> someone knows the proper techniques i should be using before i waste
> another roll of film.
> thanks
> st
From Leica Mailing List;
From: "Bob Stack" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Amateurs
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Denton Taylor [email protected]
Subject: Re: HELP required for photographing paintings
>A friend has asked me to photograph her paintings [both oils and
>watercolors] tomorrow for a brochure.
>I need some assistance and any tips.
>Is it better to do the shoot in natural light [in shadow] or under
>artificial light?
>
>I will be using the following equipment:
>
>Nikon F3HP
>Nikon 85mm and/or Nikon 105mm f/2.8
>
>I have polarizing filters for both lenses, if the reflections from the glass
>require the use of a filter.
>
>I will be using Fuji Velvia, but she also wants me to do a series on 100 ISO
>print film for immediate viewing. Any suggestions for other films?
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Museum shooting
http://hometown.aol.com/wdshpbiz/AImod.html
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000
From: Don Lintner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Photographing an oil painting.
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: stained glass pictures HELP PLEASE!!
> I am a beginner and I have found that I really enjoy taking pictures of
stained glass in churches. I am having some problems in that the pictured
are coming out very dark. I an trying to go off of my light meter but
then the picture comes out very light and distorted. I was wondering what
film should I be using, and at what speed?
>
> Also, 95% of the time the churches are almost completely dark with only
> the light from the stained glass illuminating the church.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help that you could give me.
From: "MS" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Two methods for shooting jewelry
MS
http://home.earthlink.net/~stevens4000/
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001
From: S Dimitrov [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Oscar formerly Double-Anastigmats
From Manual Focus Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001
From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sculpture photography with an FM2n
--
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
[email protected]
http://www.thepeaches.com/
From: John Farrias [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: testing emulsions
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001
From: Kevin Ramsey [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] LF info needed
>I was recently asked to help catalogue the art collection of a friend
>(probably close to 200 paintings in all). I am not sure what is the best
>way of doing it, so I came up with a few possible solutions:
Kevin
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001
From: Mike Burnham [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sculpture photography with an FM2n
Mike
> >If you have total control of the lighting, I'd
> probably start with a
> >softbox roughly twice the size of what's being
> photographed. If you're
> >doing life-size outdoor installations, this is
> probably unworkable, and
> >I'd shoot for an overcast day instead. If you're
> doing stuff on a
> >tabletop, you can whip up a North Light out of an
> appliance box and
> >judicious use of aluminum foil and some kind of
> tranlucent material (a
> >white bedsheet would suffice).
>
> >-Todd
>
>
> It will probably be indoor shots of lifesize and
> larger pieces.
> Perhaps putting the strobes behind a suspended
> sheet?
>
> TIA
> Edwin
> --
>
> Edwin Hurwitz
> Boulder CO
> http://www.indra.com/~edwin
Enjoy,
Mike.
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001
From: Mike Burnham [email protected]
Subject: Re: Sculpture photography with an FM2n
From: zeitgeist [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc
Subject: Re: shiny metal
> I am doing some photographs for a friend they are of armors it is very
> shiny i tried using a long black cloth but it reflected the black and
> didn't stand out well. what would be the best way to take these? A
> reflector in front? a tent with a dark table under? a up light behind?
> any help would... help
From: [email protected] (Ryan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Studio flash question
>Hi all
>
>I want to take some pictures of glasses or bottles using studio flash.
>Rather than using full frontal flash to light the glass I am going to do
>what most pros do and light the glass from behind by aiming the flash head
>at a white background which will reflect the light back through the glass
>towards the camera.
>
>Now I've got that part across....I want to know how to meter for the flash.
>Do I point my meter at the camera from where the subject is (as normal when
>using full frontal flash) or do I point it at the white reflective
>background and take a flash reading from there? Is there anyone with
>experience who can give me any advice?
>
>Thanks
>
>Jamie
From: "Jeff Novick" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing Art works
> Retina [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > Andy White wrote:
> >
> >> "Jim Schmidt" [email protected] wrote:
> >>> A friend of mine has asked if I could photograph some of his oil paintings
> >>> so he could have the photos enlerged and give out as gifts.
> >>>
> >>> I have a Canon Eos3 an assortment of lenses some cheap monolights.
> >>>
> >>> What advice can you give as to how best do this. What lens? Lighting? etc.
> >>>
> >>> Any comments would be appreciated. the paintings are approx 9x12 inches.
> >>
> >> Depends on how far away you can get from them. The best light is natural
> >> light (in shade). You need the camera to be focused at the center of the
> >> painting, and on a tripod. I would use either a 50mm lens, or a macro lens
> >> in its no macro mode.
> >
> > Sorry, but the best light for shooting artwork, (paintings) is not
> > natural light. The advice that John Emmons gave is invaluable for a
> > beginner as anyone involved with this area will eventually use the
> > techniques he described.
>
> Your wrong, I have shot art work in natural light many times
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing Art works
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001
From: Stein [email protected]
Subject: Re: Copy Stands
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2001
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Copy Stands
> Does anyone have experience using a copy stand with a hasselblad. I have the
> standard 80 mm lens. Would this be the right lens to use to copy an 11 x 14
> print? What should I look for in a copy stand? Does anyone want to sell one?
> If not, I will go to B&H and see if I can pick up a previously used one.
From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing Art works
>A friend of mine has asked if I could photograph some of his oil paintings
>so he could have the photos enlerged and give out as gifts.
>
>I have a Canon Eos3 an assortment of lenses some cheap monolights.
>
>What advice can you give as to how best do this. What lens? Lighting? etc.
>
>Any comments would be appreciated. the paintings are approx 9x12 inches.
David Littlewood
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing Art works
From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photographing Art works
From: [email protected] (Ejkowalski)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 18 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: Photos of Paintings
>I have a Nikon 6006 SLR and Nikkor AF 35-70 3.3. Shots of paintings taken 3
>to
>5 feet away, depending on the size of the painting. Used tripod and set
>aperture to 16 or 22. Areas near edges are out of focus. Nikon recommends the
>Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8D Micro, saying that it will put the entire frame in
>focus.
>Would like to hear from photographers doing the same kind of work as to what
>you recommend. We will be making prints of the paintings on 13" x 19" paper,
>and intend on scanning slides or negatives.
>
>If you are sending a Reply to Group, please also click (X) to Copy (or CC)
>Author, so I'll get the reply by e-mail -- Thanks!
>
>Neil Miller
>
I am an artist (painter) and photographer and have been shooting copywork for
myself and for others for decades.
Any zoom is crap for this sort of work.
and you do not need a macro lens for working at 3 to 5 feet away.
What you do need is a decent 50mm prime focal length lens, as in a "normal'
lens, anywhere from f:2 to f:1.4 in specification. I work mostly with a Pentax
f:2/50 and my results in terms of focus and framing, sharpness, etc. are always
wonderful. Shoot at around f:8 or f:11. Make sure the color balance of all your
light is balanced to the film. And determine your exposure values from an 18%
reflectance grey card or something of that value (find a piece of matboard the
right value), do not meter from the paintings themselves. Ask me in email what
a good matboard is for this purpose, and I will look up the part number of the
Crescent board I use for metering.
Ed Kowalski
From: "BG250" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Photos of Paintings
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001
Nikon is correct, BUT at the distances you have indicated it is not
necessary to spend $$ on a macro.
Go look for a Nikon 50mm f1.8 lens used. You should be able to find them
clean for $40 or less.
Carefully center and square up the painting with the camera. Shoot at f4 or
f5.6, but no smaller than f8. Use a shutter speed no slower than 1/125.
Increase lighting if necessary. Check for even illumination of the artwork.
Over expose negative film by one stop to boost contrast (be sure shutter
speed is still 1/125 or more. Tell processor to develop normally). You
should notice the following: Very sharp, even in the corners; even
illumination across frame; no distortion of straight lines that are parallel
with the edge of the frame.
I have copied lots of artwork including my own with great results.
bg
Nhmiller [email protected]> wrote
> I have a Nikon 6006 SLR and Nikkor AF 35-70 3.3. Shots of paintings taken
3 to
> 5 feet away, depending on the size of the painting. Used tripod and set
> aperture to 16 or 22. Areas near edges are out of focus. Nikon recommends the
> Nikkor AF 60mm f2.8D Micro, saying that it will put the entire frame in focus.
> Would like to hear from photographers doing the same kind of work as to what
> you recommend. We will be making prints of the paintings on 13" x 19" paper,
> and intend on scanning slides or negatives.
>
> If you are sending a Reply to Group, please also click (X) to Copy (or CC)
> Author, so I'll get the reply by e-mail -- Thanks!
>
> Neil Miller
From: "Mayo" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Ansel Adams at 100
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001
> Check out www.sfmoma.org/adams
>
> Oliver Bryk
>
Yes, this is a wonderful site! I had the good fortune to visit see the
actual exhibit at SFMOMA this September. If you are in SF prior to the
exhibit closing on January 13, 2002, I highly recommend that you take the
time to see it.
Rather than just exhibiting Ansel's familiar published works, the exhibit
(and the website) explores some things that people likely have not seen
before. The exhibit is presented more or less as a chronological journey
through Adam's career. From photographs by people that he was
influenced/inspired by to photographs by current photographers who he
himself inspired. There are very early Sierra Club outing works, including
what are essentially the actual 'scrapbooks' of images from the early trips
into Yosemite. Most interestingly though, to me, was the exploration of
alternate (rejected) exposures of some very familiar published images (along
with reasoning for choosing one image over another). Not to be missed is
the comparison of the difference in printing techniques from Adam's early
career to later in his life. The insight into what Ansel 'saw' in a
particular image as a young man, versus what he 'saw' as an old man was
quite moving.
Well worth an afternoon of your time!
Happy holidays to all!
Rich Mayo
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002
From: Rich Evans [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Coin photography
Q. Has anyone in this list tried photographing coins or other flat,
metallic, shiny objects (watch movements etc)? I have problems with
highlights -- they invariably burn out slightly
A. I've done alot of work with highly reflective objects - primarily glass,
brass, and jewelry along with an occasional coin or two. Depending upon how
you want to illustrate your subject (highlight, slight shadows, flat) you can
very easily and inexpensively get the images you want. The cheapest thing to
do is go down to your local dollar store and pick up a small white lampshade,
they run usually less then $3 - set your subject in the center and illuminate
with two small high intensity lamps from either side or however you like to get
the effect you want. You can add lights or use only one, and if you can
reposition them while looking through the finder, you'll get what you
want. I found some really nice and inexpensive lights at IKEA, but I'm sure they're
available at most hardware stores. Be sure to use an 80A or 80B filter, or
better yet take slides with tungsten balanced film.
Good luck,
Rich
From nikon mf mailing list:
Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Coin photography
[email protected] writes:
> Not to be a stickler, but light reflecting off of metallic surfaces IS
> polarized, which is why a polarizing filter has little to no effect on it.
>
> Correct advice, incorrect reason.
>
Huh? Here's an excerpt from Kodak's "Filters & Lens Attachments":
"Don't expect to control reflections from bare metal surfaces [with a
polarizing filter], because the light reflected from these surfaces is not
polarized and the screen will have no effect."
And from an academic publishing web site:
"There is no polarization whatsoever produced by reflections from metallic
surfaces."
However, the Edmund Optics web site gives a suggestion that may solve the
problem originally posed by the coin photographer:
>> 2. When the object has a metallic or shiny surface:
Mounting a polarizer on the light source as well as on the lens is
recommended for enhancing contrast and bringing out surface details. The
polarized light incident on the shiny surface will remain polarized when it's
reflected. Surface defects in the metal will alter the polarization of the
reflected light. Turning the polarizer on the lens so its polarization axis
is perpendicular to that of the illumination source will reduce the glare and
make scratches and digs in the surface visible.
3. When the object has both highly reflective and diffuse areas:
Using two polarizers with perpendicular orientation will eliminate hot spots
in the image caused by the metallic parts. The rest of the field will be
evenly illuminated due to the diffuse areas reflecting randomly polarized
light to the lens.
Steve
From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Museum shots, was: Using the flash...
You've all pointed out some of the reasons that musemus dis-allow plash
photography, and most are valid - it is also a distraction to visitors.
If you are careful and patient, you can get excellent results with no
flash in most museums however. The only problem is the lighting used in a
specific hall or gallery, andn careful filtration (or using digital
imaging) can certainly help here. I have been photographing paintings in
the Met here in NY for many years with little more than a monopod. Most
times with the right combination, you can get very good results handheld
if you're good. I've got a few of my more recent images posted on the
Nikonnet site for those interested:
http://home1.nikonnet.com/servlet/com.arcsoft.LoginNew?com=arcsoftBanner&awp=index3.html&DIRECT=&USERNAME=mrklark&PASSWORD=nikoneditor_1012253284&WHO=memberguest
These were all taken with the DCS620 rated at ISO400 with the 60mm Micro
Nikkor.
Regards,
Rich