NikonGear'23
Images => Critique => Topic started by: elsa hoffmann on June 17, 2015, 22:43:49
-
A friend and I have been photographing art for an exhibition coming up in SA
Pierneef was a prolific painter and his art sells for millions. Several millions. Several...
The images here are called the station panels - and they are all in a museum/ gallery. We also photographed paintings and copper plates by the same artist, some which are in the National Gallery in Cape Town.
I am not sure who pressed the shutter when - as we worked together with set up and lights and the whole thing - as the panels were in a gallery and we had to move from one to the other setting up every time as we had to do the next panel. Problematic as we couldn't be consistent due to space constraints. some of the panels were in small corners - so getting the lights right was difficult - especially since its oil and very reflective. Overhead lights also gave off a nasty reflections on some panels. It was a challenge. What worked best with most of the panels, was to place the 2 lights facing one another, rather than face the panels. If you get the idea...
Does anyone have any better ideas about shooting art? I have done lots of art before - but this was challenging in a different way. (yes I am aware that one of the images are duplicated)
The other thing is - you use a color passport and try remember as best you can - but start editing and suddenly you just dont remember if the panels were that flat - or if you over saturated them! Panel sizes roughly 2m x 2 m give or take
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/364/18900849325_9edd496701_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uNcN1v)Pierneef Panels (https://flic.kr/p/uNcN1v) by elsa hoffmann (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29870674@N06/), on Flickr
-
High Elsa, whilst I haven't tried shooting paintings (esp those behind glass) I have had a few attempts to "copy" a gloss photo print, which threw up similar issues.
Apart from reflections and colour/White balance, what were the main things you weren't happy with? I don know the original paintings shown here, but first impressions are that some seem slightly lower in contrast and muted (but maybe the originals were too).
Though I never tried this, would using a polariser help at all with reflections & saturation?
You didn't say whether these were taken hand-held, or if you could use a tripod, which would change things a lot.
-
Shooting at an angle with a shift lens is an option. W/o shift lens, have a D800 and straighten the perspective in PP, or do a stitch.A front pic for checking the proportions is of course more than useful.
-
I have also used the trick with the two lights facing each other instead of facing the painting at an angle, it can sometimes give good results. I have photographed flat art for several years, I find it interesting and challenging. Especially when there is glass in front of the painting.
I always use macro lenses for such work, as they are generally well corrected and have little distortion. I have recently acquired a Nikon 85mm PC-E tilt/shift lens, and plan to use it for that kind of work.
Some weeks ago I photographed the whole collection of paintings in a gallery, and there was a beautiful light from the huge windows in the roof, the windows were angled, not directly overhead. The light meter showed totally even light even on huge paintings. I took all the photos twice, once with studio flash, and once with the window light. The latter gave the best results in most cases.
-
I did a lot of reproductive jobs, some which I am really proud of. That is because I did not know how to do it when I started and in the end managed to get a near perfect result, like these:
http://www.ottaus.com/index.php/die-galerie1.html
http://www.ottaus.com/index.php/die-galerie2.html
Trouble was the format of 200cm x 25cm
Trouble was glass framed
Trouble was that in the frame collage elements of a certain depth were applicated
What I did is to build a housing made of Aluminium profiles, covered in Light box foil and using that box to diffuse the light with a direction that did not allow reflexes into the camera's sight.
I will not give you a full walkthrough but I was really happy with the result, the customer more than happy, he never thought is would be possible to pull this thing of.
Good luck, be inventive, visit a builders market for inspiration.
Frank
-
I have heard that polarized lights plus polarized camera are the hot ticket for reflection prone flatwork, but have not tried it myself. Minus total polarization, experiment with light placement. Also, I totally believe Bjorn J.'s story about the window light being better than the artificial lighting units.
-
Thank you for the valuable comments.
We tried polarizer with little success (but I put that down to our stupidity more than anything else)
Some of the overhead lights in the museum could not be turned off and we had to use huge foam boards to block out to avoid specular highlights. They were awful. Light placement does come down to what is practical also.
The colours of the panels were very muted /washed out - and it was kind of instinct to try and make them more pretty (saturated) - which of course was not a good idea. We compared our photos to those used by the gallery in their brochure - theirs were absolutely horrible - dark, no details in the shadows, colours were way off etc.
We were shooting on a tripod to be as consistent as possible and get as little distortion as possible. Used a 24-70 as longer wasn't practical or do-able, but thanks for the comment on the macro - will use that on the next paintings - which are a lot smaller than the panels. T&S a possibility too.
Window light was not an option - no windows in the museum. We used natural light with some of the smaller paintings we did at a different venue.
Frank - your housing sounds very interesting - and if you at some point feel like sharing more info - I would be very interested. You did a great job with those paintings.
Pluton - what is a polarized camera?? Keep in mind shooting art happens once in a while - one can only invest so much financially.
in the picture attached -
the "me" is Eric
the "you" is Elsa
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/259/18909178332_4944bea9ba_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uNWtW5)samples (https://flic.kr/p/uNWtW5) by elsa hoffmann (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29870674@N06/), on Flickr
-
look here. That is about the system I use for these purposes: http://www.alusteck.de/
The AFS 60mm Micro is great for such kind of work. If you allow I will show an example of a simple single frame. Task was to make a transportable version of a picture on very thick wood weighing about 15 Kilos but keeping the color...
I recommend not to use flash for lighting. The light source should have a colour reproduction quality of 92% to 98%.
Very good idea to switch of or cancel out all light you did not bring.
-
Frank - I posted this thread for help and so we all learn - so please feel free to post anything you like - I would be most grateful
re the frame system - we have something similar available so that is do-able.
-
In this case I pointed the angles of two lamps such that the reflections do not point into the direction of the camera. I do not care if there are reflections pointing anywhere else.
With flat surfaces this is always easy. Real trouble are rounded surfaces. This is why I have 27QM Black cloth in one piece for reflex managenent.
So a little game: can you see which one has glass in front and which one has not?
PS: In the print the gold looks like REAL GOLD!
PPS: I have some religious customers, sorry for any inconvenience...
-
Excellent work Frank - goodness you really did a great job. I am sure the prints looked great - what size was it printed and what was the purpose of the shoot?
Glass - uhm... I am not that clever :)
How big were the paintings?
Thank goodness 99% of the art I have done to date has not had any glass. This specific shoot was just for brochure photos - so it is a tad forgiving.
-
About polarized light: I have tried that, polarizer foil on the flashes and a pola filter on the camera. I did not like the result - and it did not work well on oil paintings, as the oil paint reflects light in all directions. Sometimes the colours in the painting changed, depending on what type of paint the artist had used. If for example there is some gold paint on the art, it may turn totally black.
-
I did try the polarizing way. Its good for film with linear pol filters not for digital with circular.
Both pictures are between 50cm and 70cm on the long side
-
I have seen glass which is specifically made for art - when you look at the art - you cant see there is glass. It comes at a very high premium though, and I do not have any knowledge or experience in shooting such things.
-
I have seen glass which is specifically made for art - when you look at the art - you cant see there is glass. It comes at a very high premium though, and I do not have any knowledge or experience in shooting such things.
Yes, the so-called museum quality glass is amazing. I have not tried shooting such glass. For photographing art behind normal glass I have found that best result is obtained when i shoot it in a absolutely totally dark room. Two flashes, and black cloth to cover the camera and tripod, only a small hole for the lens.
-
Bjørn - 2 flashes - are you talking speedlights or studio lights? Excuse my ignorance
-
Bjørn this does work. Yes. It is my Wine Bottle Setup.
-
ah cool - wine bottles - another challenging subject. care to share some pics and info?
Mine is so not what most people would like / want - but it has a market :)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/4/3947/18912515822_3e6757e08c_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/uPeA41)141130 Richard stock 050 (https://flic.kr/p/uPeA41) by elsa hoffmann (https://www.flickr.com/photos/29870674@N06/), on Flickr
-
Bjørn - 2 flashes - are you talking speedlights or studio lights? Excuse my ignorance
Elinchrom studio flashes, usually with 135cm octagon softboxes, sometimes only the standard reflector. Never umbrellas, they tend to spread the light uncontrolled.
-
Thanks for clarifying. I also use studio lights - as I have no clue how speedlight flashes work. Kind of hate them with a passion.
-
Talking about lighting, "Light: Science and Magic" is the "bible" and highly recommended:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-Science-Magic-Introduction-Photographic/dp/0240812255/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434619942&sr=1-2&keywords=light+science+and+magic (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Light-Science-Magic-Introduction-Photographic/dp/0240812255/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1434619942&sr=1-2&keywords=light+science+and+magic)
-
Light Science and Magic- indeed.
I have it in PDF format - 3rd edition.
-
the glass is "Schott Mirogard", "True Vue", "Clarity" and others
you can google easily them and at Schott you will get also specs for their glass
most coatings are vacuum coated or sprayed. The vacuum versions are better and more expensive. They increase transmission by a significant margin,
but are all colour selective, so you will find f.e. in the Mirogard this typical green reflections of fluorescent lamps, Clarity is brown f.e.
Any glass surface doesn´t help you, because you might miss the focus by glass thickness - normally 2-3mm, in case the image is directly behind the glass. If there is a mate board is is different, but you have double reflections, inside and outside and then finding very small structures through your viewfinder gets difficult.
I try to take the pictures out of the frame to make a photo.
-
I try to take the pictures out of the frame to make a photo.
Are you able to say which of my above repros is behind cheapo glass and which is not behind glass? Also consider the repros of the 200cm x 25cm I liked above
-
Can I attach a PDF?
-
Try... ?
-
does that work?
Seems to. But the bottles were not so nice (bad caps) I have hundreds of better shots somewhere in my backup
-
Flashes are generally banned from museums. Of course a couple of exposures by a pro will not cause much damage compared to thousands by anybody, but still : are there less "aggressive" sources in terms of spectrum ? (esp. UV)
Any recommended anti-UV filters for flashes under such circumstances ?
Personally I prefer to use daylight and show the art the way it was meant to be seen at the gallery, where zenithal light used to be the norm. But the coolish results may not please the beholder; color temperature correction is often needed.
-
yup it works!
-
Photography Rock Posters
Some years ago I assembled what I am told is the largest archival database of concert rock posters, with measurements, commentary, and hi-res photographs of most posters, on the planet. I am not talking about the glossy commercial posters for different music artists, but the original dated posters that advertised the actual venue and concert itself.
I photographed some 33,000 hi-res poster images. To do this I built my own large vacuum table from pegboard (about 4-foot square) and hooked it to a large shop vac. It worked perfectly and was able to hold the posters flat, including the very tips of the corners.
I had two studio lights placed at 45-degree angles to the poster and shot using a tripod, the Nikon D1X, and the earlier version of the Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. Each image, of course, had to be cropped, color corrected, and so on. Needless to say, this was not done in a day, but took years.
Aside from my own very large collection of rock posters, I was able to talk some of the best collectors in the world into sending me their rarest posters, which I then photographed.
My poster database will be featured at a major permanent installation in the near future dedicated to rock n’ roll posters.
The image shown here was very difficult to shoot. It was originally printed on a piece of acetate, and only a handful have survived. Worth a lot of money. This image is by the incredible poster artist Bob Fried, whom I consider one of the great artists of the San Francisco 1960s poster scene. Unfortunately, Fried died way too early. He produced some wonderful art, which this image illustrates.
For those interested in knowing more about Bob Fried, here is an interview that I did years ago with his wife Penelope Fried:
http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/articles/Posters/Classic%20Posters%20Interview%20with%20Penelope%20Fried%20by%20Michael%20Erlewine.pdf
-
i say the 2nd one is with glass, but would not bet on it
-
Flashes are generally banned from museums. Of course a couple of exposures by a pro will not cause much damage compared to thousands by anybody, but still : are there less "aggressive" sources in terms of spectrum ? (esp. UV)
Any recommended anti-UV filters for flashes under such circumstances ?
Personally I prefer to use daylight and show the art the way it was meant to be seen at the gallery, where zenithal light used to be the norm. But the coolish results may not please the beholder; color temperature correction is often needed.
Airy, Every speed light in the market comes with aggressive UV cut filters. No UV is emitted. One has go through a lot of pain to modify them for UV use.
-
i say the 2nd one is with glass, but would not bet on it
You are right. It would have been more difficult if the first one would have been framed without glass. In the second one can still see the shadows of the frame if you look closely.
-
Michael - I assume not all posters were in prestine condition - did you retouch?
Talking about frames - this was a real issue for me since there are shadows on the painting if you light with the lights facing one another and not 45 degrees to the painting - what to do?
-
Posters were unframed. Not much retouching was done. A little bit if there was a tear.
Posters were in various conditions. Here is a poster by Gary Grimshaw, a good friend of mind. He died recently I am sorry to say.
-
Michael - I assume not all posters were in prestine condition - did you retouch? Talking about frames - this was a real issue for me since there are shadows on the painting if you light with the lights facing one another and not 45 degrees to the painting - what to do?
With continouus light you can set the shadows to more or less cancel out through overlap. With flash this procedure needs some more time to adjust
-
nice images Michael
Frank - I just could not get it right with the studio lights - no matter what we did - either highlights or shadows - pic one :)