Takeing Pic's of Paintings?

[JZaun]

An artist friend of mine wanted me to take some pic's of paintings they had done and produce some prints.They are concerned about flash on the painting. I know flash is a no no in a art galery or museum but will a one time shot hurt? ( Let me add this... I mean a one shot of a painters painting, not in a gallery or museum) What type of friendly light would be best for this. It may result in a ongoing venture with this artist and maybe others. Any advise will be appreciated. I did take one pic for them but it was hand held, thru glass and with a flash. The results was very good considering, but I don't care to do it this way!!


Thanks A Bunch

JZaun

[cgratti]

An artist friend of mine wanted me to take some pic's of paintings they had done and produce some prints.They are concerned about flash on the painting. I know flash is a no no in a art galery or museum but will a one time shot hurt? What type of friendly light would be best for this. It may result in a ongoing venture with this artist and maybe others. Any advise will be appreciated. I did take one pic for them but it was hand held, thru glass and with a flash. The results was very good considering, but I don't care to do it this way!!


Thanks A Bunch

JZaun

Most if not all museums DO NOT allow flash photography at all. If everyone took "just one quick" shot with a flash that would add up to alot of flashes quickly. And light is a paintings worst enemy. I would suggest a different method, and would get caught taking pictures in a museum with a flash, you will probably be asked to leave or hand in your camera until you leave the museum. I am not sure about all museums, but the Metropolitian Museum in New York City is very strick on this.

Just my 2 cents...

[Scottes]

"One quick shot" is not going to do any harm. "One quick shot" from thousands of tourists would.

[PhotosGuy]

Kodak used to have a published guide on this. Maybe you can still get it.
In a nutshell, use a polarizer on your lens, & 2 lights at 45 degrees off the camera axis.
If the 2 lights are strobes, you may want to explore using a polarizing material in front of them. (Make sure that they're both on the same polarizing axis - or maybe not!)
Seems to me that there was also a pre-flashing involved, but that was for film - maybe Photo$hop will substitute.

Good luck.

[TeraGram93013]

My advice?

FORGET THE FLASH ENTIRELY!

You are trying to capture a painting, a painting which contains colors which the artist carefully selected, mixed and applied in just the right manner to acheive a specific effect to be viewed by the human eye under steady lighting conditions.

Flash can not replicate this without a lot of really unnecessary work (imnsho).

Try to use light diffused from a window. Use a tripod. Use longer exposures if necessary. Flash will invariably leave hot spots in the image as the light will find some surface of paint to reflect directly back to your camera.

[RichardtheSane]

I would use custom white balance, a tripod and use a longer exposure at F8....

[Biko]

I have taken pics in museums, you should always pre arrange your visit, some places will allow out of normal opening hours - A curator will work with you and this allows them to take off the alarms for you which can help you get nearer.

Art galleries have their own light studios for examining pics for conservation which if you could use would help. Other way, north light window is best around midday.

If in gallery use tripod and I would take a number of shots on different settings, auto white tungsten pretty much the whole range if you have the time.

Ask the artist for guidance on what colours they used and ask for a swatch of a few colours if possible that are in the work.

Try and match up to these colours as best you can - on screen and printed, that's the tricky bit but the artist you are doing it for will appreciate it as theres nothing worse than them seeing finished result and the colour is way off - believe me they will see it.

[PhotosGuy]

1. Jzaun said "not in a gallery or museum", so we're talking about controlled conditions elsewhere.

2. Re: "FORGET THE FLASH ENTIRELY! You are trying to capture a painting, a painting which contains colors which the artist carefully selected, mixed and applied in just the right manner to acheive a specific effect to be viewed by the human eye under steady lighting conditions. Flash can not replicate this without a lot of really unnecessary work (imnsho)."

I think you're assuming flash-on-camera here, & that doesn't apply. He can use anything he wants to.
Under "under steady lighting conditions"? What he needs is a "quality of light". It doesn't matter if it lasts for 60 seconds or 1/4000 of a second. Flash is just another way of getting it.

3. Re: "take a number of shots on different settings, auto white tungsten pretty much the whole range."
Try this - take a pic of something white, inside or outside at every WB setting. You'll find out that they all suck big time EXCEPT the custom WB. For what you're attempting to do, white needs to be WHITE!

4. Re: "Ask the artist for guidance on what colours they used and ask for a swatch of a few colours if possible that are in the work.
Try and match up to these colours as best you can - on screen and printed, that's the tricky bit but the artist you are doing it for will appreciate it as theres nothing worse than them seeing finished result and the colour is way off - believe me they will see it."
Good advice! Pigment colors don't always translate to the same 'look' as inkjet, etc. You'll probably have to compromise somewhere in the process.

Good luck.

[TeraGram93013]

I think you're assuming flash-on-camera here, & that doesn't apply. He can use anything he wants to.
Under "under steady lighting conditions"? What he needs is a "quality of light". It doesn't matter if it lasts for 60 seconds or 1/4000 of a second. Flash is just another way of getting it.

I was not assuming "flash-on-camera". Please be careful about telling other posters what they are assuming.

You were nice to bring the topic off paintings in a museum, now go back and read the original again. He said that the artist was concerned about flash.

The client is concerned about it so ACCOMODATE THE CLIENT! In this case, it is perfectly fine to do so as there are other ways to get a good shot of the painting so that it will replicate nicely and NATURAL LIGHT is almost always best.

[PhotosGuy]

Re: "I was not assuming "flash-on-camera". Please be careful about telling other posters what they are assuming." Well, what you said was, ""FORGET THE FLASH ENTIRELY! You are trying to capture a painting, a painting which contains colors which the artist carefully selected, mixed and applied in just the right manner to acheive (sic) a specific effect to be viewed by the human eye under steady lighting conditions."
I believe that we aren't talking about "specific effect to be viewed by the human eye under steady lighting conditions". We're talking about a photograph which shows the art off to its best advantage.
So, Re: "Flash can not replicate this without a lot of really unnecessary work (imnsho).", I stand by my original post that what matters is the "quality of light" used to replicate the viewer experience in print.
Re: "...without a lot of really unnecessary work (imnsho)." See, "NATURAL LIGHT", below.

Re: "He said that the artist was concerned about flash."
I didn't say that he must use flash, just that he could for the following reason: Incandescent lights are HOT! "If everyone took "just one quick" shot with a flash that would add up to alot of flashes quickly. And light is a paintings worst enemy."
Well, what about heat? Do you suppose that might be a factor to consider? Then there's...

Re: "NATURAL LIGHT is almost always best." Perhaps, for a given fraction of a second in time. But, how is it that so many instruments for unnatural light are sold? Because, "NATURAL LIGHT" changes over short periods of time. Natural LOOKING light is best for consistent results when you are trying to replicate results over a period of time when "It may result in a ongoing venture with this artist and maybe others". A little 'work' now will save a lot of time in the long run.
I also suggest that you use custom white balance. You want white to be WHITE!

Re: "The client is concerned about it so ACCOMODATE THE CLIENT!" YES, by getting the job done in the best way to deliver the product he expects. Your job also includes educating the client when there might be a better way to deliver the product he expects.
The one time I did exactly what the client said he wanted, the way he wanted it done, I lost the client because what he got was what he wanted, but not what he needed. Guess who got blamed? Lesson learned! Now, I do it his way, AND I do it the way that works best. There's no way that anyone can't be a hero using that workflow.

OK, you have your opinions & I have mine. I stand by my original post, "Kodak used to have a published guide on this. Maybe you can still get it." Kodak has an opinion, too.

Again, good luck Jzaun. I hope we've helped.

I suspect that Scottes wish may be on the verge of coming true, "Longing for a place where the walls are soft and the blue crayons taste decent...." I've said my piece & I'm outta here!

[JZaun]

Somewhere we got off track.. I was asked to take photo's and make prints by a friend who is an artists and who wants to sell them at their showings. I need to take a photo. I know a few flash shots will NOT hurt the painting, only repeated flashes will do that. I am just looking for the best light to get the job done and have a good repoduction. I prefer not to use flash because the artist doesn't want it (right or wrong it doesn't matter, that is what they want) I agree that natural light would be best but hard to get indoors. It may not be possible to set up outside at times so the next choice is lighting.. What will work best without spending a fortune..

Thanks for input
JZaun

[MarkH]

Somewhere we got off track.. I was asked to take photo's and make prints by a friend who is an artists and who wants to sell them at their showings. I need to take a photo. I know a few flash shots will NOT hurt the painting, only repeated flashes will do that. I am just looking for the best light to get the job done and have a good repoduction. I prefer not to use flash because the artist doesn't want it (right or wrong it doesn't matter, that is what they want) I agree that natural light would be best but hard to get indoors. It may not be possible to set up outside at times so the next choice is lighting.. What will work best without spending a fortune..

Thanks for input
JZaun

1. Tripod

2. Well lit room

3. Custom white balance

Shoot, print, compare print to original. Do and learn, I'm sure you'll get there.

[hickory]

jzaun,

Check out this link not a bad price either:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1581802838/102-7938169-7240151?v=glance

My son is a Fine Arts Major and has a smiliar situation. he has to photograph his oil paintings for his portfolio and possibly to sell as prints. He stresses natural light as in outdoors if possible. if indoors then natural "northern" light not harsh southern exposures. Hope this helps.

tom