Photographing paintings behind glass

non-glare glass will not degrade the image if your camera is perpendicular to the picture you are copying. While a copy stand may not appeal to everyone they are designed for copying a large number of items at a time. If you have a large amount of pictures to copy using a stand means setting up once and then just change print and shoot. Lights are preset at 45 degrees and the height can be adjusted easily. This is the system that has been used by the military photo units, the Smithsonian, RIT and most major medical institutions for many years. Moving lights around on a stand while trying to polarize them is very awkward and inaccurate. When I copy large pieces I shoot them on the floor with a studio stand on wheels with a long extension arm.

By the way, the new Nikon 850 is the most incredible copy camera I have ever used.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18659524
22w fluorescent is much higher rating in incandescent, usually 4x. Check the lumens rating.

Yep, I know. Still...

Welp. Not going quite as planned.

One thing about shooting behind glass that I cannot mitigate: matte shadows. With the lights out at 45 degrees, even a thin matte can cast a quarter inch shadow down both sides of the art.

The light setup and camera setup is not nearly as robust as I'd hoped. In order to not have to move the lights at all (to get consistent lighting) I'd have to have them way far back, which means they would have to be way powerful.

This DSLR has a 28-55 lens, which means it can't do all sizes of art from the same distance. I've given up on it and am using my Canon G-15. I did some tests, and my little P&S is getting better focus and clarity than the older DSLR anyway.

So, the whole fix-everything-in-place-for-perfect-consistency gambit didn't pay off.

However, I *have started*, so things are moving along.

One thing I've been debating: include frame and matte in pic? Or concentrate on pic? This will go into a coffee table book, but it will also go online (privately) so fam&friends can pick and choose ones they want. I've decided to just include matting, framing and dimensions as footnotes.

28-55 or 18-55?

People like to like the 18-55 series, but they are not made for detail work.

Your smaller sensor camera has greater DOF so that's maybe why you have better focus at similar focal lengths. If you are using polarizing film on the DSLR lens that may be a factor messing up your focus. Proper technique with a DSLR should yield better results.

Dep being on print reproduction size and the printer and media, the print will need more resolution than online stuff.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18684423
28-55 or 18-55?

I'll double check, but pretty sure it's 28-55. It's manual zoom but AF. Oldish camera.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18684423
Dep being on print reproduction size and the printer and media, the print will need more resolution than online stuff.

No prints. We'll be giving away the originals.

DaveC426913 wrote in post #18686470
I'll double check, but pretty sure it's 28-55. It's manual zoom but AF. Oldish camera.


No prints. We'll be giving away the originals.

How are you going to make a coffee table book without printing them?



8x10 on could need as much as 3000 pixels on the long edge.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18686512
How are you going to make a coffee table book without printing them?

Oh. I thought you meant full-sized prints for sale.

Yeah, my cam does 4000x3000px.

Well, this is a bit disappointing.

Here's my setup with lights at 45 degrees and again at 60 degrees. They're 5-6 feet from the centre of the canvas. If I move them any farther, I'll have no light to shoot.


That's some nasty gradient.