Museum shots...comments please

Hey Folks,
Due to the many other things going on in my life right now, I haven't been able to get out and do a lot of shooting lately but I did find myself at the Cleveland Museum of Art this last week for a couple of hours and I wanted to give the new Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 a bit of a work out.

Now before I continue here, please be assured that all of these images conform with the rules and guidelines for photography as set forth by the Cleveland Museum of Art. All of the objects I photographed here were "created" well before 1900 A.D. and none of these items are covered by any copyright laws. While I don't have the names of the specific items, I was checking the dates of creation as I was shooting to make sure I didn't accidentally shoot any items that might be protected by copyrights.

Ok...as I said, I was giving the lens a good workout here. I wanted to see how it would perform under such shooting conditions as those in a museum. All of the pictures were shot without flash (as the museum does NOT allow flash photography for obvious reasons) and with the museums lighting. Camera used was a Canon 40D, again the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 lens and feel free to read the EXIF data for any other relivant details. All of the images have of course been subjected to my usual degree of physical abuse in Photoshop CS3.

So, other than the usual "how did I do with these?" I guess my big question here is simply; could you see shots such as these being used in museum literature? Also, considering the very limited shooting conditions...i.e. fixed lighting, limited space to move around, not being able to "touch" or reposition the items, etc., is there anything I could have done better or differently to make these better?

Again I apologize for not having the names of the pieces and the artists who created them. Just didn't occur to me while I was shooting to get that information...maybe next time.


#1

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I am not user if it is just on my end, but it looks like the images ran out of colors and the backgrounds step in color rather than a nice smooth gradient. Otherwise, they look nice - not much more to comment on them.

It looks like an interesting challenge to get the best shot you can get without having any control over the lighting other than the possibility of flash. However, you did not use the flash on any of the shots. I assume that use of flash was prohibited.

Under the circumstances, I would say you got good results, even with the suit of armour, which must be the toughest one of the lot.

I think they look great!

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6497210
It looks like an interesting challenge to get the best shot you can get without having any control over the lighting other than the possibility of flash. However, you did not use the flash on any of the shots. I assume that use of flash was prohibited.

Under the circumstances, I would say you got good results, even with the suit of armour, which must be the toughest one of the lot.

I think that lighting art is critical and some museums do it very well - I think this one did a good job. Lighting is an art and it can make or break aesthetics with non-painting art.

OP: I think you did a great job working with the light available.

MaxxuM wrote in post #6497772
I think that lighting art is critical and some museums do it very well - I think this one did a good job. Lighting is an art and it can make or break aesthetics with non-painting art.

OP: I think you did a great job working with the light available.

First and foremost, thank you (and to all) for the kind words. The Cleveland Museum of Art is actually going thru a tremendous renovation at the moment which won't be fully completed until 2012, so I wasn't really sure just what to expect. Typically they've always done a rather wonderful job of lighting their pieces so I was quite curious to see how things would look during the renovation. Right now they only have the one floor of the one building open and they really don't have much on display (comparatively speaking) but so far they seem to be doing a wonderful job...I really can't wait until it's finished (beyond photography, I'm a great lover of art in general).

I would also add that I have noticed in the past the CMA has appeared to take a little more effort with lighting certain pieces. They have alwayd done a "good job" with virtually all of their work, but there have been some specific pieces where I have just stood there and went "wow" and really studied how they did the lighting just because it was so well done and how it really stood out compared to everything else. I have tried to photograph many of these pieces in the past but my equipment just wasn't up to it. Unfortunately, now that I have the gear most all of those pieces (along with their lighting) are no longer on display due to the renovation. I sincerely hope that they do restore them as well as the way they had them lit when the ren is complete.

Bob,
It surprises me that you didn't know this, but no...most museums (large museums at least) do not allow flash photography in any way, shape or form. In many cases, the pieces on display at a museum such as The Cleveland Art Museum are often very old and quite vulnerable to damage from "light" in general...why you wouldn't see a priceless DiVinci hanging near an unshaded window...can you imagine the "Mona Lisa" being sun faded due to UV exposure? With many of the pieces on display at a typical museum, the flash from a single camera alone could do irreversible damage...if the general public were allowed to use flash....camera flashes going off all day long, every day, every week, every month, every year...the damage would be beyond comprehension. With most museum lighting, the lighting is setup not only for aesthetic appeal, but also in ways to minimize damage. With some pieces at the CMA, the lighting is actually setup on timers and motion detectors so that it's not actually on when no one is looking at it. All of this of course has it's up sides in that you don't have to fuss to get interesting lighting most of the time, but it certainly has it's down sides too.

You are right however in that the suit of armour was certainly the most difficult to shoot and it was just as hard to edit really. There are a couple of small spots where I did blow the highlights (a couple of those spots on the shoulder plates are still really bugging me), but again considering the circumstances, it was kind of unavoidable. About the best I could do was just a general balance really. -If- tripods were allowed, this might make an interesting subject for HDR, but as with flash, tripods are usually a no-no in most museums...I guess because it bothers the other patrons or the curators are afraid of them being used to destroy the art or something.

Anyways, again thanks to all for the great comments!

Peace,
Jim

The 1st 3, no. The last 2, maybe.

1. Adjust your WB for each shot. the WB of bulbs changes as they get older.
2. If they would allow you to take a 30X40" white art board with you, you could use it to bounce some fill into the eye sockets of the smaller sculptures.

Take a shot if the ID card next time.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #6505799
The 1st 3, no. The last 2, maybe. 1. Adjust your WB for each shot. the WB of bulbs changes as they get older.
2. If they would allow you to take a 30X40" white art board with you, you could use it to bounce some fill into the eye sockets of the smaller sculptures. Take a shot if the ID card next time.

Agree....

The last one is really quite nice.I would even try to black out the BG.but the others just don't move me.I understand the lighting would be a tough nut.

I think 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all perfectly acceptable for museum literature (and the suit of armor if terrific!). The painting in 3 is distracting; the image is otherwise very good.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #6505799
The 1st 3, no. The last 2, maybe. 1. Adjust your WB for each shot. the WB of bulbs changes as they get older.
2. If they would allow you to take a 30X40" white art board with you, you could use it to bounce some fill into the eye sockets of the smaller sculptures. Take a shot if the ID card next time.

Thank you for the comments. I really don't see the white board happening....they won't even let you carry your camera bag in with you (security stops you in the lobby and makes you take it back out to your car...believe me, I've tried!). Even if they did allow me to walk in with the white board, I'd have no real way of setting it up as a reflector or anything...not like I can tape it to a wall or a nearby display! LOL!!!

That's really the challenge with shooting anything in this place...you shoot what's there, as is and only with what you can carry in your pockets (and security does watch you like a freakin hawk). Usually for the CMA I'll have a couple of spare memory cards and an extra battery in my pocket as well as 1 extra lens (my nifty fifty) but even there when I change lenses, I have to hold my big Tamron 70-200mm while I'm shooting with the other lens. I could probably use my wife as an assistant, but right now at least, she works the same hours the museum are open so for the moment at least, I'm usually shooting by myself.

Anyways, again thanks for the comments...this really is a good exercise in "working with what you have". A rather interesting challenge .

Peace,
Jim

jgrussell wrote in post #6505993
I think 1, 2, 4 and 5 are all perfectly acceptable for museum literature (and the suit of armor if terrific!). The painting in 3 is distracting; the image is otherwise very good.

I had actually noticed the painting in #3 on the camera when I was shooting and thought it was distracting also, but I wasn't quite sure what to do about it. I know I could easily clone the picture out of the shot there, but in this particular case, I think the statue is just part of the over all gallery (in fact it is the center piece of this particular gallery) and by removing the picture, it becomes less than a factual representation of the gallery so I left it in for that shot. However... I especially like that particular piece...it has a very life like quality to it that most often, other sculptures of this nature tend to lack (IMHO at least). After thinking about it a bit over a cigarette break, I went back and shot it again and came up with this...

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

Your new image isn't coming up.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #6509732
Your new image isn't coming up.

Seems to be a problem with Imageshack...it happens sometimes. Check back tomorrow and see if it's coming up then and if not, I'll repost it.

Thanks for the heads up!
Jim

Walczak Photo wrote in post #6506325
I had actually noticed the painting in #3 on the camera when I was shooting and thought it was distracting also, but I wasn't quite sure what to do about it. I know I could easily clone the picture out of the shot there, but in this particular case, I think the statue is just part of the over all gallery (in fact it is the center piece of this particular gallery) and by removing the picture, it becomes less than a factual representation of the gallery so I left it in for that shot. However... I especially like that particular piece...it has a very life like quality to it that most often, other sculptures of this nature tend to lack (IMHO at least). After thinking about it a bit over a cigarette break, I went back and shot it again and came up with this...

I don't know if this is relevant to what you're going for (I think the images are beautiful by the way, especially 2 & 4), but I see a relationship between the forms of the statue and the figure in the painting of image 3. They mirror each other, engaging in their own dialogue (which I'm sure was intentional by the museum curators). Perhaps shifting the composition to include the painting, still de-focused, would lead to a nice image giving a sense of the muted drama of the museum installation itself. Just an idea.