Photographing artwork??

knary

It's the bane of the artist's existence. I've started doing a painting a day and have been posting them on a blog This means that I have no choice but to document the work regularly. And - don't laugh - a little pocket point & shoot just isn't up to the job.

Currently, I hope for a bright day, take the work outside and then battle glare. I take a shot with the piece tilted to show the least glare. This usually means the piece is at an odd angle to the camera. I then crop and stretch that image in photoshop to the appropriate dimensions. This, for my purposes, works extremely and surprisingly well for larger works. But for the small works, it just plain sucks. Any ridges in the paint surface running perpendicular to the light become grossly exaggerated. Any tiny little specks of grit become tiny little distracting orbs of light. :bluduh

example:


Adding to the mix are the realities of a tiny camera designed for quick ease of use, not image fidelity. My camera, for example, struggles to see tonal and color changes in reds.

The human eye, of course, has few of the difficulties that the camera has. The paintings aren't strangely glossy things looking like they've been painted with a broom made from brambles. Ok, there's a little of that, but not as much as the photos would suggest.

The best bet seems to be a solid consumer/prosumer DSLR (did I mention I've been wanting one forever? I do like to make images), a decent 50mm lens (not the crap kit lens), a polarizing filter, and ... some lighting arrangement akin to the pyramids of egypt. Or maybe not. A cheap diffuser for a remote flash or photo floods might work. Maybe. I don't know. Ignorance is only bliss if you don't know you're ignorant.

Thoughts? Opinions? I know more than a few of you and you know some of what I'm up to.

BIG thanks. It's fun to see where this site has gone since it's early days.

ziggy53

Depending greatly on the P&S camera you use, if it has a simple flash mode, no red eye reduction or preflash, you can build a simple deflector to aim the camera flash away from the artwork, and use two optical slaved flashes in a copy configuration.

I used to have a simple Kodak P&S that really did a nice job in that configuration and application. (My daughter now has that camera.)

Even halogen lights can look pretty nice if you can white balance the camera to the lights.

Diffusion in front of the lights may be required to soften the brush strokes.

If you want to continue going outdoors, use a large overhead diffuser on sunny bright days. Even a white sheet works pretty well. Position the art in the shaded part under the diffuser, and align to the camera (or align the camera to the art.)

As far as specks go, those are best treated with PhotoShop or even the GIMP and the Clone tool.

ziggy53

knary

Thank you for the suggestions.

This camera is a little compact Casio. Great for running around Italy without being saddled with photo gear, but not so good for this purpose. The inability to capture reds by itself is enough of a reason to get away from it. There is my old Canon S45, but it's in a pretty sad state after some 15,000 or so images and too many hiking and motorcycle trips.

I'm one of those photoshop geeks that has spent too many hours of my life obliterating specks and hairs and scratches, and otherwise manipulating images.. I will do anything to avoid that. My aim isn't to produce perfect reproductions, but to produce really good approximations with a minimum of effort. I'd rather, of course, be painting than photoshopping.

wxwax

I don't think you need to go to the expense of a dSLR. I know my old Canon G3, for example, would do a terrific job of capturing correct colors. So a little prosumer camera might work very well for you.

As Ziggy says, bouncing the light and diffusing it are the biggies. Lots of the prosumers can handle an external flash.

Failing that, strong regular lights that are bounced and diffused could work well - we see lots of products shots here that are done with regular lights from The Home Depot or similar and are diffused by a tent.

If you go that way, you'll want an inexpensive tripod for the slightly longer exposure times.

My 2 cents.

knary

Waxie has revealed my inner dark secret: I want a 'real' camera.

Damn it. I know that my old S45 did a great job of grabbing the good colors. But I guess I'm hunting for an excuse. I really don't want to buy another point and shoot camera. I already have one - just not good enough for this particular task. I don't want to drop a few hundred when I could be spending so much more.

hmmm

I was always frustrated by the middle ground of the old S45. It took fantastic pics for what it was, but it always tempted me to get something with a real lens, with a tighter depth of field, with more control over what I was doing. And so I've always looked at the G and S series cameras with some disdain. Maybe I need to rethink that.

pathfinder

I agree with wxwax, that the problem is not the camera but the lighting.

Google "light ten"t here on dgrin or "product photgraphy" and you should see numereous threads about building a light tent.

I built mine out of 1/2 inch PVC pipe to make a framework about 30 inches across and 18-20 inches tall and 24 inches deep. I cover mine with an old, white bedsheet that Nightingale wanted to throw away, and I use artist colored paper for the seamless background paper.

I light it with two studio strobes from either side, or above, depending on what I am shooting. Two tungsten lights would also work though, but probably requre a much longer shutter speed. It produces images like this.



For the surface reflections you are getting, a polarizing filter may be very helpful. It is not as easy to use a polarizing filter with a P&S because you have to shoot a frame and the analyze the reflections in the image, rather than just looking through the viewfinder of an SLR until you see what you want and then shoot the picture. But it can be done.

You are trying to create a very diffuse light source that is not directional, and that does not create shadows. A light tent cant be built for less than $15, and lighting does not have to be expensive either.

Shooting product shots does not require a DSLR. But a DSLR can may it faster and easier, and do a slightly better job if used properly.

I like your artwork of the hammer head.

knary

Very very helpful stuff. Thank you.

wxwax

knary wrote:

Waxie has revealed my inner dark secret: I want a 'real' camera.

Damn it. I know that my old S45 did a great job of grabbing the good colors. But I guess I'm hunting for an excuse. I really don't want to buy another point and shoot camera. I already have one - just not good enough for this particular task. I don't want to drop a few hundred when I could be spending so much more.

hmmm

I was always frustrated by the middle ground of the old S45. It took fantastic pics for what it was, but it always tempted me to get something with a real lens, with a tighter depth of field, with more control over what I was doing. And so I've always looked at the G and S series cameras with some disdain. Maybe I need to rethink that.

I have some goodies with my G-3.

knary

wxwax wrote:

I have some goodies with my G-3.

And I have some great shots from my old S45 and my newer little casio. But that only proves that the bulk of the work happens behind the camera or that the sun sometimes shines on fools too. . For all the greatness of the new cameras, there's a shocking number of bad photos being taking.
:hide

knary

bump of sorts

I still haven't taken the plunge. I'm that cheap or something.

Is there a reason more cameras don't support RAW?