I am having multiple issues getting good results when taking pictures of large paintings (48"x48" for example) I am using flourecent lights and a Macro lens on the Canon Digital Rebel XTi. In order to get a printable image the same size as the original, I take multiple shots and merge them in CS3.
Issues that come up are: In order to get a good representation of the texture I have to put my lights at extreme angles to a. hilight the texture and b. avoid glare.
If I use polarizing gels and filters, the exposures become long and some shake, even from the movement of the mirror can ruin the picture. Another problem is that an image with light areas of colour and dark areas of colour looses the subtle colours within the light areas. Any help with these problems would be appreciated.

Seems like you could put some white reflector screens around the sides, top, or bottom, then adjust distance, adjust lighting, even use a flash if the intensity is low enough. Those reflectors really work if used right.

Fluorescent lights can be very difficult photographically for two reasons. First, the light emitted by the gas inside a fluorescent bulb is limited to spikes at few discrete frequencies rather than covering a broader spectrum of frequencies. Some bulbs correct for this by using phosphors that emit light in broader range of frequencies, but it can be difficult to tell what you have unless you have accurate data from the manufacturer. Second, fluorescent lights change their light emission over the course of the cycle of alternating current (60 cycles per second in the US). The usual solution for that is to use a shutter speed of 1/30 or 1/15 (i.e., a whole multiple of the cycle speed) but that could conflict with your desire to use a faster speed to eliminate vibration. (I'm not familiar with your camera but I assume from your question that it doesn't offer mirror lock up.) The short answer is to avoid fluorescent lights.

I've found that I can get very good results photographing paintings in direct sunlight, adjusting the angle of the painting to the sun to pick up the texture of the surface and using a polarizer on the lens. Highly reflective paintings could be a problem and might require cross polarized lights. Photographing in direct sunlight, you need to watch out for reflections off colored surfaces.

I don't know what you might be seeing when you report having loss of subtle colors in the highlights. Do you use a grayscale target to color balance your shots? If you photograph a grayscale target under the same lighting conditions as the paintings, it makes color correction easy. First be sure that all the values are properly exposed (i.e., whites not blown out and blacks not blocked up). Then set true black and white points--it is likely that your digital file will have recorded the black as a dark gray and recorded white as a light gray. Then adjust the color balance so that the midtone gray is a true neutral without any color cast. Then you can apply those same settings to your shots of the paintings.


I have found that proper sharpening makes a big difference in reproducing artwork. Without sharpening, you lose the texture of the paintings surface, but too much sharpening can have an artificial feelings. One solution would be to look at the Photo Kit Sharpener plug in for Photoshop. Otherwise you will need to experiment.

Hope this helps.

I use an XTi also; go under the custom menus (rightmost tab when the menus are up) and pick mirror lockup. Enable that. Now exit the menus, then with the second button right side of the display (drive mode) pick self timer and pick 2 or 10 seconds.

Now (well, put the camera on a tripod first), when you click the shutter the mirror will go up, the camera will wait 2 or 10 seconds, then it will take the shot. That eliminates the mirror vibration and any residual movement from pressing on the shutter button.

When the camera is on a tripod, turn off IS on the lens. Otherwise the IS system will actually cause blur while trying to find some vibration to eliminate when in fact there isn't any.

Don't forget to turn off mirror lockup once you're finished!

Losing subtle colours in the bright areas -are you using the raw or jpeg files? Perhaps the standard jpeg conversion is not what you want. Use raw and adjust the levels yourself, or pick one of the other "picture styles".

Andy

My father in-law painted for 56 years, and we photographed about 2,000 of those over a period of 3 years. Most were photographed outdoors on the back deck in good light, shaded from the sun. Don't ever put original artwork in the sun! In the shade of course you have to re-balance colours, from blue toward red. Indoors, if your lighting doesn't work out, you could try an array of white LED lightbulbs. They're expensive at first, but they last so long they pay off in the end, and you can rebalance that light much better than fluorescents.

Elena,

I have photgraphed many 2D art pieces for a museum/gallery and school locally going on 8 years or so. Not my main work but adjacent to the work I do for these clients. The images I do are for exhibit catalogs and editorial generally. Accurate repro is the goal.

You have two issues to contend with: First is the lighting -

My bullet proof method which is well known but not all that used as I have found out is cross polarization. You need studio flashes and polarizing sheets. The polarization film can be bought from B&H here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...ku=45130&is=REG

You'll need decent flash/studio strobes, rent, borrow, beg or buy if you plan to use them for a good while. Paul Buff lights are actually high quality and consistent light output for a good price point.

Cut the polarizing sheet to 8x8in or 7x7in pieces (keeping notice of the directionality of the sheets, keep consistent) and attach the sheets to bare reflector heads, usually 7in standard reflectors. Have the lights about 6-8 feet at 45 degree angles (or shallower to the art) on each side of the art piece. Use a polarizer on the lens as well. To know when the lens polarizer is rotated to maximum effect, tape a coin (quarter works well) at or near the art and rotate the coin until it almost looks black.

This technique provides very high quality light and reproduction of the color and texture of most any flat art.

The second issue you have is resolution on your camera. You can still stitch multiple frames together to get a large enough file and use PS CS3 which does an excellent job at that automatically. Shoot raw, output the files with consistent settings. Make sure to use some sort of color chart for determining best exposure. On a Macbeth chart, placing the black patch at 25-30 RGB and the white at no more than 247 RGB will render tonalities very accurately and use the 3rd patch from black to gray balance.

Ask if you need any further help.

I use fluorescent light to reproduce art work with no problem. One thing I would suggest trying to emphasize texture is instead of using two balanced lights on each side, turn one off and use a white reflector card instead.

Also another way to try and avoid specular highlights without having to resort to cross polarization is using a very long lens and backing up further. Sometimes that can work wonders.

I would also like to add in reference to fluorescent and its spiky response, creating custom profiles for your camera and light source can go a long way to reducing that. You still get some colors emphasized and others de-emphasized, but I haven't found anything that a little Photoshopping can't fix.

Ideally HID copy lights are preferable but sometimes you just have to work with what you have.

I've photographed some artwork in indirect light (actually on the back deck!) as well. With non-directional light, you get less of a sense of the texture of the surface, at least in my opinion. It may simply be question of what you're trying to show.

I also find that direct sunlight (or intense direct light from strobes) picks up colors slightly differently than indirect light on some works. I think it may be because many paints, even those that are thought of as opaque, have some degree of transparency and so allow the viewer a little sense of what is behind them. Intense light may penetrate the paint more deeply and reflect off the surface beneath the paint while less intense light may simply reflect off the outermost layer of paint. I should note that my experience is mainly with watercolor, acrylics, pen-and-ink, collage, and prints. I can well imagine that other media, like oils or pastels, might behave differently.

While I certainly would never display a painting in direct sunlight for any extended length of time, I've never had any concern about exposing modern paintings to sunlight for the couple minutes it takes to set up a shot. I suppose old masters or some particularly fragile types of media might be a concern.

As an aside, I have from time to time seen multiple reproductions of the same work by a famous artist displayed side by side. Even when the reproductions are all high quality, professional, reproductions marketed for a critical audience, it is surprising how much variation one sees in the different "interpretations" of the same work.

What brand of LED bulbs are you using? I didn't think they were wide spectrum yet, but then I haven't been looking for new bulbs since I bought a series of halogens.
Andy

C.Crane bulbs - very expensive, but reliable. I haven't done anything major with these, but I can see great color and detail from a few sample shots. This recommendation is mainly for color balance - you will still have to experiment with different diffusion techniques, unless you get really lucky.

Thanks for all the replies to my post! I will be trying some of the things discussed and will let you know how it turns out. Thank you all for your insight and help.
I do have a Macbeth colour checker and polarizing filters allready so I am sure that some improvements can be acheived quite easily.

Well I have read all of these wondeful comments and ideas. Now let me pass on a personal experience of mine that led to many tens of thousands of dollars..all because I walked into a Ritzy art gallery that featured the top ten artists in the world. I had just walked in to hear an advanced photographer saying these words.. It can't be done. I have tried he said to create images of his work and it cannot be done. INSTANTLY my interest was peaked !!

Joseph Trippetti world renown artist. and an advanced photographer was explaining why HE could not create images of his work.

Joe makes porcelan tiles (white) and uses sterling silver wire for the clossine' to create stunning masterpieces of brilliant color.

He could not get the 'texture' of the silver wire to show in his photographs..
Silver wire against a white tile or porclean !! use light of any type and it washes out the silver.

He went on to say.. I have tried ring lights, light boxes, over head lights every type light contraption immaginable. This is when I walked in and merely said.. May I expose one frame of film of this piece of art you brought in.. he scoffed at me and said go for it.

As an electrican. .I knew instantly what was wrong ! he was using LIGHT !! NO ! light will wash out that silver .

It was a no brainer issue.. I put his piece of art on a wall with no lights in the room.
Indirect lighting in this alcove was from the main gallery. I shut off all lights in this alcove. 3 minutes @ F 90 was my exposure. One frame of film !

when I came back to the gallery 45 minutes later with a 16 x 20 print.. Gorgeous color.. that wire showed all the texture against that white porclean tile. I was hired on the spot.

I worked for many years for this well known gallery that only featured the top ten artists in the world. . These people were very fussy about photographic copies of their originals.. They had to match perfectly !!

I would always use the same manner to expose film Put that painting on the wall in the alcove.. shut out the lights in that room.. now all I have is ambient light.

no shadows at all anywhere. year after year I used the same set up ambient lighing no flash or other lighting. Give it a try !! You will be amazed at how accurate these Paintings look.


Edna Hibel - Joesph Trippetti - Leroy Neiman were just a few of these artists I had worked with one on one with for many years. Edna Hibel was considered the best most famous female artist in the world at the time.

Sunlight works the best .Make sure that the light is hitting the painting at an angle which works for the medium. You can use a reflector the same size or bigger than the original but don't get the reflector too close to the artwork.
Be careful of placing the art on a deck or flooring that has a color.I found that Gray was best and a Bitumen/asphalt/concrete road worked well.Even a patch of green grass at a distance will influence the color of the shot. An art easel works best.
The other thing to look at is the perspective you get when shooting wide angle or skew.Use as long as possible lens and make sure you are in the middle of the painting.If you are a bit skew you can just fix it in Photoshop.The long lens is also important for lighting.The closest you get to the canvas the more reflections you'll get of the sky or the walls or the floor or the red car parked a few yards away.
Don't forget to put a gray card in the pic this will help you with the color balance
The only situation where sunlight does not work very very well is when the paint is very reflective but then that's difficult with any light
D

Most of the tips here are not helpful - tell you what: Whatever method you choose, put some of your results on a reasonably color-correct laptop, and bring the computer to the paintings, or vice-versa. Also bring a real artist. Ask the artist if the colors in the images are a good match to the paintings. If not, your method failed. Direct sunlight will probably never work. You need good diffuse lighting, and to get colors in balance, a fairly good balanced spectum from the source. If money is no object, LED lights behind diffusers should work well. For cheap, outdoor lighting away from sunlight, with no reflections should work, but you have to be sure the colors are balanced for the conditions.

Also, if you are using digital, bracket the photo a couple of stops and blend together. Often, because of having to use ambient or indirect light, contrast isn't quite what you would like. Blending the two together(see the zero noise technique thread here) smooths out the moires and artifacts greatly.

It doesn't have to be extreme, either - a couple of stops is enough to get a realistic contrast more like what our eyes would see(and most people when looking at art in a book or magazine prefer the "National Geographic" look - slightly higher saturation and contrast typical of slower speed film.

Well I know from many years experience, when attempting to 'copy' a painting, the whole idea is to MATCH the original.

Sad to say, you are not going to achieve this quality, unless you use a lens that is capable of reproducing all of that texture and detail.

for me, that requires medium format using aperatures of F 45 (minimum) F 64 or F 90 and I don't care to hear that any DSLR can achieve those type results for a 48" x 48" reproduction.

Artists are extremly fussy when it comes to a reproduction of their work. Having worked one on one with very many famous people. Their standards are very high.

Good luck in your quest to find a suitable method that works for you !!