Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Photographing Oil Paintings
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
Apr 12, 2019 10:01:37   #
BigDJim Loc: Dallas TX
 
I've been recruited by several artists to photograph their paintings where said photos will be used to enter competitions or used to publicize their work. The problem: color accuracy.

I'm not convinced that a digital camera (Nikon 750) and quality fixed lens (50MM) under practically any circumstances can accurately capture the various colors, hues, shadings etc of an oil painting. Camera color set at Neutral, White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar incandescent lights--2 of them at 45 degree angles), aperture settings at midrange for maximum focusing accuracy, equipment on tripod, painting mounted and shot on seamless black cloth background. Downloaded to Lightroom 5 with WB settings at either Automatic or Custom (shot at both settings with hardly any discernible differences).

After tweaking, adding color, fiddling with exposure, modifying color, saturation,and everything other thing I can think of, the artists still complain that an item from the painting isn't quite right...a flower is too blue, the sky is washed out, the wood on the table needs to be a deeper brown and the comments go on and on and on.

I personally think a digital camera under the proper set-up can very closely approximate a painting, but will never capture it with absolute, total accuracy.

With all the photographic expertise of men and women who's knowledge, experience and opinions I value here on Ugly Hedgehog can anyone shed any light on this problem (no pun intended)? Am I doing something wrong, or overlooking something I should be doing?

I've considered paying the exorbitant price for a color card kit, but have read that these are useless or else they are beneficial. Opinion split about 5o-50.

Thanks everyone for wading through this post.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:08:46   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
I photographed my husband's oil and acrylic paintings for years. The images were very close to or absolutely accurate, depending on specific colors. I learned to shoot in a dark room with ambient light from a window with the painting laying on the floor to prevent shadows. I used LR CC to adjust, sometimes with while looking at the painting. Photographing paintings is a difficult thing to do.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:21:55   #
sbohne
 
I've posted this a couple times on this group. You don’t need an expensive kit to get good color. Take a photograph of the paining with a gray card included in the scene under the exact same lighting you’re going to photograph it with. If you want even more control use a black white gray card. And for optimum control use one of Gary boxes color cards. Use the eye droppers in curves to make adjustments. Simple, fast, easy and expensive. And tell your artist that exact color rendition is not always possible: just like you can’t get the true EXACT colors of a morning glory, some of the ingredients that go into paint may also prevent it from reproducing faithfully.

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 10:28:18   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
BigDJim wrote:
I've been recruited by several artists to photograph their paintings where said photos will be used to enter competitions or used to publicize their work. The problem: color accuracy.

I'm not convinced that a digital camera (Nikon 750) and quality fixed lens (50MM) under practically any circumstances can accurately capture the various colors, hues, shadings etc of an oil painting. Camera color set at Neutral, White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar incandescent lights--2 of them at 45 degree angles), aperture settings at midrange for maximum focusing accuracy, equipment on tripod, painting mounted and shot on seamless black cloth background. Downloaded to Lightroom 5 with WB settings at either Automatic or Custom (shot at both settings with hardly any discernible differences).

After tweaking, adding color, fiddling with exposure, modifying color, saturation,and everything other thing I can think of, the artists still complain that an item from the painting isn't quite right...a flower is too blue, the sky is washed out, the wood on the table needs to be a deeper brown and the comments go on and on and on.

I personally think a digital camera under the proper set-up can very closely approximate a painting, but will never capture it with absolute, total accuracy.

With all the photographic expertise of men and women who's knowledge, experience and opinions I value here on Ugly Hedgehog can anyone shed any light on this problem (no pun intended)? Am I doing something wrong, or overlooking something I should be doing?

I've considered paying the exorbitant price for a color card kit, but have read that these are useless or else they are beneficial. Opinion split about 5o-50.

Thanks everyone for wading through this post.
I've been recruited by several artists to photogra... (show quote)


Customers should realize some colors will never be EXACT - two different mediums with different color spaces and the viewing light may also be different. Using a polarizer may help with reflections when shooting but introduces another variable. Color cards and gray scales should help.
.

In most cases you should be able to get very close tho - if done right.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:28:18   #
Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan
 
I have copied paintings for the Detroit Institute of Arts with my digital Nikon and lights. Everyone was well satisfied. Of course the original artists were all dead. Your friends may be different.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:29:38   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Fotoartist wrote:
Of course the original artists were all dead.


A GREAT advantage for this type of work !

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:36:01   #
GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City
 
Do you want good color or accurate color?
One is subjective, the other can be measured.
White balance isn't the only issue you'll have. Camera sensors have color biases. Reds, greens, blues register differently. The X-Rite Color Checker not only gives accurate white balance; used correctly, it will render other colors more accurately than any other method.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/651253-REG/X_Rite_MSCCPP_ColorChecker_Passport.html
That's what I use to photograph art when I want accurate color.

The other issue is: what are the artists looking at when judging your product and comparing to the original?
Their (uncalibrated) monitor, a print?


BTW:Interesting spell correct of Kelvin:
BigDJim wrote:
White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar) incandescent lights--2 of them .

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 10:51:39   #
PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago
 
BigDJim wrote:
I've been recruited by several artists to photograph their paintings where said photos will be used to enter competitions or used to publicize their work. The problem: color accuracy.

I'm not convinced that a digital camera (Nikon 750) and quality fixed lens (50MM) under practically any circumstances can accurately capture the various colors, hues, shadings etc of an oil painting. Camera color set at Neutral, White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar incandescent lights--2 of them at 45 degree angles), aperture settings at midrange for maximum focusing accuracy, equipment on tripod, painting mounted and shot on seamless black cloth background. Downloaded to Lightroom 5 with WB settings at either Automatic or Custom (shot at both settings with hardly any discernible differences).

After tweaking, adding color, fiddling with exposure, modifying color, saturation,and everything other thing I can think of, the artists still complain that an item from the painting isn't quite right...a flower is too blue, the sky is washed out, the wood on the table needs to be a deeper brown and the comments go on and on and on.

I personally think a digital camera under the proper set-up can very closely approximate a painting, but will never capture it with absolute, total accuracy.

With all the photographic expertise of men and women who's knowledge, experience and opinions I value here on Ugly Hedgehog can anyone shed any light on this problem (no pun intended)? Am I doing something wrong, or overlooking something I should be doing?

I've considered paying the exorbitant price for a color card kit, but have read that these are useless or else they are beneficial. Opinion split about 5o-50.

Thanks everyone for wading through this post.
I've been recruited by several artists to photogra... (show quote)


When I photographed oil paintingsI included a color checker outside the image so I could properly understand how to adjust my color balance. I also used a Polarizing filter to eliminate reflections from high spots in the canvas.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:54:58   #
GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan
 
Many post processing programs will modify the colors. Try the free trial of Capture One, that's the best I've found for what you are trying to do.

The artist should have the same calibrated monitor or nothing will ever truely match up.

With Capture One, I believe you can quickly pick up to 16 colors and each choice of those can be made to cover a wide range or narrow range, your choice again.

There are numerous free training lessons on YouTube. Check them out before downloading. See if you like it. Look into other post processing edit out there also if you want.

Remember that you must have something to compair with. Without that, it's a pot shot with anything you use.

Have the other artist right with you to make a final choice. They see differently than you do plus they might have different lighting when they look at it.

Recapping:
If they are that picky, observed in different lighted rooms will throw off the colors as well as if they don't have a calibrated monitor that matches yours.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 10:57:25   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
BigDJim wrote:
I've been recruited by several artists to photograph their paintings where said photos will be used to enter competitions or used to publicize their work. The problem: color accuracy.

I'm not convinced that a digital camera (Nikon 750) and quality fixed lens (50MM) under practically any circumstances can accurately capture the various colors, hues, shadings etc of an oil painting. Camera color set at Neutral, White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar incandescent lights--2 of them at 45 degree angles), aperture settings at midrange for maximum focusing accuracy, equipment on tripod, painting mounted and shot on seamless black cloth background. Downloaded to Lightroom 5 with WB settings at either Automatic or Custom (shot at both settings with hardly any discernible differences).

After tweaking, adding color, fiddling with exposure, modifying color, saturation,and everything other thing I can think of, the artists still complain that an item from the painting isn't quite right...a flower is too blue, the sky is washed out, the wood on the table needs to be a deeper brown and the comments go on and on and on.

I personally think a digital camera under the proper set-up can very closely approximate a painting, but will never capture it with absolute, total accuracy.

With all the photographic expertise of men and women who's knowledge, experience and opinions I value here on Ugly Hedgehog can anyone shed any light on this problem (no pun intended)? Am I doing something wrong, or overlooking something I should be doing?

I've considered paying the exorbitant price for a color card kit, but have read that these are useless or else they are beneficial. Opinion split about 5o-50.

Thanks everyone for wading through this post.
I've been recruited by several artists to photogra... (show quote)


I used to work at a museum. I did not personally shoot the Oil Paintings but I watched from time to time. I photographed 10,000 some Water Color Paintings, Pencil, Ink Pen, and the like art. Yes, photographing any painting can be tricky. This was all back in the film days. For color we used Professional versions of Ektachrome and occasionally Vericolor II or III for Color Negatives. The few times I've tried photographing paintings I own it can be maddening with even digital. I must agree cameras do not 100% reproduces all colors, tones, hues, etc., with the same accuracy. But you can get rather close with Ps or Lr or other processing programs.

Oh, you probably should only shoot art like this in RAW. And if you use Ps or the other right processor you may want to bump your bit level up from 16 to 32-bit mode (huge files though) PSD or TIFF, to get an exorbitant number of colors, unimaginable.

For an example of the craziness: I was once watching a classmate at an adult ed photo school try to photograph her own Paintings. She tried it with film, she tried it with digital. Nothing made her happy. Even that doing it herself did not work. The images never matched. Even I could see much of the inaccuracies. She obviously was really picky. Though, I must say from also watching her and seeing her results for over a couple months, her photographic skills were not very good. I am sure even now you could get better results. She did not really understand a lot of fundamental photography. And worse yet, she would not listen to advice.

You got a lot of good suggestions from other hoggers and you already know quite a bit. Good luck.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 11:34:17   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
lamiaceae wrote:
I used to work at a museum. I did not personally shoot the Oil Paintings but I watched from time to time. I photographed 10,000 some Water Color Paintings, Pencil, Ink Pen, and the like art. Yes, photographing any painting can be tricky. This was all back in the film days. For color we used Professional versions of Ektachrome and occasionally Vericolor II or III for Color Negatives. The few times I've tried photographing paintings I own it can be maddening with even digital. I must agree cameras do not 100% reproduces all colors, tones, hues, etc., with the same accuracy. But you can get rather close with Ps or Lr or other processing programs.

Oh, you probably should only shoot art like this in RAW. And if you use Ps or the other right processor you may want to bump your bit level up from 16 to 32-bit mode (huge files though) PSD or TIFF, to get an exorbitant number of colors, unimaginable.

For an example of the craziness: I was once watching a classmate at an adult ed photo school try to photograph her own Paintings. She tried it with film, she tried it with digital. Nothing made her happy. Even that doing it herself did not work. The images never matched. Even I could see much of the inaccuracies. She obviously was really picky. Though, I must say from also watching her and seeing her results for over a couple months, her photographic skills were not very good. I am sure even now you could get better results. She did not really understand a lot of fundamental photography. And worse yet, she would not listen to advice.

You got a lot of good suggestions from other hoggers and you already know quite a bit. Good luck.
I used to work at a museum. I did not personally ... (show quote)

A number of years ago, I shot oils and prints for a colleague who had an art sale business. That was in film days, but I have I have occasionally done more of this work since. My earliest work was on film, and I had no color darkroom, so there was no post processing opportunity.

I used two strobes, arranged as you describe, except that if the painting was on a really textured canvas, I'd bring the lights in toward the camera to avoid the 'mini-shadows' that could be created by the ridges of the canvas. The flash units offered two major advantages, brighter light allowed use of lower ISO, and I could never get good results in the blue/violet end even when using tungsten film properly balanced to the lights...there simply was not enough blue light to properly render the blues in the original. I always worked with him present, and he had input to what was done, even though he relied on my photographic expertise.

This is going to create a firestorm here, I know, but my suggestion is that since you are working with artists who are still living, I would encourage you to do everything you can to use your camera setup to get the exposure correct. You will need more saturation than what "Neutral" provides, and you will also want more sharpness (but not full scale. The painter has already done all of the post processing that he or she wants done, and absolutely does not want you doing any "tweaking" or adjustment to the image. Every eyedrop adjustment you make is going to create trouble for you, because your eye does not match that of the artist, and you are not going to be successful changing 'pieces' the way that you think they need to be changed.

So this really is a case for getting it right in the camera and saving it as a TIFF file. If you insist on doing this in raw, then your editing sessions are going to have to be with the artist sitting right beside you, just like what happens when I take files to be printed. Then you are likely to be in trouble again after printing unless your monitor is calibrated or adjusted to give matching results from your printer.

In short...you are now part of the artist's process, especially if they are using your prints to enter contests. It's not your process any longer. You are not working against your judgment, but against theirs. The only way that works is if they are present with you.

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 11:59:43   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
I do quite a bit of this kind of work in my commercial photography business. My clients for this work are artists, museums, galleries, art publications, collector and experts that evaluate and authenticate oil paintings.

To acheive accurate results you have to employ precise copying methods. Unless the lighting, exposure and reflectivity issues are under control, achieving good detail and color rendition could be difficult. I will attach a recent item I wrote about photographing artwork will glossy surfaces, however, the technique is exactly the same as to polarized light, CPL filter usage and plastic polarized screens on the lights. The cross-polarization method that is explained in the attached article will help in color reproduction in that it will cut through surface reflections and ensure good color saturation. Oftentimes varnishes that are apple to paintings can affect reproduction so it is important to mange this issue.

Before you start, you have to get all you ducks in line, otherwise it's like a cat chasing its tail. Your lighting, you can use electronic flash with modeling lamps or photographic type LED sources, must be of exactly the same color temperature. Set you white balance accordingly. Make certain that your monitor is calibrated so a Color Checker or similar kit is required. If that is not done, you have no standard of correctly judging color and density. When shooting, you should include a small a small color-bar with a 18% gray patch that can be placed in the frame- out of the field where it can be cropped out, to help obtain a proper color balance.

One fact that you should make your artist clients aware of is that 100% exact color reproduction is not always possible even under the best of circumstances with the best equipment. Fact is, the dyes and pigments in the paints and not EXACTLY the same as those in the in the inks or dyes in prints or in the physical makeup of a screen image. When adjusting the final color and density in post processing, the original should be on hand for color matching. A screen image is illuminated or trnas-illuminated and a paint is viewed by reflected light. The original should be viewed under color corrected light and perhaps a print should be made for comparison. If the artists are viewing you copies on their own screens, there is a good chance that they, he screens, are not calibrated.

I don't know what the final usage of you copies will be- making prints, lithographic reproductions, E-business, web sites etc.?
lens should be adequate unless you are experiencing a sharpness issue. Of course, this is also dependent on the size and usage of the copies.

Here's the "blog":

In my commercial business, I do quite a bit of art reproduction, some of which is of glossy, highly reflective pieces or paintings coated with very glossy varnishes. The only method that I have found practical and easily repeatable is CROSS POLARIZATION, that is, 2 LIGHTS ARE PLACED, EACH AT 45 DEGREES TO THE ARTWORK AND ARE BOTH FITTED WITH POLARIZATION GELS. A CPL filter is employed on the lens. Rotating the filter will visually indicate when all the unwanted reflections are eliminated. It is best to darken the room so the only the photographic ligh sources are turned on. I wear black clothing or trigger the camera remotely to make certain that ligh will not reflect from me and show up in the image.

You can not strictly depend on angle of incidence manipulations because the camer needs to be exactly centered and parallel to the artwork and the lights can not be shifted to where the do not cover the piece evenly. In pieces where you want to record surface textures or relief, you can go to interprivie copying techniques by moving the lights to slight more that 45 degrees, skimming the surface or by the use of only one light. The polarizati will still hod to minimize or negate bad reflections.

Make exposure readings from each corner of the artwork to make sure the lighting is even. A reading from the center my show a slightly elevated reading but that is normal and will not be problematic. Bracket your exposures.

I use electronic flas with modeling lamps so I can assess the polarization effect.

The polarizing gels need to be oriented in the same direction. The are usually supplied in cardboard frames with appropriate markings. This system also works with pictures behind glass, and those printed or painted on high gloss plastics, some metals (where the metal is entirely printed or painted over) and super-gloss photographic papers and printing materials.

The attached screenshots show my basic setup. The two paintings were coated with numerous layer or Damar varnish- almost like mirrors in certin light- the older painting also and some burnished and cracked areas on the surface. The polarization cut through it all.

The old diagram shows a view camera. The system works perfectly with a digital camera on a tripod. Just keep it centered, level, and parallel.

I hope this helps.









Reply
Apr 12, 2019 14:11:03   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
BigDJim wrote:
I've been recruited by several artists to photograph their paintings where said photos will be used to enter competitions or used to publicize their work. The problem: color accuracy.

I'm not convinced that a digital camera (Nikon 750) and quality fixed lens (50MM) under practically any circumstances can accurately capture the various colors, hues, shadings etc of an oil painting. Camera color set at Neutral, White balance set for proper light temps (3200 Kevlar incandescent lights--2 of them at 45 degree angles), aperture settings at midrange for maximum focusing accuracy, equipment on tripod, painting mounted and shot on seamless black cloth background. Downloaded to Lightroom 5 with WB settings at either Automatic or Custom (shot at both settings with hardly any discernible differences).

After tweaking, adding color, fiddling with exposure, modifying color, saturation,and everything other thing I can think of, the artists still complain that an item from the painting isn't quite right...a flower is too blue, the sky is washed out, the wood on the table needs to be a deeper brown and the comments go on and on and on.

I personally think a digital camera under the proper set-up can very closely approximate a painting, but will never capture it with absolute, total accuracy.

With all the photographic expertise of men and women who's knowledge, experience and opinions I value here on Ugly Hedgehog can anyone shed any light on this problem (no pun intended)? Am I doing something wrong, or overlooking something I should be doing?

I've considered paying the exorbitant price for a color card kit, but have read that these are useless or else they are beneficial. Opinion split about 5o-50.

Thanks everyone for wading through this post.
I've been recruited by several artists to photogra... (show quote)


You will never get an exact match with your approach. You need to use a ColorChecker Passport so at least your camera can be set up with a neutral profile. You'll also need a wide gamut display card and display Then the images must be postprocessed correctly. Having your display, printer/ink/paper properly profiled is important as well. And if color fidelity is critical, then an expert in art restoration and curating needs to be called in. I have a friend in L.A. that does this work, and she is considered in the top 5 in the world of art restoration and documentation.

Larry (imagemeister) is correct - gamut mismatches between devices will wreak havoc with color matching, which is why you profile everything to a known and widely accepted standard. If your camera is already profiled, and your display shows apples as purple, there is no point in making them look red. Leave them they way they are, because on someone else's device which is more in line with accurate color, the red apples will appear red.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 15:00:06   #
MDI Mainer
 
The real problem is that an artist will never be satisfied with the color rendition of ANY reproduction of their work -- be that print, slide, digital, etc. Nor are they ever satisfied with the color rendition of the actual work under different gallery lighting scenarios.

Since I have several in the family, I know this to be true from personal experience.

Plus, for digital, each display or monitor will reproduce the colors differently to some extent, and you have no control over what people will see.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 16:14:25   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
Ever since digital came out, I have used the following method for exhibition catalogs, proposals, museum records--and my own eyes which by now are verified as good:

1. Light the work evenly (many suggestions on google). I start with two flood lamps equidistant. Then, the big reveal: place the tip of a finger at center and edges of the painting--the shadows should be the same darkness. If not (bulbs wear out, mistakes are made), adjust the distances until they are the same.

2. Place a white sheet of paper parallel to the painting. (Taping it to the easel or other support keeps it on the same plane as the work.)

3. Shoot (I use Auto)

4. Use the grey dropper in "Curves" (PhotoShop) on the white paper. BOOM! Sometimes I have to adjust the curves to make the work slightly darker or lighter. Other programs may have similar, one stop, solutions.

Show your artist friends this graphic of color spaces. Human perception is way larger than RGB (monitor) and CMYK (print). Perfect reproduction is not going to happen. Good is easy.


(Download)

Reply
Page 1 of 4 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.