Photographing very large flat artwork with flash or strobes?

[danonthehill]

I am an artist (painter). I want to photograph my paintings, which are usually very large from 6x8 to 14x8 feet. In the past I have used 2 800w red head lights set up at 45 degree angles to limit any reflections on the surface, with fairly poor results due to the uneven lighting. I have seen other people get good results using bounce flash. I have just bought a Canon 5d which I plan to use with my Contax Zeiss 50mm and 28mm and think it will be possible to get good results with these. I have some experience with photography, I have shot large format etc, however I have no experience of using flash. What is the best way to get an even light when photographing large flat art work like this. I really don't have much cash left so should I get a speedlight or a couple of cheap strobe lights? Would I need umberellas with strobes, how powerful would the speedlight need to be, could I get away with 430ex and what angle should I bounce it to limit reflections? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

[dxqcanada]

I was going to say have the flashes at 45 degrees ... one on either side ... shoot through a large white cloth hanging in front of flash; diffused light.

Though I could be wrong ... I've never shot any of my large canvas paints before.

 

[matfoster]

hello Dan. i am a artist also. i'm curious - your idea of using flash over daylight? is it due to the size of your pictures and/or limitations of natural light in a studio (?) ..could daylight simulation bulbs be another option?

 

[Dwig]

...What is the best way to get an even light when photographing large flat art work like this...

Two lights at roughly 45 degree angles from the art's surface (flatter if using a wider lens) and at least 3 times as far away from the center of the artwork as the diagonal measure of the piece. Its possible that using pairs of lights, two on each side spread apart parallel to the near side of the piece, will help. If the lighting is uneven then the lights are too close, period.

 

[danonthehill]

Thanks. The difficulty is also one of space it is difficult to have the lights at 45 degrees at the correct distance because of the limitations of the studio and size of the paintings. It looks like you are suggesting using a constant light source in the same method I have used previously, but because of the space the results have been poor, on the other hand I have had professional shots done in the same studio and the photographer was using a single bounce strobe off the ceiling. Natural light can also not be depended upon in this studio. I was wondering how powerful a strobe I would need, would 2 be better and at what angle I should bounce.

 

[epatsellis]

Dan,
what specifically are you trying to accomplish? photographing for documentation or portfolio purposes or reproduction? The requirements for the first are far less stringent than the latter.

 

[astrostu]

I don't know if this is feasible in your situation, but if you could get them outside or into a room that is very well-lit by sunlight (indirect), you can do this without any additional lights. I did this when I went through my parents' house to document all the artwork for both insurance and inheritance purposes - many of the paintings being over 10 ft (3 m) on each side - and most turned out very well without additional light because they have huge windows. Exceptions were where the paintings were glass-covered. An example is below of an Orlando, 10' tall by 12' wide, stretched canvas in no frame (some silver paint, which is why the overall photo is dark, so that the silver comes out).

 

[danonthehill]

Thanks. The images have to be suitable for reproduction in magazines etc. so have to be perfect.

 

[epatsellis]

In that case, you'd be far better to have the work done, depending on where you are, there should be somebody nearby who specializes in art repro work. Art repro is one of the most demanding aspects of photography, a good corollary would be just getting your driver's license and jumping into a Formula One racecar, after all, it's just a car, right?

There's 3 things working against you doing it yourself:
Lack of knowledge with regard to lighting principles
A non color-calibrated workflow
Inexperience with art repro requirements.

While you can learn certainly learn, by time you do you could pay to have it done. Ideally, somebody with a Betterlight scanback and experience with repro work. While some may scoff, sometimes there's no subsitute for lotsa pixels and the skill in lighting to accurately portray your work.

 

[kkamin]

In that case, you'd be far better to have the work done, depending on where you are, there should be somebody nearby who specializes in art repro work. Art repro is one of the most demanding aspects of photography, a good corollary would be just getting your driver's license and jumping into a Formula One racecar, after all, it's just a car, right?

There's 3 things working against you doing it yourself:
Lack of knowledge with regard to lighting principles
A non color-calibrated workflow
Inexperience with art repro requirements.

While you can learn certainly learn, by time you do you could pay to have it done. Ideally, somebody with a Betterlight scanback and experience with repro work. While some may scoff, sometimes there's no subsitute for lotsa pixels and the skill in lighting to accurately portray your work.

+1

You should hire someone. This isn't a DIY project. Just as much time you put into your paintings other people put into photography to get professional results. This type of work leaves no room for mistakes.

 

[Shane Anderson]

My wife is an artist and I am pondering the same question as the OP. The only difference in my case is that the main reason for capturing the artwork images is for archival and portfolio records, not for reproduction.

Our condo (where my wife works from) is relatively poorly lit. I have a D5000 and I'm looking for suggestions on how to improve lighting for taking photographs.

 

[skieur]

Standard approach is camera on a copy stand with two long fluorescent lights (diffuse, daylight colour temp.) on extendable "arms" at a 45 degree angle.

skieur

 

[kkamin]

Standard approach is camera on a copy stand with two long fluorescent lights (diffuse, daylight colour temp.) on extendable "arms" at a 45 degree angle.

skieur

Most people don't have a copy stand laying around or are prepared to buy one. You can hang your work on the wall on top of some black velour and shoot two soft light sources at the appropriate angle. It's the same thing.

But again, there are so many "gotchas" with this type of work, that you need to hire a photographer that is experienced with this type of work. The art work needs to be lit completely even (for me it's within a tenth of a f/stop or you will see noticeable color shifts). The camera needs to be completely centered or you will get keystoning. If there is any shiny surfaces on the paintings or glass, that changes the lighting set-up. If the painting has texture, that changes the lighting set-up. If the room has space limitations, that will change the lighting set-up. And as mentioned before, you need to know how to process the images to get accurate color. If you are not working from a calibrated monitor and have a color managed work flow, you might as well shoot the art with a disposable camera and make prints at the drug store.

I've probably shot 150 pieces of art in my life, it's not a lot, but it's enough to have made me cry inside a few times. It is very tedious and exacting work.

 

[JPooh]

the best results ive gotten is to place a white sheet several feet directly in front of the artwork and place the flash between the sheet and ur painting, have the flash face the white sheet and bounce the flash off of that. that should give you great even lighting... if you have the flash face the painting, regardless of the angle, it can be too harsh and ruin certain areas especially if your paintings have metallic paints

another light you can use and easier is if you use some form of continuous light diffused through a soft box of umbrella. use a dimmer on the bulb if you can

 

[kkamin]

the best results ive gotten is to place a white sheet several feet directly in front of the artwork and place the flash between the sheet and ur painting, have the flash face the white sheet and bounce the flash off of that. that should give you great even lighting

I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Completely. This is a great way to get glare on your paintings. The angle of incidence=the angle of reflectance. Imagine your painting is a mirror. If you can see the lights or the thing you are bouncing the light off of in the mirror, you are going to get reflected light in your lens.

if you have the flash face the painting, regardless of the angle, it can be too harsh and ruin certain areas especially if your paintings have metallic paints.
another light you can use and easier is if you use some form of continuous light diffused through a soft box of umbrella. use a dimmer on the bulb if you can

I disagree. You have the flash angled at the painting so that only diffuse light makes its way back to the camera and the reflected light doesn't. Again, imagine your painting is a mirror, you want to move your lights off to the sides so that you don't get the reflections of the light in your image.

There is no relationship between the brightness of the light and needing a dimmer to getting a good shot of artwork.