Fwd: fine art reproduction questions
Fwd: fine art reproduction questions
- Subject: Fwd: fine art reproduction questions
- From: Mike Strickler <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 13:24:37 -0700
What does controlled lighting have to do with it? Well, you can add
fill, you can modify the source, making it broader, more diffuse.
This changes the luminance range. As for oil paintings, I've
photographed many, and the luminance range isn't any greater than a
glossy photographic print and generally less. If one is shooting 3-
dimensional objects one can control the lighting ratio and very
easily keep it within the dynamic range of the CCD, as you did for
years with film (or still do?). I thought this topic was about
photographing artwork. If it's about shooting outdoors, where the
luminance range is in quadruple digits ( a great topic of its own),
or even location architectural work (another great one), we should
change the subject line.
On May 2, 2010, at 12:56 PM, neil snape wrote:
on 2/05/10 21:28, Mike Strickler wrote :
Maybe I read too cursorily, but why the concern here with HDR? The
luminance range in studio work, where one can and does control
lighting, after all, does not tax the dynamic range of digital
cameras, which are quite wide compared with, say, transparency film,
which has been happily used in the studio for years. In
photographing
paintings the luminance range is also quite short, at most about
50:1
and usually much, much less. We're not talking about the proverbial
redwood forest on a sunny day...
Mike you may be right about a watercolour but the contrast ratio of
oil/acrylic paintings is a lot higher than that. It's not about
what the
painting is about but what you are using to capture.
Not sure I follow about the controlled lighting, how does that
change the
contrast ratio?
Copy lighting is usually set to 1/10th of an f stop, and visually
compared
for shadow density with a pencil for shadow strength and shape. OF
course
if you use a Cruse scanner the lights are already done, yet still
variable
for texture and reflections one of the great advantages of those
scanners.
Film was a lot harder to capture both ends of the extremities,
almost always
a lot was left to the scannerist to pull out. Yes digital cameras
have a lot
of info in them but the extremities are not always of a usable
quality.
Right again on HDR it is theoretically but also mathematically the
max you
can use but it is a way to do wonderful thing that Canon DSLRs are
not made
to do from a single capture.
We were talking about how to maximise potential with Canon Dslr , not
needed for paintings with a 50:1 contrast ratio!
Neil Snape
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden