Subject: I suspect the original art pigments along with the 1Ds Mark
Need advice and help. I will start with what I am using: EOS 1Ds MK II; UV coated tubes in two White Lighting, Ultra 1800's; polarizing filters on lights and camera lens;......... Here are a few thoughts that may help; 1) I'd not reccomend using strobes to capture any artwork ever. It can adn does make ceratin pigments flouresce. This can be intensified through the use of polarizing filters. 2) The camera you are using is not ideal for capturing art work. Reccoemnd a scan back such as Phase One or Better light with a custom profile. 3) Color could be out of gamut. Robert
I'll respectfully disagree regarding strobe use when photographing artwork. The fluorescence problem is easily eliminated by using a UV-absorbing flash tube cover on the strobes (a necessary piece in any case, least an exploding flash tube damage artwork). Using continuous light sources can expose sensitive artwork to too much light, and in the museum world strobes are much preferred for this reason. Also-- some fluorescent tubes have a pretty low Color Rendering Index-- making accurate color capture more problematic-- a problem that can be avoided by carefully choosing your tubes. Stanley Smith Head of Collection Information and Access J. Paul Getty Museum 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687 (310) 440-7286
On 5/9/2012 at 03:24 PM, in message <4FAAEE96.60206@BullivantGallery.com>, Robert Bullivant <Robert@BullivantGallery.com> wrote:
Need advice and help. I will start with what I am using: EOS 1Ds MK II; UV coated tubes in two White Lighting, Ultra 1800's; polarizing filters on lights and camera lens;......... Here are a few thoughts that may help; 1) I'd not reccomend using strobes to capture any artwork ever. It can adn does make ceratin pigments flouresce. This can be intensified through the use of polarizing filters. 2) The camera you are using is not ideal for capturing art work. Reccoemnd a scan back such as Phase One or Better light with a custom profile. 3) Color could be out of gamut. Robert _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ssmith%40getty.edu This email sent to ssmith@getty.edu
Hello Robert: Yes, scan backs for large format cameras are not compatible with flash units for illuminate art work. I understand the use of continous light source in your workflow. Sadly cameras with CFA sensor are more affordable than large format cameras and scan backs that fit them. And don't mention the wide affordable options in 35mm lens. Large format cameras are premier league. The institution owns a Sinar and can't migrate to digital due to crisis and expensive scan backs or medium format CFA backs. The problem with fluorescent tubes or LED lamps is that are simulators of the spectral power distribution of white (sun) light, and both show pikes. Strobes are better aproach. And can be considered as an opinion, but is demonstrable with a plot of Robin Myers's Spectrashop. Someone in this list commented that simple glass is UV cut, but only can mention his afirmation because haven't more data. Would be usefull. On the other hand the emision in the UV band is common in sun light too, and termal fluctuations can even change the response of calibration tiles, so we have to learn to coexist in this way. The next approach going to test is to work with "standard" high quality gallery light source of exhibition hall at institution. In some circles mention that is better to capture under (and/or simulate) exhbition conditions for the average human eyes. Jose Bueno
participants (3)
-
José Ángel Bueno García
-
Robert Bullivant
-
Stanley Smith