Hi everyone, Regarding Louis Dina’s post about reproducing the oil paintings… I have tried to do this using Alien Bees strobes, and eventually gave up in frustration. I use a very methodical technique for doing fine art photography that includes putting polarizing filters on the lamps, and also putting a polarizer on the lens. Then I make a profile, using the ColorChecker Passport and load that into Photoshop. It all works pretty well. BUT, the Alien Bees lamps do not have a clean enough color-rendering index to photograph fine art successfully. I tried the same set-up with my four Paul C. Buff Einstein lamps, and that did the trick, mostly. These strobes are much better for fine art, and they got me very, very close. There were still some colors that did not capture correctly. In a conversation I had with our friend Don Hutcheson, he suggested that I could solve the few small color problems I still have by using incandescent lamps. These incandescent lamps use tungsten filaments, and they have a continuous CRI, where almost any strobe lamp, even the Einsteins, will likely have small gaps in the CRI “curve” of the lamp’s output. I have now tried the same set-up with four incandescent lamps, and it works even better. The only problem is the heat. My polarizing filters nearly melt, the room gets very hot, and the room is uncomfortably warm. But I get much better color. Best wishes, Brian P. Lawler
On Sep 17, 2015, at 4:11 PM, Brian Lawler <brian@thelawlers.com> wrote:
I tried the same set-up with my four Paul C. Buff Einstein lamps, and that did the trick, mostly. These strobes are much better for fine art, and they got me very, very close. There were still some colors that did not capture correctly.
In a conversation I had with our friend Don Hutcheson, he suggested that I could solve the few small color problems I still have by using incandescent lamps.
These incandescent lamps use tungsten filaments, and they have a continuous CRI, where almost any strobe lamp, even the Einsteins, will likely have small gaps in the CRI “curve” of the lamp’s output.
Yes; the Einsteins are good, and hot lights are also very good. With a spectral camera model, you can compare the results you'll get from different illuminants before taking a picture. But, with a spectral camera model, you can also get good results even with really crappy lights. It won't be as good as what you'd get with good lights, of course, but it still might be better than is possible with an ACR-based workflow with good lights. I've done some tests with a compact fluorescent blacklight -- the party novelty kind -- with frighteningly good results -- almost, but not quite, good enough for paying customers. It's a great way to identify the flaws in your process...it showed me that I've got some problems with the far red end of the spectrum, and I know exactly why.... b&
From: Brian Lawler Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 16:11 To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: More on fine art reproduction
Hi everyone,
Regarding Louis Dina’s post about reproducing the oil paintings…
I have tried to do this using Alien Bees strobes, and eventually gave up in frustration.
I tried the same set-up with my four Paul C. Buff Einstein lamps, and that did the trick, mostly. These strobes are much better for fine art, and they got me very, very close. There were still some colors that did not capture correctly.
In a conversation I had with our friend Don Hutcheson, he suggested that I could solve the few small color problems I still have by using incandescent lamps.
These incandescent lamps use tungsten filaments, and they have a continuous CRI, where almost any strobe lamp, even the Einsteins, will likely have small gaps in the CRI “curve” of the lamp’s output.
Brian beat me to it. I've run into the same problems in the past with strobes. Elinchrome's worked well, AB's not so much. I found the best results using large soft boxes and tungsten lights. We did projects for two museums this way. Two Chimera mediums with hot lights. Shooting needed to be quick as the artwork couldn't withstand a hot room. If you go this route a trick with smaller artwork is to only use a single soft box for the lighting. Position at an angle and use a flag between the light and artwork to feather the light so it is even across the field. If you are shooting tethered, move a white (or gray card) around the frame and adjust the light and flag until everything reads within 1 L*. That said, Lou isn't seeing wildly inaccurate colors - contrast being the problem at hand. Light quality is likely a secondary issue. Ben's suggestions of eliminating reflected glare and checking with a mirror are right on. I suspect a shot of the mirror will show much unwanted light. As one of the constraints was using equipment at hand, we're working with the AB strobes. If you have softboxes or diffusers, I'd try them. Otherwise, see if mounting the lights at opposing 45 degree angles to the vertical and cross polarizing may help. Best of luck, Ethan
In addition to the previously stated, my 4x5 fine art repro days included a blend of specular directional (1/5 exposure) and cross polarized (4/5). This captured better brush stroke textures. Jon Sent from my iPhone On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Ethan Hansen <ehansen@drycreekphoto.com> wrote:
From: Brian Lawler Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 16:11 To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: More on fine art reproduction
Hi everyone,
Regarding Louis Dina’s post about reproducing the oil paintings…
I have tried to do this using Alien Bees strobes, and eventually gave up in frustration.
I tried the same set-up with my four Paul C. Buff Einstein lamps, and that did the trick, mostly. These strobes are much better for fine art, and they got me very, very close. There were still some colors that did not capture correctly.
In a conversation I had with our friend Don Hutcheson, he suggested that I could solve the few small color problems I still have by using incandescent lamps.
These incandescent lamps use tungsten filaments, and they have a continuous CRI, where almost any strobe lamp, even the Einsteins, will likely have small gaps in the CRI “curve” of the lamp’s output.
Brian beat me to it. I've run into the same problems in the past with strobes. Elinchrome's worked well, AB's not so much. I found the best results using large soft boxes and tungsten lights. We did projects for two museums this way. Two Chimera mediums with hot lights. Shooting needed to be quick as the artwork couldn't withstand a hot room.
If you go this route a trick with smaller artwork is to only use a single soft box for the lighting. Position at an angle and use a flag between the light and artwork to feather the light so it is even across the field. If you are shooting tethered, move a white (or gray card) around the frame and adjust the light and flag until everything reads within 1 L*.
That said, Lou isn't seeing wildly inaccurate colors - contrast being the problem at hand. Light quality is likely a secondary issue. Ben's suggestions of eliminating reflected glare and checking with a mirror are right on. I suspect a shot of the mirror will show much unwanted light.
As one of the constraints was using equipment at hand, we're working with the AB strobes. If you have softboxes or diffusers, I'd try them. Otherwise, see if mounting the lights at opposing 45 degree angles to the vertical and cross polarizing may help.
Best of luck, Ethan
_______________________________________________ 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/jonmeyer%40grafixgea...
This email sent to jonmeyer@grafixgear.com
I remember the good old days too. Of course now I do that with multiple Betterlight scans which are then layered in Photoshop. For a single painting it's sometimes necessary for there to be many scans in perfect register, all using different lighting techniques, which then wind up getting layered or used with apply image in various ways to make the final copy. For example, sometimes we get originals that have bad reflections requiring polarizers, but the originals might have gold leaf too, and then we might also need to pick up the texture of the paint and that means at least three scans and twice that if we need to even out the light perfectly which I always do. Add another three scans if there isn't enough light to compensate for the polarizers on a very large piece and noise thus becomes a factor. Then double everything if the original is very large and several scans need to get blended together. Human vision is a mentally produced composite image of multiple experiences as seen from many viewpoints and everything the mind knows about the painting goes into what we "see, but in copy photography we're forced to capture just one rendition, so I think it's fair to interpret the original to recreate the feel of it rather than just to release the shutter and accept what the lens captures. Of course we don't always have the budget to do it right, but it's helpful to know what it takes to do a perfect job because then we can explain to the customer why anything less must wind up with compromises. Every original is different too. Something so seemingly simple as making a copy is one of the most demanding things a person can do with photography and there is zero room for error if it's going to look just like the original when they're side by side. john castronovo techphoto -----Original Message----- From: Jon Meyer Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 8:50 PM To: Ethan Hansen Cc: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com ; Brian Lawler Subject: Re: More on fine art reproduction In addition to the previously stated, my 4x5 fine art repro days included a blend of specular directional (1/5 exposure) and cross polarized (4/5). This captured better brush stroke textures. Jon Sent from my iPhone On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:11 PM, Ethan Hansen <ehansen@drycreekphoto.com> wrote:
From: Brian Lawler Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2015 16:11 To: colorsync-users@lists.apple.com Subject: More on fine art reproduction
Hi everyone,
Regarding Louis Dina’s post about reproducing the oil paintings…
I have tried to do this using Alien Bees strobes, and eventually gave up in frustration.
I tried the same set-up with my four Paul C. Buff Einstein lamps, and that did the trick, mostly. These strobes are much better for fine art, and they got me very, very close. There were still some colors that did not capture correctly.
In a conversation I had with our friend Don Hutcheson, he suggested that I could solve the few small color problems I still have by using incandescent lamps.
These incandescent lamps use tungsten filaments, and they have a continuous CRI, where almost any strobe lamp, even the Einsteins, will likely have small gaps in the CRI “curve” of the lamp’s output.
Brian beat me to it. I've run into the same problems in the past with strobes. Elinchrome's worked well, AB's not so much. I found the best results using large soft boxes and tungsten lights. We did projects for two museums this way. Two Chimera mediums with hot lights. Shooting needed to be quick as the artwork couldn't withstand a hot room.
If you go this route a trick with smaller artwork is to only use a single soft box for the lighting. Position at an angle and use a flag between the light and artwork to feather the light so it is even across the field. If you are shooting tethered, move a white (or gray card) around the frame and adjust the light and flag until everything reads within 1 L*.
That said, Lou isn't seeing wildly inaccurate colors - contrast being the problem at hand. Light quality is likely a secondary issue. Ben's suggestions of eliminating reflected glare and checking with a mirror are right on. I suspect a shot of the mirror will show much unwanted light.
As one of the constraints was using equipment at hand, we're working with the AB strobes. If you have softboxes or diffusers, I'd try them. Otherwise, see if mounting the lights at opposing 45 degree angles to the vertical and cross polarizing may help.
Best of luck, Ethan
_______________________________________________ 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/jonmeyer%40grafixgea...
This email sent to jonmeyer@grafixgear.com
_______________________________________________ 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/jc%40technicalphoto.... This email sent to jc@technicalphoto.com
Other colorists have explained the problems with art reproduction, so I will not repeat all of them. The most important item when dealing with artists is to explain the limitations of the reproduction process and to set the correct level of expectations. I will explain how I handled this situation when asked to reproduce art. I would work with the artist and explain that it is impossible to reproduce the spectral reflection characteristics of oil paints or other pigments with inkjet pigments. Given this, the print, at best will only match the original in one ambient lighting environment. I would also explain the problems with lighting the original with respect to UV and fluorescence. I would then explain that I was going to produce a "rendering" of his original. I would adjust the reproduction to give the best rendering of the subject matter. Of course this is subjective and in the control of the print maker. When I did this with one artist, he said that he liked the colors in the rendering better than his original. It is all about setting the correct expectations. Ray Maxwell
participants (6)
-
Ben Goren
-
Brian Lawler
-
Ethan Hansen
-
John Castronovo
-
Jon Meyer
-
Ray Maxwell