Photographing artwork will be necessary throughout your career: when you seek employment, commissions, grants, exhibits, or gallery representation. Or, perhaps you don't consider yourself a professional artist, but you are interested in learning more about photographing your newly acquired artworks, purely for enjoyment, for insurance purposes, etc.
Good photography of your artwork just might be as important as creating really good art! Why? In your lifetime, you will create a certain number of artworks, and have a certain number of shows. Unless you achieve a tremendous success, which, let's face it, happens to only a very small number of artists, only a rather limited number of people are likely to ever see your actual artworks. That is, compared to the number of potential people who might see photos of your art on the internet, or in various art magazines, or perhaps art history books someday.
Isn't it true that most of the famous artists you are familiar with, you actually know through slides, if you went to art school, or from art history books, etc. And more and more we are able to view each others art on the internet.
So it is becoming more and more clear to me that photography of art is extremely important, and a part of my own art process that I've neglected to a certain extent, even though I've made slides of my work for 30 years. The early slides tend to be so ... well, bad, that I have still not really been able to get them to a level where I can bear to put them on this website. And websites only show art at a very low resolution, so that tells you something.
Still, making good slides, photos, and digital pix is definitely something that can be learned. The learning curve is not too steep if you follow a few guidelines:
Shooting artwork under glass - we've all waited too long, on occasion!
In order to avoid reflections, 2-D work should not be photographed with glass or plexiglass. Trying to adjust the lighting to remove the reflections is not impossible, as I first said, in this essay. I consulted with my expert, Mark Bond, 3D technician at Texas Tech University, and former professional photographer. He's photographed a lotta art! And he's to thank for much of the information in this section. I must say, I have added some of it, from my own years of photographing art, but I did want to thank him for his awesome expertise. And I must get a picture of the amazing gas-fired kiln he built. Designed, welded and installed. It is taller than he is (6' 6") but I digress...
When shooting art already behind glass, the main problem is that the glass will tend to act like a mirror, which you already know. The trick is to minimize this effect. The means to do this are several:
1. Photograph at night, so that strong lights behind, from windows don't make reflections.
2. Use a backdrop - he suggested black, but he said white will work, too. I think that black is somewhat better as a light absorbing "color".
3. Wear dark clothing. Of course if the backdrop was white, you would wear white clothing.
4. Mark said he had a chrome tripod, which also acted as a mirror, so he had to tape it up, to stop that reflecting problem with it.
5. The lighting angles are important. They are covered more later in this essay, but basically start at a 45 degree angle.
6. Polarizing filters over the camera lens and lights. When used in conjunction, and turned to the proper angles, they will cut out 85% of reflections and glare. They can be purchased online from:
B & H Photo
If you can only implement some of these ideas...perhaps shooting at night in dark clothing with proper light angles will be enough to suit you. A lot of this will depend upon how much of a perfectionist you are. Many of the artists I've known rate rather high on that scale, including myself.
~ return to top ~
You have choices when it comes to a camera. If you already have a 35mm single lens reflex camera, you can make it happen. For years this was all I used, because digital cameras hadn't been invented. I still do use it for my art slides. A tripod and and cable release will preven blurred pictures. I don't have a cable release because my camera, a Pentax ZX-50, has a built-in timer. I love my camera! It is great for art slides, and was recommended by a fellow artist who had been using it successfully for his art slides. It was very economical, too. I paid under $400.
Film to use: It is important to use the correct film to match your light source! I can't stress this enough! Use 64 to 200 ASA Daylight slide film for outdoor shooting, and Ectachrome or Fugichrome Tungsten 64 ASA film for indoor shooting. The tungsten slide film must be used with special tungsten bulbs. They are available at the camera store where you buy the film. They aren't too expensive, usually about $5.00 per bulb, and you will need two to three. You might get other recommendations from professional photographers, but I have gotten some good results with these films.
Don't mix light sources. I can't stress this enough! If shooting at night, use the tungsten bulbs only with the tungsten film. And, If you are shooting outdoors, pick an area that is NOT in direct sunlight. Some people recommend a cloudy day, but I have found that this will turn the overall colors to a bluish cast. So I DON'T recommend it. I NEVER shoot art slides on a cloudy day, ever.
Backgrounds are important. In my
early years, I used black backgrounds, which you can see on my archive pages. I thought they really made the colors of my wall sculptures pop! They did. But now, years later, 20-20 hindsight has kicked in. I wish I had at least photographed them on a white or gray wall, too. But I didn't have clairvoyant sight. I didn't know that websites would exist, 15 years down the road. I would have had more options with lighter backgrounds. And, I didn't have a lot of coaching about how to photograph art so it was a rather difficult experience, especially at the beginning.
Using a patterned, or excessively textured background will detract from the artwork. Also, strong colors should probably be avoided. Of course, if you go to my abstract paintings page, you will find art with a background color changer, where you can change the background to many different colors. What is that all about?
I obviously don't agree with the Museum of Modern Art idea, started decades ago, that art "should" be displayed on white only. I don't think an art gallery is meant to mimic a hospital, with some sort of antiseptic wall qualities. But, I do think that it is easy to get carried away with wall decoration, and for me, "art uber alles." I do enjoy the color changer and seeing what happens to the art when placed on different colored walls, and I think art can often find its "home" on a wall that is NOT white.
But staying close to white, neutral colors is best for the most part, as my black background slide experiment will certainly attest. After all this discussion, I do think that white is best for making art slides for two reasons:
- Galleries and art jurors still want to see slides shown this way.
- If you are using slides for creating website art, it is much easier to process the artwork if the background is a flat color.
~ return to top ~
Best Results Indoors:
Use the tungsten film already mentioned, with 32K photoflood bulbs, that are designed to work with the film. The film comes in two "grades." One has to be refrigerated and the other doesn't seem to need it. But I keep all mine in the fridge until I use it. Be sure to check the expiration date. I've used film after expiration, though, and it seemed to work fine, but I'm not recommending this, because I've heard that it can lead to poor results.
The bulbs come in 250watt, or 500watt. The 250watt will probably be adequate for your needs. You will have to use somewhat long exposures with them. The bulbs have standard fittings, and will work with rather inexpensive light stands, available from
Dick Blick. I've made my own stands from clip on lights from Home Depot. The stands I made from 2 x 2s screwed together. The base can be more 2 x 2's or a round piece of plywood, etc. Whatever it takes...homemade stands can be built for under $10. They aren't really recommended for this type of lighting, and the tungsten lights get quite hot, so NEVER leave them on for too long. I can only recommend you use this method if you turn them off after you shoot each artwork. It's a good idea anyway, because the tungsten bulbs have a short lifespan of about 5 or 6 hours before they begin to lose their proper light spectrum. So turn them on after you have the art set up, and then off again once the art is shot.
The lights need to raised to the same height as your camera. Your camera, on the tripod, needs to be set to where the middle of its lens is at the same height as the middle of the painting on the wall. This is very important. Having the camera parallel, not pointing up or down, level and completely square to the artwork, not angling to the left or right towards the artwork at all, is very important. I hope this is clear.
I didn't understand this at all for the first several years of my art photography career. Of course it wasn't as important when I was creating very free-form wall sculptures. But once I started moving back to rectangles, it got quite important once again. The lens of the camera, whether it is a SLR or a digital camera, needs to be "square" to the picture, in every dimension. On the X and Y axis and the Z axix. If you don't understand this, email me, or meet me in the chatroom and I'll try to explain it better.
If you don't get these dimensions square, you wind up with a photo of your once rectangular painting, looking somewhat like a kite. More or less, depending upon how far from square you are with the camera. So unless you want to hang a tail on the photo and fly it out of the picture plane, keep this in mind.
~ return to top ~
You can come up with methods to make it easier to keep things square and true. My tripod, which is really not an expensive one, has a bubble on it, like a carpenter's level. which tells me if the camera is level. That keeps one dimension correct. Then I can use the viewfinder to align with the painting. If the painting isn't in the viewfinder bullseye, I know the painting isn't hung at the proper level. Of course, unless I'm feeling very lazy, I use a tape measure on the camera lens and the middle of the painting, to make sure. Also, I use a tape measure from the wall to the middle of the painting, to the lens, to make sure the side to side angles are 90 degrees. This can become tedious, but the results are worth it.
For the website, some of this warping can be corrected with the image processing software. I have Adobe Photoshop, the top dog of the industry. But I usually use PhotoImpact. I've been using it for years, and it's really a powerful program, and has many features designed with the webmaster in mind. In fact, my most recent copy I purched online, after doing some Google research. I purchased a copy that is one version "behind" the current version. That saved me a lot of money.
I am not suggesting to buy pirated software! I got a copy in a box, with the manual, etc. I don't believe in pirating software, music, etc. But you can find good deals on software if you are wiling to look online, and find a version behind the current one.
Both of these programs are awesome imaging software programs, and both will take a "keystoned" (warped) file and warp it back to a reasonable looking rectangle.
But, you may have heard the old adage: "Garbage in, garbage out." It's a computer adage, but old in computer years. If your photo, digital or slide quality is too lousy, even the powerful image programs can't save it, so it's good to do all you can to get them right up front.
~ return to top ~
I'm jumping back in my discussion to light arranging. For 2-D work, set one light on each side at a 45-degree angle, as previously mentioned. Begin with the lights at the same height as the camera. This may require adjustment. If you are getting glare, you can construct a simple reflector, by building two more simple wooden stands similar to the lighting stands previously described. Then, purchase two pieces of foamcore from the art supply store, size approx. 30 x 40 inches. Foam core is white foam material with plastcized paper on the surface. You will use it for cheap reflectors, held onto your stands with spring clamps, purchased from Home Depot, for about $5 or $6. They look like big metal clothes pins. I've used this method and it works. You position the lights to point out, actually facing away from the wall, toward the reflectors, and the light is bounced off the reflectors back onto the painting. It takes some adjusting and readjusting to get things right, and you have to always keep in mind the location of the camera. You can't have the camera "seeing" the light source. Of course you can rig up a small piece or two of foam core on either side of the camera lens to block this.
This method will make a really noticeable difference in the quality of your photographs, either slide or digital. Your eyes don't process images in the same way that film does. You will find that you have to practice to get the light even across an entire painting. It may take a "fill" light (or two for a really big artwork) set up behind you, pointing straight up. Experimentation will teach you a lot.
Once you get the lighting set up, you are to the "exposure setting" phase. Some people have a hand-held light meter (I do, but seldom use it unless I am painting the giant artworks). Also there is a thing called a gray card you can purchase at the camera store which might help you. I also have one of those, but don't use it all that often, anymore, either. But it can help sometimes, especially if your art is on either end of the light value scale, either dark or light. The grey card is a middle value grey which establishes an equal value exposure reading of various values of light and dark within the image. In my case, I tend to average out the values, colors, etc, so a grey card isn't all that necessary, but if you paint snow scenes, or traditional watercolors with a lot of white paper showing through, they can be difficult to meter, and a grey card is useful.
Also, you might consider purchasing a polarizing filter for your camera, which can cut down on glare from the lights even more. I don't personally own one, yet, but I have it on good report from Mark Bond, professional art photographer, that they are quite effective. To basically end the glare problem, get polarizing filters for the lights, too. They cost approx. $40 for a 19" x 20" sheet from
B & H Photo.
~ return to top ~
My Pentax camera has a rather good exposure meter, but it's not foolproof, and I doubt if any camera is, especially when photographing artwork. Thus, most artists rely on bracketing. You photograph the artwork at the "correct" exposure reading. Then you photograph at one f-stop above and one f-stop below. Some artists might go two above and two below, but I can't afford that, and my camera - film - experience combination is good enough that I don't need to. But I do HIGHLY SUGGEST BRACKETING.
It's not quite as important with the digital photography because you can use the image software to do the bracketing for you, but for slides you need to bracket. So, with a roll of 36 exposures, you will be able to photograph 12 artworks. Is this a lot of artworks for you to have ready, you say? It probably is for many artists.
Not to worry. I usually shoot more than one of each, so I will have some "dupes." Dupes aren't as cheap as they once were. And where I live now, I can't get them made in half a day, either. So I don't mind using a roll of film to shoot 4 works of art, to get three artworks photographed, with 2 dupes of each. Sometimes, I get a couple more of each that are acceptable to me, for some uses. They might not be the best quality for all purposes, but good enough for some uses. The very best slides go into my personal slide "registry."
And I send the best to galleries I'm hoping will be interested.
When it comes to digital photography, a lot of the information I've given is much the same. A few things are different and need to be mentioned, though.
Digital cameras come in various "megapixel" formats. As a general rule, the more megapixels the better. However, the computer screens now can really only display about 72 pixels per inch, so if you can only afford the new Kodak 5 to 6 megapixel camera with the Schneider lens, that may be a good choice. The camera I'm using now is definitely inferior to that Kodak ( or the 5 megapixel Pentax I have read reviews of online ). It is not really good enough to be considered art quality, and it shows on many of my web images. I've had to struggle to make many of my images acceptable for my website - being a semi-starving artist - I'm rather happy with my results. My camera is only 2.1 megapixel, but it does a rather good job with picture shooting. I've had more difficulties getting it to shoot art. It's really a point and shoot camera, basically. So, considering the camera I am able to afford now, I think I've been able to do rather well.
I believe some of the issues with my camera are that it is optimized for use as a picture-taker. I was outside in February, 2005 taking some pictures of the English building at Texas Tech University. It is a rather new building, and quite nice. I think the architecture is really excellent, and I enjoy passing by it every day. Again I digress...sorry. HAHAHA
The point is, my little digital took some rather decent photographs of that enormous building, and I began rethinking this whole issue of art photography with it. I may not come up with any better results than I have been, but I think that if I can find a way to shoot the art in more "normal" surroundings, I may get results I like better. I may be able to then crop away what I don't want, and add shadows back. I do that anyway with PhotoImpact. When the camera is forced to try to use its tiny algorithmic brain, and quite small microprocessor abilities to shoot art against a white wall - I think it is in territory in which it was not really "designed to shine." I believe I have made my point about that. Of course I need to actually try some experiments.
~ return to top ~
I'm not necessarily endorsing the Kodak, or Pentax or other camera. Many manufactures are producing fine digital cameras. If you are in a position to afford a digital camera with a "real" photo lens, and 4 megapixels or more, I have a hunch that it is likely to do a rather good job for you. Of course you need to check out the specific features. You can find good reviews of digital cameras online easily enough. But I would say that as a ball park "estimate" for a digital, those two "features" would be two to keep in mind!
Once I can afford a better digital camera, I will be able to take excellent web images, partly because I've really had to learn all I could about digital photography, and how to use the imaging software to make things work. I don't have much help from the camera, but as I said, I might have some new ideas.
As I have matured as an artist, so many times I have found that it has been my own maturation and growth as an artist that has made as much difference as has better tools. I wouldn't go so far as to say that better tools make no difference. Certainly I don't want to try to use some of the really sorry equipment I have had to use in the past. But...too much money, and too many tools can definitely dull the best tool an artist has going for him or herself!
The brain. You already know this, I'm sure. I may be saying this just so I can hear it, because I need to hear it over and over again. The brain, boss, the brain!
Again I have digressed, but the point is, even if you don't have a very good digital camera, I think you can still use it to make your web images. At least I have made the most of the camera I have. And now I'm thinking there could perhaps be more squeezed out of that $180 camera still!
Most digital cameras need to be adjusted to the type of light you are using (much like the traditional cameras). They usually call this "white balance" or something similar. The choices will be usually between daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, etc. Many of the new cameras have auto setting of "white balance."
And you will have an adjustment for image size. Keep in mind the 72 pixel display size for the website and the resolution you use on your website. I use 1024 x 768 res on my website. Using some simple math calculations, you can come up with some figures that will give you a good size to use for digital art photography, depending upon your needs and uses.
And finally, for my camera, and probably for many other digitals, I have a choice between center focus and "all-over" focus. Or "mult-point" focus. For some of my early art photos, I didn't quite "get" this, to my chagrin. the focusing for my "cheap" digital is all electronic, and in no way involves any sort of lens focusing. So when I really began to use my imaging software I began to notice that my choice of center focus had not really been a good one for artwork. Good for a portrait perhaps, but not my art. The software would enhance the pixels in the center of each digital images, sharpening them, and increasing the contrast. This did not do the artwork any favors.
Rather than attempt to reshoot 25 artworks, I tried to fix them with the image software. This proved to be rather difficult to do effectively. So some of my artworks need to be reshot, and eventually I will do it, when I have time. This may not be a problem for you with your camera, but it's something to check, before you shoot.
I know from talking to a number of artists that photographing artwork can be an anxiety producing part of their creative process. I believe a big reason for this anxiety is that many artists need more solid technical and practical knowledge. Therefore, this webpage will continue to grow and evolve as time passes.
