Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Photographing Artwork -- Canvas Texture  (Read 6674 times)
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2012, 07:26:21 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're finding the profiles too saturated or punchy with the Color Checker software, then the Adobe software may be more to your liking.  It also gives you the option of different preset curves, including linear, or using your own custom curve.  It's not the completely automated approach of XRite. 
Logged
framah
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1183



« Reply #21 on: October 12, 2012, 09:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Personally, i agree that your main problem here is the lighting.  With lights at too much of an angle to the surface, you will get raking light which over emphasizes the texture, creating hills and valleys, so to speak.
You might also want to consider continuous lighting instead of strobes.  Strobes are pretty harsh for lighting art.  You can't set strobes next to the camera and not expect to get hotspots where they have blown out the image.I use a set of Northlights and a Betterlight scanback for my art shooting and, yes you will get canvas weave showing but if the lights are set right, it won't over power the image on the canvas.

Even with having to sharpen the Betterlight file, I have never had a problem with the weave overpowering the image as you mention.

Every artist I have shot for likes the realism of the reproduction showing the weave as if it were the original... so, either your artist is a "weirdo" or your lights are too harsh and raking. As another poster said big softboxes right next to the camera should solve that problem.
Another reason for continuous lighting is that you can more easily determine where your hotspot of light (where the two light cones overlap) is on the art and adjust for it.

As for fall off of the light in the corners (as well as the hotspot), there is software out there that allows you to compensate for it. It's called Equalight. You shoot the art and then you shoot a white board of the same file size and run the files thru the software and it adjusts your art file so the lighting is even. Check it out.
Logged

"It took a  lifetime of suffering and personal sacrifice to develop my keen aesthetic sense."
darlingm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 12, 2012, 10:38:17 AM »
ReplyReply

. . .Hey, I thought lots of detail made for a great reproduction photograph.  Apparently not in the art reproduction world.  Smiley. . .

Like others, I print for a lot of artists and everyone has been thrilled with the detail in the image showing canvas texture.  I make a selling point from paper prints still appearing like they're on canvas, since the digital file has that texture in it.  Out of curiosity, do you know why she doesn't like it?  When I made my first canvas print, I was worried I'd have a "double-struck" canvas weave look, and anticipated needing to remove the canvas texture.  Turned out to be a non-issue, unless you're blowing up the image substantially.
Logged

Mike Westland Printworks
Fine Art Printing Amazing Artwork Reproduction Photography
http://www.westlandprintworks.com (734) 255-9761
NaturePhotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2012, 03:05:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks again for the responses, everyone.  I value this forum a lot, and learn something useful almost every time I'm here. 

The way I see it, I'd be surprised to see too many artists wanting reproductions past 1:1 size.  So if the reproduction has infinite detail and lighting was proper at the time of shooting, it should basically look just like the original.  That is, it should look like the painting whether viewing at 1 foot or 20 feet, including texture and anything else.

One more general question.  Do you clone out all the dust, hair, etc. in your files?  That was probably my biggest surprise, i.e. just how much lint is caught up in the surface of the painting.



Logged
darlingm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 347


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 12, 2012, 04:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks again for the responses, everyone.  I value this forum a lot, and learn something useful almost every time I'm here. 

The way I see it, I'd be surprised to see too many artists wanting reproductions past 1:1 size.  So if the reproduction has infinite detail and lighting was proper at the time of shooting, it should basically look just like the original.  That is, it should look like the painting whether viewing at 1 foot or 20 feet, including texture and anything else.

One more general question.  Do you clone out all the dust, hair, etc. in your files?  That was probably my biggest surprise, i.e. just how much lint is caught up in the surface of the painting.

I go through the file at 100%, removing everything stuck to the painting that shouldn't be there.  I do all of my work in a new layer(s), so it's easy to remove or redo.  I also, at the artist's option, do some minor touchup work as well, such as if they've creased the canvas against the stretcher bars a bit.  I use a combination of several techniques, including cloning.  Again, it's at the artist's option, but I often go for artist's intent, and will patch up painting defects as well, like if there's a stray dot of paint where it shouldn't be.

For really sturdy paintings, I occasionally spray air on them to help get stuff stuck on it off.  You have to make sure the air pressure is really low, so you don't risk damaging the painting.  I have a nice compressor with an attachment that lets me tone down the pressure it lets out, so it's like I was blowing hard on a piece, but it saves my breath.  You also have to make sure you have a clean air source.  Canned compressed air can occasionally spray out liquid, so I wouldn't risk that.  Some air compressors send out very moist air, and others are better about filtering moisture out.
Logged

Mike Westland Printworks
Fine Art Printing Amazing Artwork Reproduction Photography
http://www.westlandprintworks.com (734) 255-9761
elolaugesen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 192


« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2012, 04:17:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I will with the artist's agreement always remove small blemishes, dog hair etc. from the images before printing.
I very very rarely do anything to remove anything from the painting itself as you just never know exactly what the artist have used to create it and how they did it.  I have lived with a working artist for too many years
I once had to use a paint brush to recreate a black spot on a large sunflower painting that I framed after the photo shoot.
I called the artist and told her I had the black spot in my hand and she just said you know how to use a brush fix it!

the message here is...  get to know your client well?

cheers elo
Logged
Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2012, 01:44:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Art Repo'd a pano impressionistic landscape last year. Artist was shown to versions.
With full on detail, which did bring out the canvas texture more than you APPEAR to notice when looking at the original. You see in 3D when looking at the original after all and your focus is moving.
Next same detail but much less canvas showing. This was the preferred choice and sold well next to the original!! Well it was cheaper.


 All were printed on Hahnemuhle Bamboo which has a slight texture but is not canvas obviously (too much salt etc etc) and I played with moire filtering in my PP software to reduce any patterns like Dah Dahhh, canvas weave.

Works 4 me.

Regards 
Logged
NaturePhotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2012, 02:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Art Repo'd a pano impressionistic landscape last year. Artist was shown to versions.
With full on detail, which did bring out the canvas texture more than you APPEAR to notice when looking at the original. You see in 3D when looking at the original after all and your focus is moving.
Next same detail but much less canvas showing. This was the preferred choice and sold well next to the original!! Well it was cheaper.


 All were printed on Hahnemuhle Bamboo which has a slight texture but is not canvas obviously (too much salt etc etc) and I played with moire filtering in my PP software to reduce any patterns like Dah Dahhh, canvas weave.

Works 4 me.

Regards 

Hi Clearair,

Which PP software/moire filter would that be?

Thanks.
Logged
Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2012, 03:44:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

Sorry for delay. I use Aperture, so played with the settings and was pleasantly surprised.
Don't recall using PS at all or anything else.
Give it a whirl.

Regards all......
Logged
NaturePhotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2012, 04:21:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi

Sorry for delay. I use Aperture, so played with the settings and was pleasantly surprised.
Don't recall using PS at all or anything else.
Give it a whirl.

Regards all......
Thanks.  Unfortunately I don't have a Mac to give it a try.  I did try the moire filter in Capture One, but found it had absolutely no effect on texture.
Logged
Clearair
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


« Reply #30 on: October 17, 2012, 09:09:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I have no idea why it worked, if the pattern of the weave in the painting or something in Apertures way of dealing with moire.......??  Not had to try this since
but wanted you to give it a try just to see if it helps.

Regards
Logged
NaturePhotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #31 on: October 17, 2012, 10:24:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks.  The only tool I have with moire correction is Capture One.  I was hoping for similar results as you reported with Aperture, but found it had absolutely zero effect on texture, at any setting.  Clearly different software tools are going after moire correction in different ways.


Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 817



WWW
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2012, 10:59:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I've quite often, and successfully, used the Dust & Scratches option in PS to reduce the effect of visible canvas weave.  You have to play with the settings, especially the Threshold, to affect the weave but leave the painting as original as possible. The artists that I've done work for seem to love it - if they don't want the weave to show that is.  Some artists like the weave left in.
Shooting with a D800e, 85mm PC lens, two Photogenic strobes in umbrellas at approx. 45 degrees to painting.  Check all four corners and centre of the painting with handheld light meter to create even exposure, usually within 1/10th of a stop.  If there's lots of texture in the painting, I'll bump up the power on one light to create some dimension (soft shadows).
Logged

NaturePhotos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 23


« Reply #33 on: October 19, 2012, 03:18:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I've quite often, and successfully, used the Dust & Scratches option in PS to reduce the effect of visible canvas weave.  You have to play with the settings, especially the Threshold, to affect the weave but leave the painting as original as possible. The artists that I've done work for seem to love it - if they don't want the weave to show that is.  Some artists like the weave left in.
Shooting with a D800e, 85mm PC lens, two Photogenic strobes in umbrellas at approx. 45 degrees to painting.  Check all four corners and centre of the painting with handheld light meter to create even exposure, usually within 1/10th of a stop.  If there's lots of texture in the painting, I'll bump up the power on one light to create some dimension (soft shadows).

Mike,

Thanks.  That with a little large radius sharpening to bring back edge contrast seems to work pretty well on the image I'm playing with (bowl of large fruit against dark background).

Marc
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad