Photographing paintings

Came across this while surfing

says...

I think it's very poorly written and will leave anyone intent on following the instructions asking more questions than the web page answers.

Just a couple of examples. No mention of what kind of bulbs to use in the floodlamps. Then there is mention of strobe flash - which obviates the need for floodlamps, IMO.

Then there is no mention of what kind of film one should use! A glaring oversight - pardon the pun.

As to the basic setup, there is no problem with it. I don't use polarizing filters and set the floodlamps at a 30 degree angle to the plane of the painting to eliminate glare. But polarizers are certainly a plus. I do use a polarizing filter on my camera lens. The film I use is specifically suited to the 'temperature' of the tungsten floodlamp bulbs I choose to use.

says...

Thanks for re-introducing this subject to the forum. I think this is a much more comprehensive and useful web site for those who are serious about photographing art works:

The reason you want to take the first two frames of your film with a grey scale and a color wheel or scale is to give the print developer a way to make the print accurate. This is only important if you use negative film to make prints of the photos. If you use slide film, the use of these scales would be important if you plant to have prints, for example in magazines or brochures, made later. But if you get the colors off in the original photo, no amount of adjustment by the printer will return the balance to normal. For

Isn't that the art of making wall paper paste look, in the photograph, more appetizing than the ice cream being advertised than it does in reality?

Many artists are using laptop computers to show samples of their paintings to a dealer. A cheep way of photographing your work is with a 35mm SLR reasonable colour film of your choice. Set your work up outside - north light - cloudy day - click - develop at your poor quality local store - then scan and process the image in your computer. Since you have the original painting you can reference it for colour adjustments. Set the colour monitor of your laptop with a reasonably good colour monitor display software - set up your presentation programme and off you go to a dealer .

You may wish to bring one under arm size original.

If you're going that route, why bother with film at all? Simply use a digital camera! That's how I do it nowadays. Much simpler than monkeying with film and all it entails. And digital cameras have come down so much in price and gone up so much in resolution that no one should be without one who has computer knowledge.

What I would like in the way of digital is to me expensive. Someday when the money ship comes in and my wife decides to give me a toy - who knows.

Expensive does NOT equate to better if all you're wanting to do is show the work to someone on a computer monitor. The only thing you gain from the more expensive cameras today is the ability to publish in printed form from the digital image, and for that you need the higher resolution cameras - and higher resolution equates to higher initial camera cost. I'm sure the more expensive cameras have better optics - but I challenge anyone to do any better than my 1.3meg camera does when talking in terms of computer imagery.

You have to remember too that if you're going to be putting images on a web site, and you need them to load quickly, you are going to end up squeezing the data file down to kilobytes from the megabyte capabilities of the camera.

and for whatever the reason - on a new camera and they have an old 35mm and a scanner then the process that I outlined will suffice. I am also one of those people who scan in highrez and resize downwards - that's my quirk.

It may not be efficient in your terms but I am comfortable with it.

As the old adage states, 'You can lead a horse to water but not make it drink.'

If you're unwilling to learn the advantages of direct digital over film cameras, then so be it. Far be it from me to waste time trying to convince you.