Lens for photographing fine art

[msr]

I'd like to ask you more experienced shooters which lens you would recommend for photographing some small, 6" x 5'', oil paintings. Low to non-distortion is a must.
Thanks

[Michael Hiles]

I once produced the pictures for a retrospective exhibition catalogue for a well known Canadian artist. Many of the originals were 7" x 10".

I used my 3-element elmar 90mm. I mounted it on my M2/visoflex III/bellows. This setup goes from infinity to 1:1 reproduction. The lens is outstanding, with a very flat field, no distortion. Speed was not an issue - I used flood lights with difusers on each side of the paintings, balanced for even light distribution. Since the lens is optimum at about f8, that is what I used consistently. It also allowed a little depth of field.

The reason for the 90mm was to get a little distance from the painting, and minimize any errors by being a little off verticle (there was actually no issue).

The publisher and artist were very pleased - they paid the bill, and the artist asked for some prints. And a informal portrait I made of him was used by the National Gallery of Canada for a later retrospective of the same artist. They must have been hard up - it is not a stunning portrait.

Best of luck - it is a fun exercise.

Cheers,

Michael

[luigi bertolotti]

Yes, reproducing art paintings is really a fun exercise: for my experience, light is the most important issue with oils : it depends on the tecnique used, but you risk a number of annoying small reflections : I sometimes used a plorazing filter, and used with attention can be of help. Regarding the lens... rather simple: you need sharpness and undistortion, that is why the 90 mm can be really a good solution: now, it depends on what you do have: me too, if i had to do such a work, would consider my 3 elements Elmar 90 head on Visoflex+bellows: at 8-11 is incredibly sharp for its age. Probably from the present lenses, and if you haven't the Viso/bellows gear, the Macro Elmar 90 could be the best choice.

[stnami]

And a informal portrait I made of him was used by the National Gallery of Canada for a later retrospective of the same artist. They must have been hard up - it is not a stunning portrait

.
I doubt if they were hard up as the retrospective was about the artist not the photographer

[Michael Hiles]

Originally Posted by stnami

.
I doubt if they were hard up as the retrospective was about the artist not the photographer

Quite right - they never did a retrospective of my stuff. Nor are they likely to.

[enboe]

Have you considered the 90mm Macro Elmar M? This is an often-overlooked lens that has always given me excellent results.

Eric

[butchhul]

For flat work, I use the 65 Elmar on a Viso III. A flat field lens, very sharp.

For lighting, a couple of Lowel TotaLites at about 6 feet away, 45 deg to the work, but aimed at each other. The spill lights the work very evenly, avoids glare. If the paint is very textured, move one of the lights slightly further away to enhance the paint.

Works very nicely,

have fun
Butch

[Shootist]

I think all are overlooking the 75 Cron. Especially since the OP is taking shots of 6"x 5" paintings. The close focusing of the 75 over all 90mm lenses just might be what is needed.

[Philinflash]

Originally Posted by luigi bertolotti

Yes, reproducing art paintings is really a fun exercise: for my experience, light is the most important issue with oils : it depends on the tecnique used, but you risk a number of annoying small reflections : I sometimes used a plorazing filter, and used with attention can be of help. ...

A polarizing filter will not help you with most artificial light sources. Furthermore, if you are taking the photos in a public place (like a museum), you will have no control over the light sources.

A better solution is to take three image captures from roughly the same distance; one from square straight-on, one from the left at about 75 degrees and one from the right at 75 degrees. Open each image file as a layer in PhotoShop and then align the layers, mask out unwanted reflections, and blend the layers. Usually, the reflections occur at different places on each layer so you can mask out the reflection (or erase it) only on one layer and still have 2 good layers left for blending.

This way, you don't have to worry about the inevitable reflections until you get back to your computer where you can deal with them. Reflections occur not just on glass; a uncovered oil painting can also kick back bright light reflections.

[cometsoft]

Originally Posted by Shootist

The close focusing of the 75 over all 90mm lenses just might be what is needed.

The magnification with the Macro Elmar is greater than the 75 Cron, even without the macro attachment.

[ChrisC]

Originally Posted by Philinflash

...... a uncovered oil painting can also kick back bright light reflections.

Which is why the poster will be doing the photography properly in controlled conditions, and he'll know about using polarising filters over his studio flash units to kill the light reflections from the oil paint.

................. Chris

[DaveB]

I've had some success using the 90mm APO for photographing large pastel drawings. Even under mixed lighting I can usually get a color balance that is very close to the original.

Despite the distance afforded by the 90mm lens the plane of focus will change across a 1m wide drawing. To compensate for the plane of focus and to minimize the slight parallax distortion I will often make a composite using 4-6 separate shots that I stitch in CS3 or something similar. The trick with that technique to take care to maintain camera and tripod strictly orthogonal to the surface of the artwork being photographed.

With a smaller piece of artwork I probably would be comfortable getting in closer with a lens I was confident in, say the 50mm.

[POKO]

Hi,

This doesn't really answer your question, but some have already started a discussion on lighting, so I thought I would add some experience.

I recently had to fly across the country to shoot some paintings. I just used a standard lens, the tricky part is getting the painting square and dealing with the colors/reflection.

You will need to double polarize - use linear polarizers, not circular. Put large polarizing gels over your lights and the cross polarize over the lens. (not sure if you have ever held two polarizers on top of each other, but they will black out at the point where they are cross polarized) Just mark the top of the filter/gell at this point and replicate once mounted on camera/light.
You will see a HUGE improvement in the quality of the reproduction.

Good luck.

Per

[Printmaker]

I have a PDF on how to professionally shoot paintings and print art reproductions. Anybody who is interested can drop me an email and I'll send it to you. I'm in a different time zone than most, so be patient.

printmaker@hawaiilink.net

Oh yeah, my lenses for shooting art are a 150 Rodenstock Apo Sironar S and a 210 Schnider Apo Clarion. Occasionally, I use a 60 Micro Nikkor. As far as Leica goes, a long time ago I would unscrew the front of my 50 Summicron and mount it on a bellows and then onto a visoflex. It would be a pain, but today I could use a 50 Summicron on a M8, but only for art over 20x24 inches.

Tom

[msr]

I'd like to thank everyone for their interesting feedback. I think that I will try the 90mm Macro Elmar M on my M8.

[Photoskeptic]

I have shot art for the purpose of making prints. The hardest thing for me was getting the color correct. You really need the original for PP. Good luck!

[Printmaker]

Originally Posted by Photoskeptic

I have shot art for the purpose of making prints. The hardest thing for me was getting the color correct. You really need the original for PP. Good luck!

Getting the color right requires profiling your camera and printer. Even then you might have to tweak a color or two. And there will be a few colors you will never be able to reproduce. But with a good setup and today's best 8 and 12 color printers, your results can be very good - light years ahead of 4 color offset.

Again, my PDF will get you 90% of the way to a perfect reproduction without custom profiles. With profiles you should be 95% accurate, which is close enough to please the vast majority of customers. In fact, very few can even see that last 5%.

Tom