How to photograph a watercolour painting

Brentor

Brentor

Messages
1,740
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
My daughter was given a watercolour painting this week from an artist who attended a regency ball my daughter was hosting.

The artist has asked for a good photograph of the painting in order to make prints. My daughter volunteered me to provide the photo. Thanks.

This is completely outside my comfort zone.

Google searches are helpful, the main message being to avoid flash and to light from each side.

The painting is approx 60x50 cm.

I have some small softboxes but no lights other than flashlights. Some suggest taking the photo outside to avoid the need for lights. I don’t mind buying budget lights if necessary.

Any help would be appreciated, including the best lens.
 
whyone said:
I am absolutely no expert, but I believe that the usual way to prepare a painting for a print run is to create a high quality scan?
Click to expand...
Thanks for the suggestion but I do not have a scanner that is large enough.
 
You can use flash and the softboxes will help, large window can work well too with a bounce reflector.

Camera needs to be square to the print and the softboxes need to be angled evenly from each side at around 45 degrees, close as possible without being in frame, this will give the softest light.

If you get reflections, the lights aren't soft enough (big enough) or their angled too tight to the camera.
 
Last edited:
If they are going to be making prints from your image, are you going to be using colour calibration to reproduce the painting during the process.
 
Last edited:
Brentor said:
Google searches are helpful, the main message being to avoid flash
Click to expand...
Very unhelpful advice, flash is the best option by far. The answer you got may have meant to say "Avoid direct flash, i.e. a flash fitted to a camera".
Continuous lighting will also do, but is very unlikely to reproduce all colours accurately, especially the warmer ones, reds, yellows and similar.
Brentor said:
and to light from each side.
Click to expand...
Correct. Most people find it easier to fix the artwork to a wall, easier to arrange the camera and lights that way than to put it on the floor and try to get square to it. Put a light each side, at an angle of ideally 45 degrees, straight not tilted in any way. Flashguns are usable, studio flash would be easier, make sure that each light is the same distance and at the same power setting.
As you only have small softboxes {which must be used) don't have them too close, or the light may not spread out enough. Getting them really close would produce softer light, but it doesn't seem to be practical if your softboxes are smaller than the subject, and soft light isn't necessarily ideal anyway, slightly harder light from further away will show the texture better.
Gav. said:
large window can work well too with a bounce reflector.
Click to expand...
In theory yes, in practice it's very difficult to control natural light, and even more difficult to get the angle right.
Gav. said:
As for lens aim for a focal length of around 85-100 if you can, and avoid wide lenses.
Click to expand...
That's very good advice

One more bit of advice - experiment, small changes of angle etc can make big differences
 
Garry Edwards said:
Very unhelpful advice, flash is the best option by far. The answer you got may have meant to say "Avoid direct flash, i.e. a flash fitted to a camera".
Continuous lighting will also do, but is very unlikely to reproduce all colours accurately, especially the warmer ones, reds, yellows and similar.

Correct. Most people find it easier to fix the artwork to a wall, easier to arrange the camera and lights that way than to put it on the floor and try to get square to it. Put a light each side, at an angle of ideally 45 degrees, straight not tilted in any way. Flashguns are usable, studio flash would be easier, make sure that each light is the same distance and at the same power setting.
As you only have small softboxes {which must be used) don't have them too close, or the light may not spread out enough. Getting them really close would produce softer light, but it doesn't seem to be practical if your softboxes are smaller than the subject, and soft light isn't necessarily ideal anyway, slightly harder light from further away will show the texture better.

In theory yes, in practice it's very difficult to control natural light, and even more difficult to get the angle right.

That's very good advice

One more bit of advice - experiment, small changes of angle etc can make big differences
Click to expand...
Very helpful as always.

Perhaps this is a good way to learn more about flash, a topic that I find intimidating.

The Google videos were not specific about on or off camera flash, they were all by the painters rather than photographers and all pointed to continuous LED lighting.

My soft boxes are larger than the painting. What is considered to be a large softbox?

If I’m brave I may even post the results. Even if they are garbage I should be able to learn from the feedback.
 
Brentor said:
My soft boxes are larger than the painting. What is considered to be a large softbox?

If I’m brave I may even post the results. Even if they are garbage I should be able to learn from the feedback.
Click to expand...
In that case, they're large enough. In this context, "large" means at least as large as the subject.

Yes, please post your results, WITH NO POST PROCESSING CARRIED OUT. That's how we learn.
 
Brentor said:
they were all by the painters rather than photographers and all pointed to continuous LED lighting.
Click to expand...

LED/constant lighting is cheap - unless you head down the path of proper (not consumer) Arri's Red et al.

Hence why artists are pointing at it. I'll let you work out the rest but the phrase 'good enough' will almost certainly (incorrectly) be applied.

My soft boxes are larger than the painting. What is considered to be a large softbox?
Click to expand...

One that's larger than its subject...
 
I had to photograph a few paintings in the past and eventually found photographing outside using overcast northern light worked for me. My cameras are all calibrated but I would have included a grey card in the sequence just to ensure I get accurate colour.

Dave
 
Short answer: NO.

Slightly longer answer:
Still no, look at the published specs, decide whether you believe their claim "CRI: 92+". Even if it's true, what it means is "Color rendition index is at least 92.
What should it be?
100. That's what we get with both daylight and flash.

What does it mean?
The light has a discontinuous colour spectrum, reds will photograph more orange than red, orange will photograph more yellow than orange, yellow will photograph more white than yellow. So, the colours shown in the painting will be wrong.

See https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/tutorials/led-lights-or-flash.152/
 
i have taken photos of my art [for printing ]and have Always taken my pics outdoors .Long as its not in direct bright sunlight nor on a cloudy day i get great results. I usually use an easel and stand back 6 feet or so. The main advantage of taking photos indoors is you can do it anytime not weather dependant
 
Dave Canon said:
I had to photograph a few paintings in the past and eventually found photographing outside using overcast northern light worked for me. My cameras are all calibrated but I would have included a grey card in the sequence just to ensure I get accurate colour.

Dave
Click to expand...

jonny pallisey said:
i have taken photos of my art [for printing ]and have Always taken my pics outdoors .Long as its not in direct bright sunlight nor on a cloudy day i get great results. I usually use an easel and stand back 6 feet or so. The main advantage of taking photos indoors is you can do it anytime not weather dependant
Click to expand...

I found out I only had one softbox and my daughter announced she wanted the photo ASAP so I took some shots outside. The artist was happy with the low res unprocessed photo, me less so.

I set up a stand in the conservatory this morning and tried to correctly align the tripod mounted camera with the painting. Using a 100mm lens I took several shots at f8 and f5.6 at iso 100 and used a remote release. They look fine but have yet to be processed.

I have ordered a pair of 90cm Neewer softboxes (too big?) so I’ll have a go at using flashguns in due course.
 
Brentor said:
(too big?)
Click to expand...
Bigger the better, provided you've got enough light output to use them effectively.

If you're using speedlites/flashguns, you may have a hotspot in larger softboxes due to the speedlite design, and I think any larger than 90cm you'll strungle with output.

Set the flash to widest zoom and drop the diffuser panel over the front to help scatter the light.
 
Last edited:
Brentor said:
I have ordered a pair of 90cm Neewer softboxes (too big?) so I’ll have a go at using flashguns in due course.
Click to expand...
As @Gav. has said, flashguns may not illuminate them evenly, but then this isn't a critical application, so if you follow his advice re zoom etc you'll be fine.

Neweer is a brand, not a make, they do make a few items but most are just re-brands, so quality can vary a lot and without actually seeing them I wouldn't like to guess about the quality.

May be a bit big, if the light is too soft then you can make them smaller by moving them further away - in effect, each time you double the distance, you'll halve the size. If the texture of the paper isn't visible then they're too close.
 
You may be right. All that I know is that I personally like the texture of the paper to show in my own very poor watercolours, basically I've just told the OP how to achieve this if he wants to.
 
Gav. said:
I wonder if the paper texture is needed in the photo if the prints may be reproduced on textured papers, Steve may need to check this? @Brentor
Click to expand...

I’ll ask the artist via my daughter. The painting has a light background and the texture is certainly visable from the photos I have taken so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top