Lighting textured paintings ?

[MidnightUK]

I was asked at short notice to photograph artwork to a very fast deadline. The photos are done and delivered now, but I still would like advice.


The paintings

Paintings, photographed flat on a table surface.

The paintings were around 14" by 10"
The canvas about 1/2" deep
The canvas is mounted flat on a flat backing board (frame), but which is also around 1/2" deep, which extends beyond the painting by an inch or so all around, thereby making a 'step' between the 2 surfaces (canvas / backing board), then a 2nd 'step' to the table surface.
The overall depth of the complete artwork is broadly around 1"

Heavily textured (base of painting was smeared pollyfilla type stuff), so texture was from flat on canvas (lines of canvas showing through) to about 1/4 inch high mini mountains of the pollyfilla.
Lots of additional very shallow, very fine scratches added.

The problem

It was fairly easy to light to show texture in the higher rough areas. No issues with replicating paint colours etc.

The fine scratches were more difficult to light as they were very shallow, I could only get them to show up well if I had a studio light with a honeycomb on it skimming very low across the surface.
The low hard light created quite harsh shadows, which did not matter on the overall surface of the painting as the artist really liked that effect.

However the harsh light caused dark long shadows to carry on down the 2 'steps' and across the table surface.

I tried adding some very gentle fill light from the opposite side, to make the dark 'step' shadows less harsh and put just a little more light into the heavy texture shadows. What fill could be added was very small or I lost the scratches completely due to their shallowness. I also did not want to create double shadows by accident. I would have liked to experiment with gentle fill light from above the table but it was not physically possible where I was (the artists house, there were too many paintings to safely move elsewhere).

We are both really happy with how the painting surfaces were finally lit, other than the very dark shadows on the 'steps' and across the table surface.

Could I have cured/shortened or lightened the harsh stepped shadows with lighting while retaining the very fine scratch lines clearly? I had to mess about in post production in the end.
In a perfect world the artist wanted short lightish shadows down the 'steps'..

It was very frustrating as I felt I was missing the obvious. Hoping you folk will tell me what the obvious was, so I can slink away embarrassed - but at least able to do a better and less post processed job next time.

I cant post a sample image due to respect for her copyright, as her images & artwork will be going up for sale later this year.

 

[juggler]

I don't do much product photography, but have found photographing textured (oil) paintings the most difficult subject. Getting a balance between texture and specular highlights - without the highlights becoming intrusive - was a git.

I suspect that to remove the steps in a single exposure would need a very tightly focused spot like one of those Broncolor jobs with a lens and 4 independently adjustable shutters.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Honeycombed softbox on one side, set low (you will need to experiment) to reveal the coarse texture. One or more five degree honeycombs fitted to a standard reflector, pn the same side, and at just enough power, to reveal the texture in the fine detail.
And, whether you have enough space or not, you MUST have an overhead light, fitted to a boom arm, for fill.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I don't do much product photography, but have found photographing textured (oil) paintings the most difficult subject. Getting a balance between texture and specular highlights - without the highlights becoming intrusive - was a git.

I suspect that to remove the steps in a single exposure would need a very tightly focused spot like one of those Broncolor jobs with a lens and 4 independently adjustable shutters.

A focussing spot will replace the honeycombs that I suggested, but they are big and expensive and offer no benefits for this purpose. It's all about heighr, angle and the amount of delivered power.

 

[HoppyUK]

Two images, one lit for the painting and one for the frame, merged in Photoshop.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Two images, one lit for the painting and one for the frame, merged in Photoshop.

Yes, that's a good suggestion, but correct placement of tight honeycombs will not affect the lighting of the frame.
And (although not important in one-of-a-kind shots), it saves a lot of time to get the lighting almost perfect and just take a single shot.

 

[MidnightUK]

have found photographing textured (oil) paintings the most difficult subject.

I was lucky they were matt. The artist is a nice person and a friend otherwise I would not have done the photography, the time left to do the images and deliver them was way too tight. Moving gear there was a pain as it was an hours drive each way - was worried I would forget something vital!

 

[MidnightUK]

And, whether you have enough space or not, you MUST have an overhead light, fitted to a boom arm, for fill.

I think if I do this again I will try to get the paintings wall mounted or rather at least vertical. Difficult as she rents her space and is not allowed to bang stuff into the walls. It would however make getting a light directly 'above' as it were, easier.

I went Hoppys route at the time.

Thank you Garry and everyone, for some excellent info and kind help..

 

[sk66]

Honeycombed softbox on one side, set low (you will need to experiment) to reveal the coarse texture. One or more five degree honeycombs fitted to a standard reflector, pn the same side, and at just enough power, to reveal the texture in the fine detail.
And, whether you have enough space or not, you MUST have an overhead light, fitted to a boom arm, for fill.

I'm not sure I understand... two light sources from the same side might as well be one, except for differences in angle. And I don't see how that counters the hard shadows created by the frame.
IMO, any fill to kill the frame/step shadows will also kill the detail shadows... you can't have one w/o the other (in a single image).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong...

 

[HoppyUK]

I'm not sure I understand... two light sources from the same side might as well be one, except for differences in angle. And I don't see how that counters the hard shadows created by the frame.
IMO, any fill to kill the frame/step shadows will also kill the detail shadows... you can't have one w/o the other (in a single image).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong...

I read it the same as you Steven, and as I wrote above about the possibility of compositing two images I was thinking about a video I saw the other day that I imagine might horrify traditional studio photographers in the way that pure photographic skills have not just been supplemented by digital post-processing skills, but almost supplanted by advanced 'digital art' (at least where static product photography is concerned).

This is the video, a classic shot of a bottle, where the photographic side is fairly rudimentary, not requiring much in the way of technical skills or expensive equipment. But in Photoshop, the 'photographer' is seriously talented, both technically and artistically, combining and blending dozens of images I found it exciting (because the result is amazing) and at the same time rather scary (because it's way beyond my post-processing ability) but I'd like to give it a go

https://fstoppers.com/product/hero-shot-how-light-and-composite-product-photography

 

[Garry Edwards]

S

I'm not sure I understand... two light sources from the same side might as well be one, except for differences in angle. And I don't see how that counters the hard shadows created by the frame.
IMO, any fill to kill the frame/step shadows will also kill the detail shadows... you can't have one w/o the other (in a single image).

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong...

Sorry, only have a phone with me, so brevity triumphed over detail
Softbox with honeycomb shows the "big texture" and fine honeycombs on standard reflector shows the "small texture.
Overhead softbox provides fill, it will only kill the detail if it's too bright.
Just as a rough guide, assuming correct angles, REFLECTED meter measurements need to be around f/16 for key light (Honeycombed softbox), f/8 for each effect light (Honeycombed standard reflector) and roughly f/6.3 for fill light.

 

[Garry Edwards]

I read it the same as you Steven, and as I wrote above about the possibility of compositing two images I was thinking about a video I saw the other day that I imagine might horrify traditional studio photographers in the way that pure photographic skills have not just been supplemented by digital post-processing skills, but almost supplanted by advanced 'digital art' (at least where static product photography is concerned).

This is the video, a classic shot of a bottle, where the photographic side is fairly rudimentary, not requiring much in the way of technical skills or expensive equipment. But in Photoshop, the 'photographer' is seriously talented, both technically and artistically, combining and blending dozens of images I found it exciting (because the result is amazing) and at the same time rather scary (because it's way beyond my post-processing ability) but I'd like to give it a go

https://fstoppers.com/product/hero-shot-how-light-and-composite-product-photography

I'll watch that when I get home and have a proper computer, but yes, this is where imaging is now going. It's fine as an art form, but where multiple images are concerned it's impossibly expensive for production work.
Having said that, computer rendering has now largely made product photographers unnecessary because it produces a standard of quality and consistency that's beyond most self taught photographers who are more focused on the equipment than on the physics

 

[sk66]

I was thinking about a video I saw the other day that I imagine might horrify traditional studio photographers in the way that pure photographic skills have not just been supplemented by digital post-processing skills, but almost supplanted by advanced 'digital art' (at least where static product photography is concerned).

That video went to a whole new level of "sloppiness" for me... but it does make a strong point.
I was thinking that I have never seen a how-to-video that shows cutting out a silhouette in the BG for back lighting a bottle/glass. It's a bit of a tedious process that delivers great results, but no one does it anymore. I guess there is a reason for that...

It's fine as an art form, but where multiple images are concerned it's impossibly expensive for production work.

As my editing skills/speed improve, I'm not so sure of this.
When it comes to creating very refined product images one can spend many hours setting up/refining the lighting trying to get everything just right in camera. And often there is still something that would be just a bit better (or a lot) if it was lit separately. I've wound up with large setups with so many lights/modifiers/flags/reflectors that there is almost no place for the camera/lens... That video shows the complete opposite, and the total time invested may well have been less than it would have taken me to do in camera.
(maybe this doesn't describe "production work")

But for me, I still enjoy the lighting/photography challenges more than the editing challenges/tedium.

 

[juggler]

That video went to a whole new level of "sloppiness" for me... but it does make a strong point.
I was thinking that I have never seen a how-to-video that shows cutting out a silhouette in the BG for back lighting a bottle/glass. It's a bit of a tedious process that delivers great results, but no one does it anymore. I guess there is a reason for that...

I've seen Karl Taylor & Photigy videos which do exactly that.

 

[Garry Edwards]

That video went to a whole new level of "sloppiness" for me... but it does make a strong point.
I was thinking that I have never seen a how-to-video that shows cutting out a silhouette in the BG for back lighting a bottle/glass. It's a bit of a tedious process that delivers great results, but no one does it anymore. I guess there is a reason for that...

As my editing skills/speed improve, I'm not so sure of this.
When it comes to creating very refined product images one can spend many hours setting up/refining the lighting trying to get everything just right in camera. And often there is still something that would be just a bit better (or a lot) if it was lit separately. I've wound up with large setups with so many lights/modifiers/flags/reflectors that there is almost no place for the camera/lens... That video shows the complete opposite, and the total time invested may well have been less than it would have taken me to do in camera.
(maybe this doesn't describe "production work")

But for me, I still enjoy the lighting/photography challenges more than the editing challenges/tedium.

Done well, it's nearly always quicker, cheaper and better to do everything possible in camera, leaving PP only for the final touches.
IMO the only reasons why so many photographers use a computer to the extent that they do is that it's the only way they know, and the only reason why clients use them so much, and have also moved to computer rendering, is the shortage of suitable photographers.

 

[HoppyUK]

Done well, it's nearly always quicker, cheaper and better to do everything possible in camera, leaving PP only for the final touches.
IMO the only reasons why so many photographers use a computer to the extent that they do is that it's the only way they know, and the only reason why clients use them so much, and have also moved to computer rendering, is the shortage of suitable photographers.

Not sure I agree with that Garry, but I only know the conventional in-camera way and have yet to give this compositing technique a serious try.

There are lots of videos around showing how it all works. It's a great method for architecture and high-end real estate photography and can produce not only highly controlled results that are very difficult to achieve as one shot in-camera, but can also do things that are literally impossible any other way - and they and can look spectacular. Here's one article, and the video linked at the top of the page is a good taster.
https://fstoppers.com/product/mike-kelleys-where-art-meets-architecture-1

The major drawback of course is it's restricted to static subjects, though I'm beginning to wonder about that. In location portraiture for example which is something I enjoy, there might typically be three or maybe four different lighting 'zones' including the subject. So you've got to get the main subject done in one, but often the other two/three zones are static and might lend themselves to compositing?

 

[sk66]

In location portraiture for example which is something I enjoy, there might typically be three or maybe four different lighting 'zones' including the subject. So you've got to get the main subject done in one, but often the other two/three zones are static and might lend themselves to compositing?

I've seen where larger groups are lit in smaller segments simulating a MUCH larger modifier (i.e. overhead/clamshell). It also allows you to get more ideal poses from the entire group rather than hoping they all look their best at the same time.
And there is a whole lot of compositing BGs/settings being done... many do it rather poorly, but some generate very good results. Sometimes, the results are "too good" to be really believable; but IMO that doesn't make the results less impressive.

I do think it's moving away from photography as a technical skill and more towards "digital art." For me that kind of sucks as I'm more of a technician than a talented artist. But as far as "photographic art" goes, I can't really fault it... the "art" part has always been more important IMO.

 

[Denyerec]

Re: the original post: Large sheets of polarising film, cross polarised with the camera. It's commonly done with insect macro (Because pola film isn't cheap) but if you don't want speculars in your studio, that's a foolproof (if somewhat pricey) approach.

 

[HoppyUK]

Re: the original post: Large sheets of polarising film, cross polarised with the camera. It's commonly done with insect macro (Because pola film isn't cheap) but if you don't want speculars in your studio, that's a foolproof (if somewhat pricey) approach.

That's a very good way of killing all reflections off shiny textured artwork like oil paintings - often the only way TBH

 

[Garry Edwards]

I read it the same as you Steven, and as I wrote above about the possibility of compositing two images I was thinking about a video I saw the other day that I imagine might horrify traditional studio photographers in the way that pure photographic skills have not just been supplemented by digital post-processing skills, but almost supplanted by advanced 'digital art' (at least where static product photography is concerned).

This is the video, a classic shot of a bottle, where the photographic side is fairly rudimentary, not requiring much in the way of technical skills or expensive equipment. But in Photoshop, the 'photographer' is seriously talented, both technically and artistically, combining and blending dozens of images I found it exciting (because the result is amazing) and at the same time rather scary (because it's way beyond my post-processing ability) but I'd like to give it a go

https://fstoppers.com/product/hero-shot-how-light-and-composite-product-photography

· OK, so I’ve now watched the video and it’s interesting.

· The first thing that grabbed me was that the whole thing was essentially just a puff piece for a USD299 digital download, and that it showed no actual detail of how it was done. Nothing new there.

· And the second thing was the conflict between his statement that cheap continuous lights are perfect because of the WYSIWYG effect, but the rest of the time he used very expensive Profoto flashes instead

· And the third thing, as expected, was that regardless of the type of lighting used, there was zero lighting control – light everywhere, leaving even simple, basic jobs to be corrected later.

Don’t misunderstand me, I use PP on every shot, because every shot that I take can be dramatically improved with a couple of minutes of PP. Using today’s modern, fast computers and excellent software, we can now achieve results that were literally impossible when I started out in photography, and that’s a massive improvement.

To those who say that PS is just a modern way of replicating results that were once achieved in the darkroom, that’s just plain wrong. Highly skilled printers could, to some extent, dodge, burn, distort etc but their tools were limited, and the photographer needed to stand next to them, explaining the exact effect needed, and when the printer had finished a retoucher had finish off the print, and as every single print was unique, the only way of replicating the result was to photograph the finished print, leading, inevitably, to some loss of quality.

So, I stick by my assertion that PS should be used to turn good shots into outstanding ones, not to rescue bad ones.

It comes down to the skill level of the individual, and to what s/he is capable of achieving via camera and lighting work. I saw a good (if worrying) example of this on my way home from the farm today, I’d pulled into a petrol station that had parking. An elderly lady was parked next bay but one to me, I had had to stop for 15 minutes (diabetic driving rules) and watched her sitting in her car for several minutes. Eventually, the car parked between our vehicles moved out, she now had enough space to reverse out a 44 tonne lorry, but after several pathetic attempts to reverse out her Micra, she had to ask me for help. Once she was gone it was time for me to go, and I reversed out my much larger 4x4, complete with a 5.9m trailer, in one easy movement. Now, she will have exactly the same driving qualification that I have and given her age, no doubt she has a trailer licence too - but she’s hopeless! The only reason that I can reverse trailers is that I do a lot of it, in very restricted spaces.

At least she will, at some point, have passed a driving test, which proves that she met the minimum standard. But photographers don’t have to pass any kind of test, and the only real difference between (some) professional photographers and absolute beginners, is that the professionals charge for their work… This situation has never changed, but the difference today is that any photographer can do most or even all of the work on their computer, avoiding both camera and lighting tradecraft.

Clients don’t care how the shot was done, but they do care about the cost and extensive, unnecessary computer work either leaves the photographer without profit or without clients, so really does need to be kept within reasonable bounds.

And there’s another thing too, it’s called honesty. Honesty isn’t just about ethics, it’s about being believable and earning the trust of the consumer. Everyone now knows what can be done on computer and when a shot is so overdone on computer that it looks fake, consumers may assume that it’s just about a badly designed, badly made product that’s been tarted up on computer to look good and to deceive them into buying it, and they don’t like being deceived. And, with online sales now massively dominating, they are very likely to send it back when it doesn’t look anywhere near as good as the photos show it.

There is however, one notable exception to this – FMCG. Fast moving consumer goods such as McDonalds burgers do need to be tarted up during the photography process, but it’s accepted by just about everyone that what they actually buy won’t look as good as those backlit photos on the walls, and anyway they can always hand it straight back if they’re not happy – very different to internet sales.

For some types of shot, computer trickery can be brilliant. I watched a guy put in his crappy mobile phone photos of the top, bottom, front, sides of a product into a programme that created 360 shots that were essentially a video, and which allowed still photos of every single elevation and angle to be produced. As software gets better and better, actual photography of products will diminish and perhaps disappear entirely but my view is that for now, product photographers need to improve their camera and especially their lighting skills, so that they can offer something that other photographers can’t, short of spending countless hours on computer for each individual product.

Not sure I agree with that Garry, but I only know the conventional in-camera way and have yet to give this compositing technique a serious try.

There are lots of videos around showing how it all works. It's a great method for architecture and high-end real estate photography and can produce not only highly controlled results that are very difficult to achieve as one shot in-camera, but can also do things that are literally impossible any other way - and they and can look spectacular. Here's one article, and the video linked at the top of the page is a good taster.
https://fstoppers.com/product/mike-kelleys-where-art-meets-architecture-1

The major drawback of course is it's restricted to static subjects, though I'm beginning to wonder about that. In location portraiture for example which is something I enjoy, there might typically be three or maybe four different lighting 'zones' including the subject. So you've got to get the main subject done in one, but often the other two/three zones are static and might lend themselves to compositing?

Yes, works well with architecture.

 

[sk66]

Re: the original post: Large sheets of polarising film, cross polarised with the camera. It's commonly done with insect macro (Because pola film isn't cheap) but if you don't want speculars in your studio, that's a foolproof (if somewhat pricey) approach.

That's the opposite issue from what the OP was describing/wanting...

 

[Denyerec]

That's the opposite issue from what the OP was describing/wanting...

Quite right, that'll teach me to reply on 3 hours sleep!