Cross-polarized light setup for photographing artwork

[D Fosse]

Apparently physics differs from one studio to the next.

If you look at my three examples above (and open each in new tab to easily compare) - you'll see that the polarizer does have some effect behind the umbrellas. It's effectively mid-way between the other two.

But I agree with Jason that the polarizer should be the very last thing the light passes through. All of this makes perfect logical sense to me.

[Jason DiMichele]

Hi Jay

Good info all! After sending that last one I also discovered the D1 1K units. They look like they are more in our price range.

I was wondering about hotspotting with the strip boxes. I was looking more seriously at the 1x6 based on your polarizer width concerns. Will the D1 adequately fill a box this long?

I've done some more reading tonight on lighting in general and this system looks like one which will serve our needs.

Where have you been getting your polarizer material?

Thanks

Feel free to email me as I think I've enabled that option.

Jim

Hi Jim,

I'll post this here in case someone finds the information useful but I will drop you an email as well so that you have my email address.

The D1 will handle most soft boxes you can throw at it with ease. I use the 500s and my 3x4' soft boxes are completely fine.  When you get to really huge soft boxes you may want to consider the Profoto glass domes you can attach which spreads the light out more. I will suggest though that you may not get any more real benefit out of a 6' long soft box than a 4' for art reproduction. It may come in handy if you want to do some people photography though.

I get my polarization material from polarization.com. It's the linear polarization film by the foot product.

Cheers!

[jtmiller]

Jay

Our most difficult works are the big ones which are 4ft wide by 6ft tall. For logistical reasons we need to shoot these as they stand on the easel in the studio where they are created and as they are hung. That was the reason for looking at the 6ft long softboxes. OTOH, I think the light should spread from something 4ft tall at any reasonable distance to give satisfactory coverage.

Is that your experience as well? Do you just use the 1x4 softboxes with the 17" material or do you use a wider box and wider polarizer material as well?

I ran some numbers this morning based on average retouch times for these big ones and the payback for the new lighting would be under a year. It's a no brainer if it works!

Thanks

Jim

[Jason DiMichele]

Is that your experience as well? Do you just use the 1x4 softboxes with the 17" material or do you use a wider box and wider polarizer material as well?

I ran some numbers this morning based on average retouch times for these big ones and the payback for the new lighting would be under a year. It's a no brainer if it works!

Thanks

Jim

Hi Jim,

The 4' box would definitely send light at least at 6' height range without having to be that far from the art. So you'll be good there. Also depending on where you will set the soft boxes up, the 4' strips will allow you to angle them more or position them in lower ceiling environments.

As far as I can tell the polarizing film only comes in 17" widths. There might be wider stuff out there (haven't found any yet) and you may be able to tape the pieces of film together (which I also haven't tried). I don't think using a piece of joining tape would impact the light in any noticeable way. For more light coverage you can just move the box further back. In my situation with the 500WS lights I have the 1x4' boxes about 8-10ft back and it's ok. You'll be even better off with the extra stop of lighting power.

I guarantee you it will work in eliminating the glare.

Another item I suggest you purchase is a light meter so that you don't have to constantly take test shots to evaluate even illumination.  A light meter (any of the Sekonics from $233-$xxx that allow flash metering) will also pay back in probably a month. The beauty of the Profoto air remote (that comes with the kit) is that you can remotely modify the light power from the Monolights from the transmitter while you are metering the light. It's super efficient and definitely a tad fun. Lol.

You also need to purchase a polarizing filter for the camera lens. Depending on the size you need (and I suggest buying the one for your biggest lens and use step up adapter rings) it may cost up to about $100. I suggest using very high quality filters such as B+W.

The next step in saving time post processing is creating a custom camera profile under the polarized light. Best if you use Lightroom and you just need to spend $100 for the XRite Color Checker Passport. You can use their software (free) from Lightroom to create a custom camera profile for RAW (which I hope you are shooting).

Cheers!

[BobDavid]

Polarizing soft light is not an efficient use of light. I have never required more than two lights with wide angle modifiers to shoot artwork. The trick is being able to get an evenly-lit capture. I highly recommend investing in one of the Sekonics capable of taking flash readings on flat artwork. There are also some good programs that are available for correcting luminance variances in post production. I've had great results with Robin Myers's "EquaLight". If you are really into copy work and it is generating a lot of cash flow, I'd buy a used HD3 -39 with the 80, 50 II, and the 120 I macro (start with the 80, then move on to whatever makes the most sense. Avoid the HC 50 I--it is junk). Calibration is extremely important--monitor, printer, camera, and light for viewing prints. FF Canikons are not going to be as workable as an older MFD back. My D800 works well on some flat art and fails miserably on others, and it is calibrated. I got out of the fine art repro business about two years ago due to health reasons. It is fussy work. When I first began the business, I had a handful of corporate clients that made it worthwhile. When I started serving individual artists; that's when the annoyance factor outweighed the benefits. Professional artists understand that it's not always technically possible or financially feasible to reach for a 95% color match. Just try to explain that to an amateur painter and you will most likely end up with an uptick in blood pressure.

And of course, cross-polarization is essential. If you have artwork with metallic paint, you will need to take several exposures and selectively mask local areas in post.

[adpix]

The Sekonic with flat receptor was fine when shooting art on film, but not so successful with digital. I can read identical settings at various points on a large painting, but still note variance on the digital image. I would like to find a meter with a finer sensitivity and readout.

[D Fosse]

Polarizing soft light is not an efficient use of light. I have never required more than two lights with wide angle modifiers to shoot artwork.

That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.

That's why I can live well with slightly less effective polarization, just to soften up those shadows. And that's why I've ordered two meters...eh, six feet, of polarizer to use on two strip soft boxes. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

[John Nollendorfs]

That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.

The trouble with using large light sources comes with greatly increasing spectral highlights on glossy canvas'. The further back, and shallower angles minimize these highlights which even double polarizing can not eliminate.

A neat tip on eliminating those nasty highlights, use the dust & scratch filter in selected areas. You have to play with the settings to find what works best without compromising sharpness of the image.

[Jason DiMichele]

That may well be (and that's what I'm doing now). But I do old paintings with heavy gold frames, as well as contemporary works which can sometimes be more three- than two-dimensional. So you get harsh shadows, and that's almost as annoying as glare.

That's why I can live well with slightly less effective polarization, just to soften up those shadows. And that's why I've ordered two meters...eh, six feet, of polarizer to use on two strip soft boxes. It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

I think you'll find that the level of polarization obtained through the strip soft boxes is fine. If you have enough light, you have enough light. You may need more power to light through diffused source but if you have the power it won't matter.

Ahhh.. a fellow Canadian perhaps?

[D Fosse]

Ahhh.. a fellow Canadian perhaps?

No, Norway actually...that's way over in Europe where we wouldn't know a foot if it came up and kicked us in the backside 

I use two Elinchrom 500 watters, which I suspect may not be quite enough to shoot at ISO 100. I normally use them close to full power now. But the high ISO performance of the D800 is so good that in practice I can bump it to 400 (or even more) without any problems.

[Jason DiMichele]

No, Norway actually...that's way over in Europe where we wouldn't know a foot if it came up and kicked us in the backside 

I use two Elinchrom 500 watters, which I suspect may not be quite enough to shoot at ISO 100. I normally use them close to full power now. But the high ISO performance of the D800 is so good that in practice I can bump it to 400 (or even more) without any problems.

Oops. lol. It was a combination of the metres and the "eh" that tricked me. I'm sure you've heard of how much many Canadians are grammatically tied to that word.

It will all depend on how large the art is that you are reproducing and how close you can get the boxes whilst will providing even illumination. I look forward to hearing if you are as happy with the setup once your polarizing film arrives as I am with it.

For sure you can use 400. As I'm sure you're aware, aside from the fact that current DSLRs are superb with mid-range ISO (and some at high ISO as we'll), most paintings don't have very minute detail to get affected by potentially small amounts of noise which can easily be cleaned up.

Did you order your film from polarization.com or a different brand? If a different brand I would be interested to see what your results are!

Cheers,
Jay

[adpix]

The effectiveness of polarization may be  of greater importance to the literal-minded photographer than the creative artist. The reason is that over polarization can kill the "energy" and make the canvas  look embalmed, saturated but dead. The definitely energized artists for whom I shoot would would rather have a little sparkle to attract the enthusiasm of gallery and collector. There is a "wahoo" factor in contemporary art, at least in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and photography is expected to "reflect" it.

[Jason DiMichele]

The effectiveness of polarization may be  of greater importance to the literal-minded photographer than the creative artist. The reason is that over polarization can kill the "energy" and make the canvas  look embalmed, saturated but dead. The definitely energized artists for whom I shoot would would rather have a little sparkle to attract the enthusiasm of gallery and collector. There is a "wahoo" factor in contemporary art, at least in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, and photography is expected to "reflect" it.

The fact that I can eliminate polarization also means that I can control it, meaning I can dial it down. That allows me to be an intelligent artist, giving more options to the artists whom I am reproducing the art for. Being a one trick pony isn't creative, it's crippling. Energized artists? Perhaps I need to have clients in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles to truly understand your creative lingo. I also wouldn't assume that every contemporary artist is all about "wahoo". I'm sure some like the reproductions subtle.

Cheers,
Jay

[adpix]

Perhaps we should keep the dialogue as a polite exchange of ideas, rather than an opportunity for ad hominum jibes.

[Jason DiMichele]

Perhaps we should keep the dialogue as a polite exchange of ideas, rather than an opportunity for ad hominum jibes.

Perhaps. And while at it we can also lose the insinuations and assumptions. I agree to getting back on track with solid information that makes this forum the great source of information and collaboration it is.

Cheers,
Jay

[BobDavid]

This Sekonic meter is extremely accurate:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=460371&gclid=CNmooPf0kL0CFcyhOgodejgAlA&Q=&is=REG&A=details

As stated earlier, 2 strobes (I like Elinchrom Digital RX-1200s) with normal and wide-angle reflectors work great. You can always dial the polarizer on the lens up or down or rotate one or both gels on the lights to capture metalic details or highlights to accentuate textured brush strokes.

As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse. I guess if you only shoot a few pieces of artwork a month it's workable. My shooting space for copy work is mostly black. You'd be amazed by how much more more micro contrast a camera picks up in a room without any reflective surfaces.

I agree that collages, assemblages, and other 2 1/2 D artwork requires supplemental soft light. That is when the soft box comes out and additional exposures are taken to be used as layers for masking out harsh shadows in post.  Meaning, several exposures and lighting schemes may be required to get an accurate read on a difficult artwork.  Back in the day, I charged $100 for a digital capture of a painting 24" X 36" or smaller. The color was typically close to 95% accurate. If a particular painting had complications, such as metal paint, 3D elements, or glass I upped the fee depending on how critical it was to create an accurate reproduction.

I started out with an 8 X 10 view camera back in the early 80s. E-6 and a C-41 processors were in-house. I remember having to create masks with an array of film stocks to hold back or burn in detail. Every element was pin-registered. It was a tedious and costly process. The sad part about it was that inkjet printers were not ready for prime time and the fate of hard work ultimately depended on the press, paper stock, pressman, etc.

Ink jet technology is infinitely better than offset lithography.

During my digital days, I made decent coin when I kept the Epson busy 20-40 hours a week and had a steady stream of copy work coming into the studio. I had no problem trusting my instincts and turning down projects. Today, on occasion, I will copy and print an odd watercolor here or there. I do this as a favor for friends--seasoned artists who are satisfied with pleasing color rather than dead-on accurate color. In other words, so long as the repro looks good to the eye, they are happy.
 

[D Fosse]

As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse.

As much as would like an IQ280, so far I haven't been able to convince my employer that a $35 000 investment is worthwhile. I actually presented a written proposition 18 months ago, but it was shot down.

That said, "never even think of" seems to me a statement based on something other than reproducible facts. Art reproduction has its own set of challenges, some of which are discussed here, but lighting, setup and processing is immensely more important than the sensor as long as you have enough resolution for the job. I'd take a good D300 shot over a slightly less well lit and slightly less well processed Hasselblad one, any day.

[BobDavid]

As much as would like an IQ280, so far I haven't been able to convince my employer that a $35 000 investment is worthwhile. I actually presented a written proposition 18 months ago, but it was shot down.

That said, "never even think of" seems to me a statement based on something other than reproducible facts. Art reproduction has its own set of challenges, some of which are discussed here, but lighting, setup and processing is immensely more important than the sensor as long as you have enough resolution for the job. I'd take a good D300 shot over a slightly less well lit and slightly less well processed Hasselblad one, any day.

Too each his own. There are a lot of good deals on used Hasselblad 39mp cameras and backs. If you really want the most accurate and efficient platform for repro, get an MS Hassey back or even a Sinar 54H (Michael Ulsaker of Ulsaker Studio in Connecticut is a genius when it comes to cobbling together high-end budget-sensitive systems).Why spend 3X for an IQ280, when there are a lot of low-mileage MFD backs/cameras out there? I do not recommend Mamiya 645 bodies, not matter what flavor. No matter what camera platform you ultimately decide to go with, the best way to shoot copy work is tethered.

My guess is that your employer is providing repro services as an ancillary service. If he can get away with using prosumer equipment, more power to him. Frankly, if I was looking for a "good enough" solution for mediocre artwork, I'd shoot the art with a Nikon and source out all canvas printing to Staples, UPS stores equipped with HPs, and FedEx Kinkos outlets. When it comes to mediocrity, which is often very acceptable, it's difficult to compete with them.

I am stepping a bit off-topic here, but I venture to guess that "21" (D Fosse) is between 24 and 34-years old. Just a hunch.

[D Fosse]

This is so depressing. Every time you try to discuss practical approaches to a specific problem, someone comes along with "your equipment sucks and there's no way in hell I would even consider using that crap. Just spend so-and-so to get what I have and you'll be in the major league <subtext: because that's where I am>". Yes, I get your point, loud and very clear.

I'd appreciate it if you kept all of your many assumptions to yourself. They're not really contributing anything.

[Jason DiMichele]

This Sekonic meter is extremely accurate:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&amp;sku=460371&amp;gclid=CNmooPf0kL0CFcyhOgodejgAlA&amp;Q=&amp;is=REG&amp;A=details

As stated earlier, 2 strobes (I like Elinchrom Digital RX-1200s) with normal and wide-angle reflectors work great. You can always dial the polarizer on the lens up or down or rotate one or both gels on the lights to capture metalic details or highlights to accentuate textured brush strokes.

As much as I love my Nikon D800, I would never even think of using it as a repro workhorse. I guess if you only shoot a few pieces of artwork a month it's workable. My shooting space for copy work is mostly black. You'd be amazed by how much more more micro contrast a camera picks up in a room without any reflective surfaces.

I agree that collages, assemblages, and other 2 1/2 D artwork requires supplemental soft light. That is when the soft box comes out and additional exposures are taken to be used as layers for masking out harsh shadows in post.  Meaning, several exposures and lighting schemes may be required to get an accurate read on a difficult artwork.  Back in the day, I charged $100 for a digital capture of a painting 24" X 36" or smaller. The color was typically close to 95% accurate. If a particular painting had complications, such as metal paint, 3D elements, or glass I upped the fee depending on how critical it was to create an accurate reproduction.

I started out with an 8 X 10 view camera back in the early 80s. E-6 and a C-41 processors were in-house. I remember having to create masks with an array of film stocks to hold back or burn in detail. Every element was pin-registered. It was a tedious and costly process. The sad part about it was that inkjet printers were not ready for prime time and the fate of hard work ultimately depended on the press, paper stock, pressman, etc.

Ink jet technology is infinitely better than offset lithography.

During my digital days, I made decent coin when I kept the Epson busy 20-40 hours a week and had a steady stream of copy work coming into the studio. I had no problem trusting my instincts and turning down projects. Today, on occasion, I will copy and print an odd watercolor here or there. I do this as a favor for friends--seasoned artists who are satisfied with pleasing color rather than dead-on accurate color. In other words, so long as the repro looks good to the eye, they are happy.

Hi Bob,

That definitely is a really nice meter. However, based on what they say in the description ("They have produced an incredible meter that more than meets the needs of the photographic community. This full-featured meter will definitely make everyone happy as it is loaded with every imaginable feature - and then some..."), it perhaps is more than one needs. The price is definitely increased by the radio triggering feature. And the 1 degree spot really isn't necessary for art repro. I would be curious how much more accurate this is than say a $2-300 meter that can already meter to 1/10th of a stop. I'm curious to hear about your experiences with this meter compared to others (I think it's safe to assume you've used others during the course of your career). I'm currently using the Minolta Auto Flash IV.

Interesting idea about taking the polarizing film out of phase with each other. I'm going to play around with that to see if I can provide myself some new and interesting options with certain types of art.

With regard to the D800, I don't understand how it couldn't be used as a repro workhorse. If it works for a few a month why wouldn't it work for more? The process is identical, the only difference being which shutter is triggered on which camera. Or are you referring specifically to colour accuracy or resolution and less post processing because of these?

I agree about using as dark a space as possible. However adding micro contrast in post is easy enough (clarity in Lightroom) or local contrast enhancement in Photoshop. I do agree that it's better to get as much as possible in camera though.

Cheers,
Jay