A theoretical question on lighting statues etc for a catalogue

menthel

menthel

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,732
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
This is very much theoretical (as I said no!) but how would you best go about lighting statues and other antiquities ranging fron a few cm high to 3-4ft high? also, what is the best way to shoot pictures of paintings and other framed artworks?

Sorry for the simple and theoretical questions but I have been asked by my father-in-law whom is struggling to take photos of his collection. He asked me to do it, but not really having any knowledge I said no. It did, however, get me intregued as to how best light such things!
 
Sorry, not an easy question to answer, especially as I don't really understand the question:)

Statues etc first...
Are these just record shots - that show what they look like, perhaps for insurance? Or do you want them to look at their best, showing the texture, weathering, patina, you name it? These two requirements are very different, require very different techniques and produce very different results. They are, very largely, mutually exclusive.

If it's just record shots then you need flat lighting, generally 1 softboxed light each side of the subject. Camera must be dead square, looking neither up nor down. Job done.

If the shots are more creative then your normal starting point would be a honeycombed softbox at an acute angle, skimming across the surface. This will reveal the texture. It will need to be as far away as possible, so that the reduction in light from one side to the other caused by the effect of the inverse square law is minimal. Then you simply add a reflector or second light to mitigate shadows, if they are too harsh for your liking. You may of course also need other lights, typically a standard reflector fitted with a honeycomb, to light 'hidden' areas or to emphasise shape or texture.

Paintings and similar... If they are behind glass or if they are oil paintings then your real problem is unwanted reflections. Camera dead square to subject, 2 or 4 lights fitted with softboxes, again at a distance to produce even illumination, at equal 45 degree angles. Use a polarising screen to reduce reflections further. And have a large black curtain/board behind the camera too. In a perfect world, you would use a 5" x 4" monorail camera with plenty of horizontal shift, so that the camera isn't actually in front of the glass or oil painting but still produces the same result as if it were.

Oh, and a MacBeth color checker, you may struggle to get the colours right without it.
 
Thanks for the response Garry, the question is probably confusing because I know nothing about lighting whatsoever! It would be for a catalogue for an exhibition, so I would imagine more the latter, artisitic side of things as the objects are beautifully carved and have quite some age on them. I think the latter approach sounds better from a more asthetic point of view!

What lighting kit would suit such an approach? Could it be done with hotshoe flashes off camera and the appropraite modifiers? Or would dedicated studio flashes be better? What kind of strength flash would suit?

As for the pictures, there is a real mix, some behind glass and some not, oil, acrylic and watercolour pictures! I guess the lights used for the statues with the appropriate modifiers would work best. I can muster a polariser from that list of objects at most! Would a canon TS-E lens be a better bet than say my 17-55?

Sorry if I am incomprehensible!

Oh, and one last thing- would such a thing be better shot tethered? (I feel like colombo asking like that!)
 
Last edited:
  1. Personally I wouldn't use hotshoe flashes off camera, you would struggle to get even illumination of large softboxes and you'd struggle even more because of the lack of modelling lamps but yes, they could be used
  2. Any lighting kit can be used for this. If you want to go with Lencarta then I would suggest, as your minimum, the ElitePro twin head kit. You would then need to add the softbox, the softbox honeycomb and a 10 degree honeycomb and a 5 in 1 reflector.That's for your statuettes and odds and sods. For the paintings, you need 2 large softboxes, the larger the better. These are ideal.
  3. You can manage without the canon TS-E lens - they are a ridiculous amount of money for the difference that they would actually make. I only mentioned the 'purist' approach, using a large format monorail camera, because that's the right answer. Sometimes a transit van is the right answer, but that doesn't mean that sometimes you can't do the same job with an estate car:)
  4. Shooting tethered would make it easier, but not necessarily produce a better result.
 
Thanks Garry, some food for thought. My F-i-L has a lot of stuff and it might actually be nice to get it all done for him, not just the stuff that is going to the exhibition. I will have a chat with him and see what he thinks. Could be a fun learning experience for me too!
 
menthel said:
what is the best way to shoot pictures of paintings and other framed artworks?
Click to expand...

Camera perfectly in the plane of the painting, centered to the centre of the painting. Use a tripod

shoot a grid (instead of the painting) first to sort out what lens distortion issues you have in PP. In PS you can then clock the correction needed, before you replace with the artwork

Use a x-rite colur passport to profile the colours

lighting - generally artworks are cross lit at 45 degrees, with fairly soft lighting. If the artwork is very textured, you can experiment with a small amount of hard cross lighting, to give the shot dimensionality

Use a light / flash meter to ensure even illumination

Use the sweet spot aperture on your lens, assuming that gives you a decent DOF and all the painting is perfectly in focus
 
Right, this is going from theoretical to actual. Garry, what is the best way to get a quote from you for the bits mentioned above?
 
Last edited:
menthel said:
Right, this is going from theoretical to actual. Gary, what is the best way to get a quote from you for the bits mentioned above?
Click to expand...

Well, you can just click on the links I gave you, add the items to the cart and see how much they come to, or you could give me a ring or email me, contact details are on this page.

I'd better not go into too much detail on this forum, or I'll get moaned at;)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Well, you can just click on the links I gave you, add the items to the cart and see how much they come to, or you could give me a ring or email me, contact details are on this page.

I'd better not go into too much detail on this forum, or I'll get moaned at;)
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry, I will give you a shout in the morning- it's too late on a Sunday now!
 
Last edited:
Garry,

I have sent you an email with more questions- this may be a painful process for you! ;)
 
Just an update, unpacked it all today. There is a lot of kit but easy to put together and straightforward to operate. Once I finally get shooting I will put up some photos to check my progress.
 
Another update and a request for critique/help. Here are 2 examples I shot today. Softbox griddled to the left, acute angle, reflector right very close at 90 degrees. What can be done for the rather extreme reflections? I atually like the shots (apart from my dirty sensor) but the father in law wants flatter light...


Statues 1 by menthel, on Flickr


Statues 2 by menthel, on Flickr

And one not of statues for fun!


First try with lights by menthel, on Flickr
 
Hard light at an acute angle reveals the texture well. If your FIL wants flatter lighting you'll have to decide on which of you ends up happy...

You can avoid the over bright specular highlights by moving the light as close as possible, as in this tutorial. Doing this will also make the light a bit softer.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Hard light at an acute angle reveals the texture well. If your FIL wants flatter lighting you'll have to decide on which of you ends up happy...

You can avoid the over bright specular highlights by moving the light as close as possible, as in this tutorial. Doing this will also make the light a bit softer.
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry. I will have a look at the tutorial. We can have another go tomorrow and move the light in closer. It was probably just over a meter and a half away for the ones above. The grid certainly cuts down the light power.

I suspect it will be the FIL will be the winner! (That is him in the photo.)

Are they ok though in general?
 
menthel said:
Thanks Garry. I will have a look at the tutorial. We can have another go tomorrow and move the light in closer. It was probably just over a meter and a half away for the ones above. The grid certainly cuts down the light power.

I suspect it will be the FIL will be the winner! (That is him in the photo.)

Are they ok though in general?
Click to expand...

I guessed as much. 1.5 metres is a massive distance for this kind of shot, 3-4" will produce much softer lighting with diffused specular highlights and will still reveal the texture.

My only other real point is that you are looking down on the subject - try again with the camera lower, so that the base is flat.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I guessed as much. 1.5 metres is a massive distance for this kind of shot, 3-4" will produce much softer lighting with diffused specular highlights and will still reveal the texture.

My only other real point is that you are looking down on the subject - try again with the camera lower, so that the base is flat.
Click to expand...

Thanks Garry! Looks like I have some more ideas to try tomorrow. Never thought I would find this lighting lark interesting...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top