Lighting for Oil Paintings?

Two_In

Two_In

Suspended / Banned
Messages
182
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I recently upgraded my camera and lens for photographing oil paintings. I've been making do with two sets of LED work lights for my lighting. With a tripod and WB correction this isn't too bad, but I think it's time to upgrade to something better. What do I need and can I buy it second hand?
 
No LED lights could do this adequately, let alone work lights. You can of course adjust the colour balance but that isn't the point. It's the colour rendition index that matters, and with discontinuous spectrum lights such as LED, the CRI falls far short of what's needed for accurate colour reproduction - essential for paintings.

So, use flash instead. Studio flash would be easier and better, but even small flashguns would be a big improvement.

You'll need two, each fitted with an identical softbox that's larger than the painting. With the camera on a tripod and dead square to the canvas, position each softbox at 45 degrees to the canvas and at the same distance.

Everything can be bought second hand.
 
Garry Edwards said:
So, use flash instead. Studio flash would be easier and better, but even small flashguns would be a big improvement.
Click to expand...
Thanks, hadn't ever considered flash before. A quick look on Ebay and there's a brand new pair for £55 free p&p. Is that likely to be too poor quality?
 
Two_In said:
Thanks, hadn't ever considered flash before. A quick look on Ebay and there's a brand new pair for £55 free p&p. Is that likely to be too poor quality?
Click to expand...
Probably, but can you post a link to it?
 
Here: Ebay Flash

they really are the first ones I came to...
 
Last edited:
They aren't a flash kit, they're a very poor fluorescent light kit and probably worse than what you have.

I've looked through the second hand ones on ebay, there's nothing suitable at the moment and most of them are seriously overpriced anyway.

The perfect kit for you would be something like this https://www.lencarta.com/all-produc...ghting-kit-with-2-softboxes-300-300-kitsf4003 It might be an idea to give them a ring and see whether they have anything second hand, not everything gets put onto their website.
 
That's really decent of you, thanks.

Are the soft boxes a good idea for photographing paintings - I guess they diffuse the light?
 
They're essential. They do diffuse the light to some extent, but they also create even lighting and they also show the texture, which is an important feature with oils.
 
Natural light can produce good results, but only in the right weather conditions.

In terms of Colour Rendition Index, daylight has a perfect score of 100, as does flash, but flash is much more easily controlled, so it's a no contest.
 
Garry Edwards said:
No LED lights could do this adequately, let alone work lights. You can of course adjust the colour balance but that isn't the point. It's the colour rendition index that matters, and with discontinuous spectrum lights such as LED, the CRI falls far short of what's needed for accurate colour reproduction - essential for paintings.

So, use flash instead. Studio flash would be easier and better, but even small flashguns would be a big improvement.

You'll need two, each fitted with an identical softbox that's larger than the painting. With the camera on a tripod and dead square to the canvas, position each softbox at 45 degrees to the canvas and at the same distance.

Everything can be bought second hand.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the high end LED manufacturers would disagree. :)
 
Studio488commercial said:
Pretty sure the high end LED manufacturers would disagree. :)
Click to expand...
There are a few that are good enough, but most people would need to sell their car to buy one. . .

As for the others, I'm aware of the claims that some of them make, but they're a bit like politicians:)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Natural light can produce good results, but only in the right weather conditions.

In terms of Colour Rendition Index, daylight has a perfect score of 100, as does flash, but flash is much more easily controlled, so it's a no contest.
Click to expand...
yes, normally overcast is best, this time of year i use flash, and i use a led batten, above painting with good results, daylight bulb.
 
Will my D3200 be adequate to use with Studio Flash? And will I need a Phd in Physics to be able to use them?
 
The other use for new lighting, would be to actually light the paintings better for composing, focusing etc. How do you reconcile using flash in a lit studio?
 
Two_In said:
The other use for new lighting, would be to actually light the paintings better for composing, focusing etc. How do you reconcile using flash in a lit studio?
Click to expand...
The beauty of flash is that it’s so much brighter than domestic lighting, so you can work in a bright enough atmosphere to be safe and able to focus.
 
Phil V said:
The beauty of flash is that it’s so much brighter than domestic lighting, so you can work in a bright enough atmosphere to be safe and able to focus.
Click to expand...
Do I turn off the lights or do I calibrate the camera for them as well as the flash?
 
Two_In said:
Do I turn off the lights or do I calibrate the camera for them as well as the flash?
Click to expand...
When you're using flash, any normal level of ambient lighting will have no effect at all, as long as you use a shutter speed of around 1/125th, so just ignore the other lighting.
 
Two_In said:
Do I turn off the lights or do I calibrate the camera for them as well as the flash?
Click to expand...
It’s highly unlikely that your exposure will be effected by the domestic lights.

for instance it’s common when I’m taking indoor portraits to be using 1/125, f5.6 and ISO 100. If I turn off my studio lights and press the shutter the resulting image is completely black. That’s the amount of ‘ambient’ that effects the image (none).

In fact; you can test that now in your studio, switch to manual and dial in those settings, take a shot and see what the image looks like.
 
@Two_In
Just noticed the other thread of yours.

If you go for Godox flash (Lencarta or Essential) and buy one of their TTL triggers, the trigger will project a grid pattern into the painting to aid focussing. When you ring to place the order tell them this is a requirement as they might want to sell you a cheaper trigger that doesn’t have the AF beam.
 
Studio488commercial said:
"I don't think that you're being helpful, and you're derailing this thread by expressing opinions that are bound to confuse the OP."

Sorry Garry I forgot that only yourself and a select few others can express an opinion, your opinion that NO LED can do this is just wrong, if there is confusion you helped it by stating only flash could do this.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'll allow ME to add my opinion.

You're derailing this thread, and as such I'm excluding you from posting in it again.

If you and Gary want to argue this point, do it elsewhere - preferably in a locked room somewhere the rest of us don't need to hear it.

ETA: i'm now going to remove the argument, and all the people quoting comments from the argument. Brace yourselves, the threads gonna get a whole lot shorter.
 
Last edited:
Garry Edwards said:
No LED lights could do this adequately, let alone work lights. You can of course adjust the colour balance but that isn't the point. It's the colour rendition index that matters, and with discontinuous spectrum lights such as LED, the CRI falls far short of what's needed for accurate colour reproduction - essential for paintings.

So, use flash instead. Studio flash would be easier and better, but even small flashguns would be a big improvement.

You'll need two, each fitted with an identical softbox that's larger than the painting. With the camera on a tripod and dead square to the canvas, position each softbox at 45 degrees to the canvas and at the same distance.
Click to expand...

Why is it essential to use a soft box that is larger than the painting? What if the painting is 3m square?
 
Last edited:
Two_In said:
Why is it essential to use a soft box that is larger than the painting? What if the painting is 3m square?
Click to expand...
Good point. It isn't necessary for them to be larger but it does make it easier to position them if there is "spare" coverage, what I really should have said was "get big ones".

If the painting is a lot larger than the softboxes then you could move the softboxes further away from the painting, whist maintaining the same angle. Moving them further away will spread the light over a larger area but will also make the light harder, which will emphasise the brush strokes - which you may or may not want.

Or you could just paint smaller:)

As an aside, the lockdown has tempted me to go back to my watercolour painting, which I haven't done for years. I'd post some results here if I wasn't ashamed of them . . .
 
Garry Edwards said:
As an aside, the lockdown has tempted me to go back to my watercolour painting, which I haven't done for years. I'd post some results here if I wasn't ashamed of them . . .
Click to expand...

That didn't prevent Prince Charles from publishing a book of his watercolours. You're probably being too self critical, stemming no doubt from your photographic practise, where vigilance to technical issues is essential. Painting and especially watercolours can be very 'freeform' and often seemingly out of control, perhaps a bit alien to a photographer?
 
Last edited:
Two_In said:
That didn't prevent Prince Charles from publishing a book of his watercolours. You're probably being too self critical, stemming no doubt from your photographic practise, where vigilance to technical issues is essential. Painting and especially watercolours can be very 'freeform' and often seemingly out of control, perhaps a bit alien to a photographer?
Click to expand...
People who know me may disagree, but I don't think that I'm a pompous prat and I know that my paintings are crap. But it doesn't matter, I enjoy it.
 
Garry Edwards said:
People who know me may disagree, but I don't think that I'm a pompous prat and I know that my paintings are crap. But it doesn't matter, I enjoy it.
Click to expand...
Ok. Btw. I once knew a guy who used to make art by shooting canvases with his shotgun...
 
Don't forget the ISL

You must check with a flash meter that you have even illumination across the whole painting. Getting the lights further away from the artwork will help here

Don't forget texture either, both substrate and paint have shape and texture. Harder lighting can help here
 
Last edited:
Also, shoot a colour chart, I use the xrite colour passport. You can then create a custom profile to match the lighting
 
Richard King said:
Don't forget the ISL

You must check with a flash meter that you have even illumination across the whole painting

Don't forget texture either, both substrate and paint have shape and texture

Harder lighting from a greater distance gives a more even illumination and doesn't flatten the textures in a painting
Click to expand...
Hi Richard, it's been a few years, hope you're well . . .

I've been trying to keep things simple for the OP, it's obvious that he knows which end of a paintbrush to hold but isn't a photographer - but everything you say is 100% right, although it's easy enough to do without the flash meter for this.
 
Hi Garry

We now are in Cyprus shooting weddings, properties, and anything still that doesn't yack too much.

1x large std reflector for clifftop
1x gridded octabox for couple
(but you knew that all ready)
10 min after sunset, after the tourists had given up

Portfolio2020-COLOUR-SMALL-0174.jpg
 
Last edited:
Sounds good to me, but what's a Cypriot doing wearing a kilt? It all sounds Greek to me. Were you the captain of the boat in the background?

I don't what the situation is in Cyprus, but sadly the Coronavirus has pretty much killed all social photography here in the UK for now.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Sounds good to me, but what's a Cypriot doing wearing a kilt? It all sounds Greek to me. Were you the captain of the boat in the background?

I don't what the situation is in Cyprus, but sadly the Coronavirus has pretty much killed all social photography here in the UK for now.
Click to expand...
The lad was Scottish, the ship grounded in a storm. On the Coral and rocks

We've just got out of quarantine, after a much longer break than we bargained for (we went in early February)

No flights = barley any weddings, we will be lucky to shoot 15 this year, assuming the season even gets going in August.

We can't travel between cities, and at the moment (officially) we can't drive to shoot properties.

Next year, I will need a clone, as most of this year is now booked on to next year.

You couldn't make it up.
 
Back to the thread.

The biggest challenge is colour. The colour of most individual art paints are really narrow. For example, the blue is "That exact shade" its a bit like lights with a high CRI, the pigments used in the paints are really pure and consistent

The issue is that most sensors have real issues with such exact colours, especially primary ones.

Without a colour passport it's nearly impossible.

With a colour passport, you get nearly there, but find yourself very carefully tweaking specific colours, as they just fall between the lines of what a sensor, and your screen or printer wants to output.

Artists are super good at seeing exact tone and colour too

The worst bit, is you have to pick a colour temp to set your white balance too

When you look at a painting on a wall, you see looking at the light reflected from it. The colour temperature of the light falling on it changes what it looks like. But in this scenario, your brain corrects everything.

When you shoot it, assuming you shoot raw, you need to decide what colour temperature your outputing at, and that changes everything. Worse still screens are not reflecting light, they are emitting it
 
Richard King said:
Back to the thread.

When you look at a painting on a wall, you see looking at the light reflected from it. The colour temperature of the light falling on it changes what it looks like. But in this scenario, your brain corrects everything.

Worse still screens are not reflecting light, they are emitting it
Click to expand...

This is true, and when viewing a painting under different lighting it never seems to look wrong, but photographs of paintings often (well nearly always) do. But, when the viewer doesn't have the original for reference, the photographer has a lot of licence. For instance, which of the (many) photographs of the Mona Lisa you've seen is most like the original?

I've been watching Youtube videos about cinema Matte paintings recently, the paintings themselves would never convince that you were looking at an actual scene, but when they're on screen (as you say emitting light) they are phenomenally convincing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top